Hey man, I’ve seen you around, posting a bunch of interesting (albeit rather scary: “VC Qanon is not something I wanted to exist…) articles and wanted to thank you for bringing content here.
Something like a “Current Topics”? I haven’t looked but that might cover opinion pieces as well.
Still, I don’t want to get too militant about proper placement of submissions, because being anal about categories being separate and distinct and ne’er the twain shall meet just doesn’t foster as much discussion as letting places be more malleable and take on the flavor of their communities.
I used to listen and try to understand when I lived in rural counties in the US. Now all I hear is…
Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
This patronizing attitude is part of the reason politicians like Trump has become popular. He talks to these people who the "civilized" part of the country is totally ignoring. You care about climate change, and so do I. But what if you live near a coal mine that has slowly been phased out? You see your town which your grandfather lived in slowly rots away. You see America as a failing country - you see stores closing. You see people moving away. People dying from opiate overdose. Unemployment and depression
These people have real and legitimate grievances. Their government has failed them - which is why anti-establishment figures like Trump is such a lightning rod for their energy. Then we go and tell them that we need to make sacrifices for the climate. What are they supposed to think? What more do they have to give?
Ignoring these people and pretending like they don't matter or are totally irrational is going to help lead to fascism in this country. Any real revolutionary movement will have to incorporate the whole of America. We need these people on our side.
TRhis is an extremely good point. I fear a further polarisatoon of society is almost inevitable, it seems we (different bubbles in society) are slowly drifting apart like tectonic plates. A process like that is hard to slow down, let alone stop or reverse.
Cry me a river. Clinton had a plan to retrain and retool these coal towns your describing into productive green energy leaders and they rejected it because she eats babies and wind farms kill birds, or whatever. They are totally irrational and I'm not going to keep pretending otherwise. The real government failure is lack of education spending and critical thinking skills (thanks GOP) that is going to take generations to correct.
Edit: I'll add there are sparks of "hope" in rural america now that farmers are seeing the impacts of climate change effecting their yields, I think they are starting to come around. Probably too late, but it's something...
So how do we prevent the rise of fascism this generation? There’s already serious and increasing calls to violent action, since of which have been acted on, with little to no consequences.
Impossible to say, there is no easy or immediate fix that I can imagine. I've basically accepted the underlying threat of fascism is something we are going to be dealing with for the rest of our time on the planet. Continue to vote to keep fascists off the levers of power, continue to protest whenever they have the levers, and pray the wheels of justice ground finely for enemies of democracy. Perhaps our kids or grandkids will find themselves in a better situation for their times...
They are totally irrational and I’m not going to keep pretending otherwise
The real government failure is lack of education spending and critical thinking skills (thanks GOP) that is going to take generations to correct.
We do ourselves no favors by reinforcing the cultural divisions drawn by the upper classes “media elite”. We have more in common with rural conservatives than with wealthy liberals, and we should stop pretending otherwise. Continued disenfranchisement only serves to divide us more.
I’ll add there are sparks of “hope” in rural america now that farmers are seeing the impacts of climate change effecting their yields, I think they are starting to come around.
That’s just reality creeping in past the bullshit cultural propaganda of the last 50 years. It has always been true that low-income rural counties share the same problems and interests as the lower class urban progressives. We just need to stop feeding into it.
These people have real and legitimate grievances. Their government has failed them.
Yes, they do and yes, they think it has. The problem is that they have been in the business of voting for people who campaign on the “Government is bad, vote for us and we’ll show you just how bad we can make it.” It’s their own fucking fault that the government doesn’t work as well as it could. And despite their best efforts we still manage to have rural internet to connect them to the world in places where they would never be able to afford it, interstate roads to send their crops to market and bring every modern amenity to their local stores, a national air transport system to bring them a new liver or kidney after they’ve destroyed theirs, working ports to bring their tractors and 4 wheelers and snowmobiles, billions upon billions of dollars in (otherwise unaffordable) crop insurance and price supports for their products, and an army of adjusters with stacks of cash to rebuild after every tornado, flood, heatwave, snowstorm, hurricane, and forest fire.
The government has not failed them, they have failed their government. Their hand is out whenever they have a bad day, but their memory is wiped out every time they see that all those benefits might cost money.
There’s only so much handholding you can do for people who actively refuse to listen to facts and science that tell them their way of life, based on the mining of fossil fuels, is long past being sustainable. The best I can offer is my sympathies that they ignored the same writing on the wall that the rest of us have been reading for a couple of decades. It’s on Daddy and Grandpa for not telling their kids that the “family business” is a bad future career choice and not directing them towards something with a more sustainable outlook.
I agree with the idea behind this post, and its why I always approach right wingers with an attitude of education. Their opinons (which themselves are caused by legitimate grievances) are accellerated by ignorance. They cant argue or debate because their viewpoint is not a realistic representation of what has to be done. Their platform has turned into a joke, and thats honestly disappointing to see.
The increase in right-wing extremism is only fueling further ignorance, and radicalized ideas never hold up in any kind of evidence-based debate.
I’m going to address a single point here; these people grievances are at this point, unfortunately, the consequences to their own actions.
Hillary had a clear path for moving these rurale areas into future looking manufacturing jobs, and people who would have been helped by those exact investments laughed her off and voted for Trump in trove. Then Trump closed plenty of factories while just boating he’d save jobs the same days those jobs were laid off.
The government didn’t fail them. They failed the government.
If you live somewhere where there’s no work, and you don’t do anything to help yourself, I don’t really have much sympathy. That’s not the government’s problem, it’s yours.
Now if you’re disabled or something that’s a different story, and we do have programs to help those people. But “regular” people who can’t understand that times change shouldn’t hold everyone else back.
You can’t engage with people who want to murder their perceived enemies. Sorry that it sucks to live in a rural area, but they have to regain some semblance of sanity before a conversation can take place.
Yeah we absolutely need to find ways to revitalize the rust belt and Appalachia in climate friendly ways. But it should be remembered that when they’re offered compromises that help them I’ve seen plenty get mad. Like yeah Appalachia has suffered for coal’s death, but the jobs aren’t coming back. It just doesn’t take a town to level mountains for coal. And nobody has suffered more for coal’s presence than small coal towns. They’re still poisoned from the mining runoff. And even without decarbonizing coal isn’t coming back. It’s too expensive and inefficient compared to solar and natural gas.
The point wasn't the rare coal town but the perception that pervades the rural areas of this country. It doesn't have to be coal towns - there are similar stories for all smallish cities across the Rust Belt for example. You're focusing on a specific when really the point is that fascism grows only in poor economic situations.
These people are legitimately suffering and they are turning to hate as a response. Trust me, you or me could have easily been in their shoes had we been in their position. But just like they have been swayed to hate, I think it's possible to sway them to socialism as long as you call it something other than socialism.
Zizek has talked about this before where Trump supporters in 2016 were a hair's breadth away from being Bernie supporters. While a bit of a dramatic statement, there is some truth in this. When the economic situation is unstable, radicalism grows in both directions - left and right. Which is why around the same time period we saw an openly socialist candidate for president in the US receive about 6% of the general vote - while we also saw massive Nazi rallies in New York City.
Everything is connected. We are fighting for the hearts and minds of the same people.
In theory I agree with everything you said. In this specific example I don’t buy it. The people threatening this weather man aren’t taking that position because climate change legislation is hurting them personally. They’ve just brainwashed by right wing propoganda
Was more to do with the comment I replied to than the original post
Magic sky man scary me no like. Bad man make planet hot because we be naughty.
I used to listen and try to understand when I lived in rural counties in the US. Now all I hear is…
Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Sure, people making death threats to weathermen are nutters. But majority of people living in these areas are not so crazy, even ones that lean Trumpers
So you’re saying that temps are rising because we’re releasing all the sun’s stored energy back into the air, and not because some dude likes another man?
I had to buy a car recently. The first five I wanted were sniped by the time I got to the dealership. I wound up having to pay 16k for a 9 year old car with 135k miles on it.
Cars are bonkers across the board right now. I honestly wish I had gone with a smaller new car rather than this older SUV that has already cost me in repairs.
All new cars are overpriced, but this price cut puts the Lightning as cheaper than a comparable gasser F150.
It only comes in an AWD super crew, and includes the better tech package. To get a super crew CLT gasser in 4x4 is about 5k more expensive than the pro trim Lightning, and the Lightning has more features at the base model than the XLT gasser
It was a CSX train, which is literally their direct competitor in their duopoly so that both of them can cry about how they’re not a monopoly because they have a competitor. It’s just entirely coincidental that they both behave in exactly the same manner in terms of complete reckless disregard for safety and employee health.
Not in that region, to the best of my knowledge CSX and Norfolk are the ones who control the lines around there and UP and BNSF can only buy passage on the lines, so you can compete on the cost who actually hauling the freight, but not on the cost of passage on the lines.
In this case, it was a Norfolk line being used by a CSX manned crew, but CSX also only holds a very itty bitty tiny stretch of track in PA, connecting Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to out of state branches, while Norfolk operates nearly all the East-West Rail.
In this case, CSX operates as a figleaf competitor for Norfolk to be able to claim they have competition, while it’s pretty marginal rail at best unless your goal is to ship stuff out of state.
Edit: It appears Amtrak also owns some lines connecting Harrisburgh, Philly, and then into the greater Eastern Seaboard passenger lines.
Imagine having a belief that is 100% the opposite of science, a belief which is ONLY beneficial to mega corporations, and threatening someone’s life based upon that belief. Sounds like a cult.
Thank god American media is free and not totally a giant propaganda mill like all those evil nations that aren’t America and not as special as America is.
The real crime is intentional sabotage of the educational systems so the voting population has no critical thinking skills. When I was a kid we did an experiment in the 5th grade showing increased Co2 in a glass bottle increases the temperature in the bottle. Now here we are debating the 5G chips in the Covid vaccine and arguing about which media/politician/company is more corrupt or biased. The universe would be better off if a benevolent alien life form exterminated humans and let evolution start over.
It was always there. Europeans are just finally having to actually deal with the fact that they’re historically ethnostates and being a multicultural society isn’t as easy as they think, especially when things start getting economically rougher and you have to learn to pull together rather than turn the knives on the “other”.
We have automation and increased production to replace them. That’s what innovation is supposed to have done for society.
Like… wtf is this brain rot where we have produced productivity tenfold or more since the last generation and yet we try to tell people they can’t retire because there’s not enough workers to sustain it? That’s ludicrous.
Someone has to use those machines it is even proven that an AI system by itself is not good at all you need the ai in tandem with humans to ease and improve the tasks being done
I just have a hard time when I encounter just brutal unfiltered stupidity like this. Especially when it’s with a condescending tone. It’s like… I wanna give them a chance to explain because maybe I’m misunderstanding. But it always boils down into “no, this person is just a drooling moron.”
That’s frustrating to me. I want to believe people are better than that. And I know they can be.
I mean, Bob Iger, I would say your salary and the salary of all of your executives is what's unreasonable here... not the actual laborers demands. They produce the product, you and your team just throw shit at walls to see what sticks and in recent years, you guys have done horribly.
This is a common sentiment of course, but I wish more people understood how totally unrelated CEO salaries are to normal staff pay and how unrelated they are to what drives this. If you want to make progress on this, you need to focus on a different part of the problem.
First, even highly exorbitant executive salaries don’t go very far when applied to the kinds of costs they’re talking about here. I think Disney has a bit more than 200k employees… but let’s say you have 200,000 employees and you pay them all 5k more… That’s a billion dollars. Bob Iger makes something like 25 or 30m a year. Sure… It’s a lot of money… But of course big companies fight this stuff. Iger’s salary is a drop in the bucket.
Second, Iger reports to shareholders. You might hate that, but it is how it works. And it’s shareholders who agree on executive compensation. So it’s a bit like he’s in a different bucket than normal people. It’s kind of like he doesn’t even work for the company. Shareholders just pay him to run the company efficiently.
Now I’m not saying any of this to get into some grand debate about the nature of this stuff and whether it’s right or wrong really… It’s just worth noting that none of these kinds of arguments really matter to any of the decision makers involved.
The thing that does matter is making a case that this makes Disney better or more money or whatever. Costco, for years, has paid their people well and had good benefits packages. In large part that’s because the CEO and company have made the case to shareholders that it actually saves them money on turnover, theft, etc.
A convincing argument here is more that the strike will cost more over time than the new package and/or that paying people better will result in better and more valuable content.
If our only argument is that treating us better will make them more money, we’re fucked. That can’t be our only way out.
That will just make us more and more subservient and dehumanised in their eyes.
I think we’re reaching a breaking point. The owning class is more and more removed from the rest of us.
We either do something really drastic or we really will have a future with two human species. One godlike ruling over the other miserable and barely human anymore.
On the other hand, reflexive contrarianism is, as the economist Adam Ozimek puts it, a “brain rotting drug.” Those who succumb to that drug “lose the ability to judge others they consider contrarian, become unable to tell good evidence from bad, a total unanchoring of belief that leads them to cling to low quality contrarian fads.”
And the non-awful parents are probably already going to know something is up anyway, or have the sort of relationship where the kid is comfortable telling them.
So this law is specifically designed to help awful parents be more awful to their trans kids.
Oh no no no, it's to HELP them you see. They're just MISGUIDED! /s
Yeah, any time someone says "for the children" or "because of terrorists / criminals" I immediately think "what fuckery are you trying to fob off on us now?"
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child's life that you support turning what should've been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they're forced to hide.
Also, if you're at the point where you're resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children, rather than having them trust you enough to just tell you, you should probably question your relationship with your children.
You do understand that there are parents who would make their children homeless (or worse) over issues of sexuality and gender right?
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
Is it that important to be able to snoop on every facet of your child’s life that you support turning what should’ve been a safespace for children who find themselves in the above scenario into yet another place they’re forced to hide.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Also, if you’re at the point where you’re resorting to using the law to force secrets out of your children
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Holy shit. You’re seriously arguing that children losing access to their homes and families homeless is fine because “there are programs to help them out”!
Your interpretation of my saying that we should invest in programs to help out the homeless use, as instead me saying it’s fine is a reflection on your poor reading comprehension.
I mean I'm reading the same thing they did and it's not that unfavourable an interpretation of what you said.
If anything this comment only doubles down on it. You've already assumed the kids are going to be homeless, rather than the point I was making that there are times where this law will 100% conflict with a teacher's safe-guarding duty, yet they will be forced by law to endanger the child anyway.
I am the guy you were replying when you said that "homie"
I gave you that question. It wasn't a scenario where a child is already homeless, it was that the implications of this law would drive children in that situation into homelessness.
Your reply to that there was thrte should be programs to help them, which you elaborate to mean the homeless. You've told me you're so attached to this idea that you've already discounted the option of withholding this information for the sake of a child's safety and wellbeing, which tells me enough about what you think.
You should learn to read your own words. As a direct reply to that person, you said:
Your interpretation of my saying that we should invest in programs to help out the homeless use, as instead me saying it’s fine is a reflection on your poor reading comprehension.
You literally say in this comment that what you were saying to me is that "we should invest in professional to help out the homeless".
Tell me in what universe that doesn't interprete as you having already made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless than let a teacher have discretion of a safeguarding agent.
I responded saying that there should be programs for that.
I used your scenario, and responded to it. That’s how conversations work.
made the decision in your head that you would rather them be homeless
You’re trolling or literally haven’t read a word I typed. If you didn’t understand that I literally wrote that there should be social programs to help homeless youth, you seriously need some reading help.
The scenario I made is that there are kids who could be made homeless via this law.
I was heavily implying that it is a dangerous downstream ramification of that law, and is a reason to not have a law like that which forces universal non-discretion.
Rather than say something like "oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn't enact laws that will potentially render children homeless"
You basically said "whelp, they're going to be homeless, we should invest in programs that help the homeless"
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
This is why I said you were so attached to that idea that you'd already discounted the idea of safeguarding and discretion to prevent them from being homeless, because you did, possibly without even realising it.
It isn't me reading too deep or not enough, it's literally the first thing you said.
Again, read your own words, or at the very least read mine FFS.
Rather than say something like “oh right, you might be onto something there, maybe we shouldn’t enact laws that will potentially render children homeless”
I responded that we should improve programs to help the youth.
I understand the problem you’re presenting, because I have empathy. You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy. I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.
You and you alone are the one who advanced that to them already being homeless.
You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.
You not understanding that it’s severely encroaching the the relationship between teachers and parents is because you don’t have empathy.
Well that's certainly an accusation.
Are you sure about that, as you don't seem to empathise with the idea that most children do not cope well with losing their home, and that not losing their home is the ideal solution.
I understand your side and have a different way of wanting to deal with it that avoids the problems I see with government employees having side secrets with my 8 year old.
It's not about just having a "side secret". It's about rendering a safe space where children don't feel afraid of being who they are, when they don't have that option at home.
Bare in mind that this isn't even about direct disclosures. Every teacher would be obligated to report, so the child even acknowledging that fact anywhere in the school could be enough.
It makes it much easier for the teachers/school to offer resources to that child when that child isn't actively afraid of disclosing that information.
Even in the majority of situations where the parents aren't potentially abusive, it could even just allow the child to not be forcibly ousted until they're ready or more certain of their mindset.
You said kids might be homeless. I responded with a way to deal with it. Once again, that’s how conversations go.
Key word in that was might.
In your world you dealt with it by rendering them homeless then picking up the pieces afterwards. That's the worst outcome, at least in my mind.
most children do not cope well with losing their home,
Once again, you have a presumption of parental evilness in every scenario. I showed in my last message how to tackle this problem without involving teachers and going outside their scope.
It’s not about just having a “side secret”.
It literally is. If your child became religious and had meetings every day with a pastor for a few hours and the pastor wouldn’t tell you what they talked about, are you comfortable with that?
Key word in that was might.
So you don’t trust organizations set up to deal with youth homelessness, you also think that should be a burden on the teachers?
I'm the one defending + kids from being made homeless, you're defending parents spying on their kids.
If this were something criminally liable, jailable, that sort of thing, I'd see where you're coming from. But I'm certainly not comfortable with the idea of any children, even if it were only a handful being rendered homeless for the sake of their parent's identity politics.
Once again, you have a presumption of parental evilness in every scenario. I showed in my last message how to tackle this problem without involving teachers and going outside their scope.
Because the parents who would use this information for abuse are the ones I (and many others in this thread) are worried this law will empower.
And I'm rather bothered that your solution is to throw up your hands and say "nothing we could've done" while throwing the child into the frying pan, then letting the authorities know once they've already been burnt.
It literally is. If your child became religious and had meetings every day with a pastor for a few hours and the pastor wouldn’t tell you what they talked about, are you comfortable with that?
Considering the general reputation of priests for child molestation, I wouldn't be comfortable with my child meeting everyday with them anyway.
But that aside, you understand it wouldn't just be the teacher(s) involved, there are other steps to safeguarding resources if the child needed them, teachers are just the first step.
Again, you're acting as though the child and teacher are having constant secret 1 on 1 sessions, where the teacher is telling your child what to do. The reality of the matter is that teachers are the first step in safeguarding, and if they find this information out, it would be their job to refer the child to relevant resources, or even to a school therapist.
You're the one who wants to burden teachers by forcing them have to reveal sensitive information that they know could lead to abuse. No teacher wants to be up at night thinking they could be directly responsible for introducing a child into an abusive situation.
So you don’t trust organizations set up to deal with youth homelessness, you also think that should be a burden on the teachers?
That's such a disingenuous question.
Of course I trust there are good organisations to help with homelessness, but that's not the point.
If there's an option to not let it get to the point of needing to rely on those organisations, then we should do just that. If that means giving a teacher (and their school) the right not to disclose sensitive information to parents they suspect may abuse it, I'm comfortable with that.
Come on man, what the hell are you even saying.
I'm saying your approach is callous. Willing to put children into abusive situations for the sake of satisfying helicopter parents who think surveillance is a better solution than building up a trusting home environment.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there’s literally nobody they know that they’re allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
Posters, like we have in a lot of government buildings, saying ‘if you’re experiencing home insecurity, use this resource’
Fucking easy, dude. Once again, you make it seem so special that it’s the + community experiencing homelessness. It doesn’t matter, they’re people too. Straight kids experiencing homelessness and + community need the same thing - a roof over their head.
You say “government employee” like as though it’s a tax collector you’re putting in charge of these kids.
Are they not government employees?
They’re supposed to protect your child’s safety, even from you if required.
I agree with this and it’s the same in the U.S. Once again - it’s to defend against abuse by parents, whether it’s a straight cis male or a trans woman. We don’t need special rules - abuse is abuse.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That’s your worst take so far.
Schools have therapists and counselors.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn’t telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it’s because they don’t feel safe to do so.
I agree. I don’t think it’s up to government agents to self determine this situation in the family, though. If teachers suspect abuse, they’re obligated to report it.
Posters, like we have in a lot of government buildings, saying ‘if you’re experiencing home insecurity, use this resource’
Fucking easy, dude. Once again, you make it seem so special that it’s the + community experiencing homelessness. It doesn’t matter, they’re people too. Straight kids experiencing homelessness and + community need the same thing - a roof over their head.
Firstly, I made that comment before you elaborated on the idea that your "programs" referred to programs to help the homeless. Of course that kind of generalised "hone insecurity" helpline is going to be available, but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.
As I've said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don't even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.
You're right that LGBT+ kids aren't special in regards to being homeless, but this conversation right here, right now isn't about that. You're just pulling an "All Lives Matter" on this conversation as if that's some epic comeback.
Are they not government employees?
They are government employees, bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.
Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.
I agree with this and it’s the same in the U.S. Once again - it’s to defend against abuse by parents, whether it’s a straight cis male or a trans woman. We don’t need special rules - abuse is abuse.
And yet by ousting a child like this to their parents by force of law, like you're supporting, you throw that child into a potentially abusive situation that could've been avoided.
It's like handing the school bully a stack full of blackmail on a student and expecting them not to abuse it.
Schools have therapists and counselors.
Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won't tell because they can't trust them.
EDIT - Actually there's one other bit I didn't think about typing this. Not all disclosures are deliberate. A teacher could overhear this and now be obligated to bring hell down upon a child without them being aware of what's coming, which I'd argue is even worse. No therapists or councillors are gonna help with that.
I agree. I don’t think it’s up to government agents to self determine this situation in the family, though. If teachers suspect abuse, they’re obligated to report it.
So you'd rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?
It's not even just about self-evaluation - if a child disclosed this to a teacher under the belief they would be safeguarded, the teacher would be legally obligated to say it to the parents even if that child told the teacher the exact nature of their family dynamics and the potential abuse this information could lead to.
Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.
but why do we have to start from the idea of them getting kicked out in the first place.
Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.
As I’ve said in other comments, you are so committed to the idea that all parents must know all to such an extent that you don’t even consider the possibility that many children could be saved from homelessness simply by discretion offered by a teacher as a safeguarding agent.
And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.
but this conversation right here, right now isn’t about that. You’re just pulling an “All Lives Matter” on this conversation as if that’s some epic comeback.
As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?
bur acting like all government employees are exactly the same is again a really bloody stupid take.
It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.
Again, teachers are trained not just to teach, but to safeguard your children from all sorts of things.
If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?
Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.
Therapists and Counselors that they have to be referred to by their teachers or parents, the exact people they won’t tell because they can’t trust them.
“I want a therapist” - see, don’t need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That’s worse for educators, and parents.
So you’d rather it get to the point of abuse before a teacher can do something about it?
You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can’t file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.
Tell you what, it must be great living in your world of black and white where you never have to consider the downstream ramifications your broad generalisations produce.
That’s what you’re doing. You just think anytime there’s a kid who doesn’t tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren’t responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don’t respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they’re supposed to serve.
Because y’alls argument is always ‘these kids will instantly get abused then kicked out!’ and making that some sort of gotcha, like I’m pro-homeless youth.
You act like that's a purely hypotherical situation I'm popping out if my ass. There are children in this situation, where this will happen, and your solution is to render them homeless. At least in this situation, you are pro-homeless youth.
And, as I’ve said, that’s outside the scope of teaching. Teachers are required by law to report abuse, outside of that they should be expected to tell parents about the behavior of their kids.
And that's because teachers do have a lot of duties outside the scope of teaching, including safeguarding.
And I think that's where things differ between us. I think the school (not just the teacher) should be allowed to withhold that information if they believe it would endanger that child.
As I’ve said and you apparently can’t grasp - we have these protections for EVERYONE, why are you trying to carve out special cases for the + community? reporting suspected abuse of a gay kid is the same as reporting it for a straight kid. They’re on the same form, what do you think, the gay kid has a pink abuse form?
I'm not trying to carve out a special case for LGBT+, this law that has brought on this discussion is entirely about a law the affects specifically the T part of that community, so of course the conversation will drift that way, because that's how conversations work.
You seem to think I'm happy letting it get to the point of abuse, when the option to not do so is there. That you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not there.
Also, in the event there was a piece of information in the same vein that potentially could introduce abuse to a straight child in the same way, I would also want the school to practice discretion about it.
It doesn’t matter if they’re the same. They’re government employees, which are inherently supposed to serve the tax payers, not take their kids and have secret meetings with them.
The safeguarding duty is serving the tax-payer. It is preventing abuse where there is reason to suspect that the disclosure of certain information could create an abusive situation.
You say "secret meetings" as though the teachers are going out shopping with them to buy opposite gendered clothes and putting them on HRT. There are much better resources than than what a teacher can and should offer, but that's not possible if you don't render an environment where the child has a chance to ask for them.
If my kid breaks his leg biking, is it on the teachers to safeguard my kids? If my kid gets cancer, is it on the teachers to provide medical support?
Teachers have a job, and they’re pushing to be outside that scope. Teachers aren’t there to keep secrets from parents.
In the event of a broken leg, yes, a first-aid qualified teacher would provide first-aid to the child, then let paramedics take over from there. In that situation, obviously discretion is not going to be required because it's not a sensitive issue.
And in the event of cancer, I'd hope the parents have an active enough involvement in their child's life that their teachers find out they've got cancer before they do. A teacher wouldn't be diagnosing such, as that is outside the scope of their job.
Again, they're their to protect your child. If that means protecting them from you, then yes, that is and should be in the scope of their job. Besides which, it isn't them alone that would do this. It would be up the school as well, as a teacher does have the duty to report it to the school so that resources can be given.
Apparently this is too long a conversation, so I'm going to have to split this in two.
“I want a therapist” - see, don’t need to say anything about wanting to be called LaQuanda instead of Jimmy. This is really fucking basic stuff, dude. You just want an excuses to have teachers take on the role of parenting for these kids, without having the actual responsibility for them. That’s worse for educators, and parents.
If you think "I want a therapist" will get the kid a therapist with nothing else said or done, I think it's you that's naive. Even if it's a school's therapist, those resources are limited in scope, and assessment of need would be carried out.
It's true that this would be more confidential, but I am surprised that you're up for this considering this is another government employee quite literally having secret meetings with your child, and would still result in you not being told anything.
You can literally say that about any abuse situation. I can’t file a domestic abuse charge on my partner because I missed a bill payment and I think one day she may slap me because of it.
I think you and I both know that's not the same, nor carries the same weight as potentially being abused and kicked out of your home due to being ousted as LGBT+.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that disclosing that information could lead to abuse, and not disclosing it wouldn't, I'd much rather those "government employees" err on the side of not waiting until they've introduced a child into an abusive situation before doing something about it.
That’s what you’re doing. You just think anytime there’s a kid who doesn’t tell his parent something, it must be abusive. Teachers aren’t responsible for their students lives, parents are. Stop trying to make it so these government agents don’t respond to the taxpayers wants and actively fight against the people they’re supposed to serve.
I don't think anytime a child doesn't want their parent to be told something it is abusive. What I don't want is a law that creates a situation where the above is true, and makes the situation worse.
I'm pinpointing on this as an example, because it's a realistic scenario that points out that a universal disclosure law isn't a good idea if you actually want to protect children, because it isn't always the just outside world that could harm them.
They aren't fighting against the people they're supposed to serve. Their ability is foster the people of the future, and that includes safeguarding them from harm, including that introduced by the child's parents.
Plus, are you forgetting that these children will one day be those very tax-payers, who may very well be thankful that their school acted in their best interest?
Even if it’s a school’s therapist, those resources are limited in scope, and assessment of need would be carried out.
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
I think you and I both know that’s not the same, nor carries the same weight as potentially being abused and kicked out of your home due to being ousted as LGBT+.
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
If there is a reasonable suspicion that disclosing that information could lead to abuse, and not disclosing it wouldn’t, I’d much rather those “government employees” err on the side of not waiting until they’ve introduced a child into an abusive situation before doing something about it.
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
What I don’t want is a law that creates a situation where the above is true, and makes the situation worse.
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
Their ability is foster the people of the future, and that includes safeguarding them from harm, including that introduced by the child’s parents.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
So you think school therapists aren’t good enough? Yet you think the teachers know more about how it will affect the student? Which is it, are the schools competent or not?
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist's list is years long.
I do think the schools therapist is a good outlet, but a schools therapist can't do much to solve accidental disclosures. The moment a teacher eavesdrops on the student talking about it outside a therapy, it's still game over for them.
What are you on about??
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child, and should use that foresight to prevent abuse as part of their safeguarding duties.
0 difference. Cops can’t arrests my spouse because they assume that she might one day abuse me.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Secondly, if you had reasonable suspicion to think that your wife might abuse you or kick out of the house based on something about you that has almost no almost no effect on her, then I don't think you'd appreciate it if your friends went behind you back an told her, thereby endangering you, would you?
Instead of encouraging lying to parents, why not try to improve abuse and homeless programs? Why don’t you advertise them in school? Giant posters “do you think you’re being abuse? Talk to a school counselor to get information on resources”
The fundemental gap between us rears it's ugly head again. You're willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I'm not.
Improve those programs to help people who can't avoid that scenario, but there is still a responsibility to prevent that scenario from occurring. You're not a very good safeguarder if not only do you not react until the damage is already done, but you bring it about in the first place.
Boom. This is fucking easy dude. You just want excuses for government employees to override the parenting of parents, without any evidence besides a teachers subjective observations and rash conclusions.
I'll put it this way, I'd rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
Besides which, could abusive parents not make the same argument of the services meant to stop them?
What if it makes it better? A kid that’s questioning gender have much higher suicide rates, what if the teacher withholds this information, and the kid commits suicide. That’s on the teacher, is that what you want? Parents have that responsibility, not teachers. You want teachers to have the say, without any of the repercussions.
On the Venn diagram of parents who a school may view as candidates to abuse their children over this if made aware of this information, and parents that would help guide their children through this process, I suspect the overlap to be minute.
Once again, that’s not their duty. Their duty is educate the children how the people in the state and district desire.
Yet again, it is. The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation where they are legally required to enable abuse is abhorrent.
It us their duty to report concerns to the school, who should then make the decision whether it is safe to tell the parents. Teachers should not be given that burden of being put into a situation where they have to potential enable abuse.
You have this impression that government agents should be the ones determining the culture of the future. Paired with the government forcing us to give them our children for 8 hours a day 5 days a week or else they take our children from us.That’s inherently dangerous and anti-liberal.
I'm not suggesting they should be determining the culture of the future. But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
If that includes allowing a student to show a part of their persona that they cannot show at home, for as long as it is not endangering others at the school, then the strong arm of the law shouldn't be striking it down.
The fact that you want the government to intervene to take that away from teachers screams far more dangerous and anti-liberal to me, just saying
Also, I'm just about done with this argument, so this will be my last reply on this topic. Feel free to slander me as you like in your next reply.
Limited in scope as in limited capacity. All public therapists are. The Queue to be put onto an NHS therapist’s list is years long.
Okay, so instead of spending 30% more per full time student than our peer countries and forcing teachers to take on the responsibilities of therapists, maybe get some more therapists?
I also know I was in a title 1 school and we had a school counselor, which would be more appropriate to discuss than with the average teacher.
The whole point of what I said is that I think the teachers and school system are competent enough to assess whether revealing this information could endanger a child
And what I’ve said is I think government employees shouldn’t keep secrets about someones kid from the parents, when the parents are hiring the teachers to educate, not raise the kids.
First off, I was never on about arresting anybody.
Okay, CPS can’t take away kids because they think one day the kid might say something that the parents may not like and CPS considers that the parent may one day dislike it enough to not deal with it how government agents see fit. Does that make the hoops easier to jump through for you? The issue is the same - teachers should be transparent with parents of the kids. If they suspect abuse, there are legal processes for that. I don’t think it’s wise to encourage teachers to unilaterally decide they will by pass all that.
You’re willing to let it get to the point of abuse before you help out, I’m not.
You’re willing to let adults hired by the government, outside of parents unilaterally decide what’s best for the other kids. I’m not.
I’ll put it this way, I’d rather have false positives in the face of defending children, than assume every parent is good and turn the other cheek to the abuse that could and would cause.
I’ll ask you a straight up question, I hope you respond to - if your kid was showing signs of gender dysphoria at school, which has an incredibly high suicide attempt rate, and a teacher withheld that information from you, and your kid commits suicide, is there any blame on the teacher?
In my eyes, the teacher shares probably the most responsibility of any adult, for seeing the signs and not reporting it.
The fact that this law undermines that safeguarding duty by potentially putting teachers into a situation
Where teachers have to be consistent and can’t unilaterally decide to withhold information from parents?
But teachers are there to encourage students to pursue their passions, and also to create a safe environment where that can be done.
No they aren’t. They are supposed to teach our youth the basics of our worlds understanding through objective studies like math, science, history, english. They are not meant to push the kids in any which way. And they are failing at their basic duties to the parents and kids. We spend 30% more per student than our peer countries, and getting terrible results. Once that happens, I’d be more willing to talk about teachers and kids having secret gender dysphoria sessions.
And there should be programs for these youths to help them out.
You want government employees determining whats okay for the kids, but have parents take any repercussions. Either parents are responsible for their kids decisions, or teachers, can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Exactly how are these kids meant to find out about these programs to help them if there's literally nobody they know that they're allowed to disclose this information to without their parents immediately finding out about it?
You say "government employee" like as though it's a tax collector you're putting in charge of these kids.
At least in the UK, teachers have to undergo a lot of safe-guarding training before they're even allowed to teach. They're supposed to protect your child's safety, even from you if required. That's serving the tax-payer, and this law jeopardises their ability to do so in that scenario.
Therapists have an obligation for confidentiality, teachers are public servants, they should serve the tax payers.
Yes, because children (without the aid of parents) can afford a therapist. That's your worst take so far.
Also, you missed the second part there where you can bypass all of this by simply fostering an environment where your child feels safe to tell you this in the first place. If your child isn't telling you something that fundemental about themselves, it's because they don't feel safe to do so.
The kinds of things that some parents bully, punish, disown and/or murder their children for should very much be hidden from them if the child chooses to hide it. It's no one else's business and, if the child has not yet told them themselves, breaking their confidence is an attempt to ruin their life and quite possibly end it.
This is stochastic terrorism from this fascist government, desperate for any distraction at all from their kleptocratic ways.
If your reading comprehension is really that bad, it might explain the low quality of your opinions. You should probably try working on it instead of embarrassing yourself in public.
Words form sentences form paragraphs. You need to be able to hold more than one thought in your head to be able to comprehend an argument. You should try it.
Parents should be aware of what is going on in their kids’ lives.
This means being a parent and actively being involved in their life. It does not mean abusing the trust that kids give to teachers, councilors, therapists and other adults they might confide in.
Perhaps therapist was the wrong word. Many schools have health officers who act as emotional support staff that work with students.
I believe all educators have a duty to the well-being of the student ovet the parents. Students are people too, not a thing that parents own until they turn 18. They should be afforded confidentiality too.
Perhaps therapist was the wrong word. Many schools have health officers who act as emotional support staff that work with students.
If their job ethically requires a non disclosure factor, than that’s more reasonable.
But even doctors, that have privacy requirements, have to share medical information with the kids guardians.
I believe all educators have a duty to the well-being of the student ovet the parents
I think this is a difference between how you see the teacher parent relationship and how I do.
I imagine you believe teachers should be nurturers of these kids and help facilitate their growth as human beings.
I see them as government agents, that are paid (and therefore should serve) by the taxpayers. The fact that taxpayers can overwhelmingly say they want/don’t want something, and schools override them is the exact opposite of what I believe the role of public school educators should be. Responsible for teaching the basics of what we think important topics are for kids - generally math, sciences, social studies and literature.
Students are people too, not a thing that parents own until they turn 18.
If my 10 YO kid throws a rock at a window and payment is needed to replace it, who’s responsible to pay for it?
Will the law go after his teacher? Go after him? No. They go after me. I’m responsible for them, and it seems that teachers want to nurture them, but take no responsibility if there’s repercussions.
They should be afforded confidentiality too.
In everything? You don’t think there’s any scenario’s which a teacher should tell the parents what their kids are doing at school?
Hey sorry, I really wasn’t looking for a long argument here, just wanted to clarify my earlier comment.
But yes, we have different viewpoints. I have kids. I would feel responsible for the window because it’s my kid and that’s reasonable and what society expects. If my kid wanted to talk to their teacher about something in private I’m ok with that.
They obviously won’t share literally everything, but if my kids have a problem trusting me then I’m failing as a parent.
Well, at least you’re honest about thinking children don’t deserve to have anyone in power looking out for their interests when they conflict with their parents’.
children don’t deserve to have anyone in power looking out for their interests when they conflict with their parents’.
As I’ve said plenty of times, I’m for an increase in investment in programs to help youth that have these problems.
I’m against having teachers unilaterally determining that they should keep secrets with their students over providing transparency with the parents. With the taxpayers. With the people they are meant to serve.
Do you think our government should give us transparency, or not?
Even if it’s not individual teachers, it’s a government ran institution that they force us to provide our kids to for education. The least they could do is let us know what’s going on in those 8 hours a day they take our kids.
You realise that means letting it get to the point of abuse right?
You're basically saying that if a child fears letting their parents know something about them could lead to their abuse, they have to hide it and live in fear and distrust until they turn 18 and can run away right?
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.