Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

In this case the education has to come from home. In fact if people spent more time with their kids and talked honestly about things shitty laws or classes of this kind would not be needed.

"Education coming from home" is the reason we have sex-ed to begin with. When some parents are like "Don't have it until you're 28 and married" and that's their final word on sex education, the state has a vested interest (reducing STDs, rates of teen pregnancy and rape) in ensuring they know more than that.

It gets murkier when it comes to gender identity and gender politics, and the state has a much lower vested interest in making sure all students are equipped with that knowledge.

Put another way: if most parents were good/balanced individuals, there would be far less responsibility on the state to teach what they refuse to. This is also why elementary education is compulsory in America.

[Lord Shonus]

The murkiness of consent can also be something that parents are really, really not equipped to teach their kids. Obviously, a parent can stress "no means no", but the number of situations where "yes means no" (involving severe pressure, impaired judgement, power dynamics, etc) is something that needs professional guidance.

[anewaname]

So, what happens when one kid encourages a group of other kids to verbally abuse another kid about the topic the teacher cannot talk about? Does this law propose penalties for these little bullies? For their parents?

[LordBaal]

Sometimes I forget how shitty people can be wirh their own kids, even without trying.

[Frumple]

Hell, just as a general thing teaching... all sorts of stuff, but particularly things that can get as complicated as anything to do with sex or gender (both of which are issues kids start running into young), really is kinda' fucking hard, and your average parent's qualifications and experience in dealing with that ranges from literally nonexistent to incredibly slipshod to actively harmful (due to anything from ignorance in the case of parents who are that way because they didn't know what screwing caused to begin with, to fuckers that are abusive in one way or another).

All the good will and crap in the world (if it's even there!) means approximately sod all when you have no goddamn idea what you're doing and you're perforce at-best halfassing it because of that. Doesn't matter how much time you spend with a kid if you can't teach them worth a damn, and a lot of people by and large can't for all sorts of different reasons.

And shit, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, either! Plenty of folks can't teach worth a damn regardless of whether they knocked someone up or popped out a kid, that doesn't mean they're lesser or bad people or whatever it just means they need some bloody help, and we need some way to make sure a baseline level of knowledge is imparted (i.e. school and education standards! Parental assistance in general!), both for the general societal good and individual harm prevention.

[Starver]

Although an excess of actual home-schooling is probably part of the problem.
((Somehow, this took most of two hours to write. Must have been the check of C.C. and the wiki-rabbithole that took my time up. In reply to LordBaal, immediately ninjaed by Nenjin and then others.))

(Not that it is automatically bad, but it helps concentrate quiverfull and/or hippy-like parental 'indoctrination', and means no exposure to even the existence of less absolute stances, etc. Which is probably the intention in many cases, to greater or lesser disbenefit to those so effected. I think there are probably very good examples, too, but my impression is that it amplifies disfunctionality where it exists. Even more so than secularism in which school to attend, which was always more the problem (for some) around me where I grew up.)

A good population-wide guidance that is measured and flexible can prevent hot-spots of reactionism. Though often will create reactions in their own right.  c.f. the failings/perceived-failings of Common Core. Or, more relevent the right (or not) to withhold sex. ed./whatever according to parents' requests (and, if not, that this leads to being removed from school or switched to one with more matching ideals).


This is, of course, squaring the circle. Some parents will not do a good job (or even talk honestly), and its for their sake that the establishment should be able to do what is right. Not that all tutors are guaranteed to be not as bad at it. Indeed, this is what the parents undoubtedly think, and thus the civil pressure against it... but in various cases this might even be objectively true. It is more that by dint of not being in isolation, the rougher edges should be discovered and countered earlier through more open discussion.


Either that or the much afeared-about societal-indoctrination will ride roughshod over the will of every decent parent! Welcoming in the Liberal(/Conservative) Hellscape Future, everybody! Who needs any schooling for anything? If your pa can't teach you all you need to know about everything (rabbit-skinning: food preparation and clothesmaking in one handy lesson...) then you can learn and teach your kids in twenty ten years' time...

[MrRoboto75]

most households are double income paycheck to paycheck.  There's no time to school the kids yourself.

[martinuzz]

The christian extremist households in favour of the gay ban aren't double income. Their women are not allowed to work, their job is to have and raise children.

[McTraveller]

Saw a propaganda piece today lamenting about how each of the 7 people worth more than $100B in the US could each give every teacher in America an $8000 raise for several years, or wipe out all medical debt, etc. so we should just tax the rich people.

It's like people don't understand that valuations based on market cap are not liquid - you can't spend that stuff like cash. (Yeah if you are trying to cash out $10 or $100M at a time you can do it, but if you are trying to cash out $1-$10B, you're going to crash the value and it's not going to be worth as much).  I swear people don't really understand what money is.

That said, I think we should put in place something that better distributes profits to more people instead of concentrating them - but I think that should be through a citizens dividend, not through taxes.  I suppose effectively it would look the same (the government collecting funds, then distributing it) but conceptually different, since tax revenues are ostensibly to run the government, while dividends are just cash given to owners.

[MrRoboto75]

You don't cash out on those stocks, you just get loans with the stock as collateral.

[McTraveller]

With what are those loans repaid though?  You still have to provide some cash to repay the loan somehow.  If that cash is generated by selling shares, you can only sell so much at a time.

[hector13]

Other loans, obviously.

Or you just lie about the low value of your assets when it comes tax time, and when it comes time to sell or use ‘em as collateral, inflate that value.

It’s cheaper to bribe one person than it is to pay all the money you owe at that point.

[hector13]

Oh hey, I don’t think this has been mentioned yet:

Trump’s call logs have a 7 hour gap on January 6th, despite various officials saying they talked with him during that time.

No problems there, then.

[EuchreJack]

In this case the education has to come from home. In fact if people spent more time with their kids and talked honestly about things shitty laws or classes of this kind would not be needed.

"Education coming from home" is the reason we have sex-ed to begin with. When some parents are like "Don't have it until you're 28 and married" and that's their final word on sex education, the state has a vested interest (reducing STDs, rates of teen pregnancy and rape) in ensuring they know more than that.

It gets murkier when it comes to gender identity and gender politics, and the state has a much lower vested interest in making sure all students are equipped with that knowledge.

Put another way: if most parents were good/balanced individuals, there would be far less responsibility on the state to teach what they refuse to. This is also why elementary education is compulsory in America.

Ignoring how some parents might be outright shitty to their kids, some just can't be bothered to teach their kids anything.
Whether it's overwork or indifference, school provides the bare minimum instruction.  Some parents add to that, some actively fight against that bare minimum.

... I gotta say, and I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm pretty sure every school had a librarian that already did that. You can't just walk in and put a book on the library shelf, and now it is a library book. Is there like, an off-site committee that reviews books now according to state regs? Because yeah, that would be shitty.
 
Also, in that scenario, the teacher has an easy option of telling the child that this isn't an appropriate subject that we can bring up in the classroom. While this protects the teacher from retribution, it insinuates to the child that their teachers (and others) existence is dirty, therefore STILL communicating a specific viewpoint on gender identity while inside the classroom. Which is likely the intent to begin with.

Dunno if you read the part about the new law regarding books.  It adds the PARENTS into the decision making process.
Remember the TV show Parks & Recreation? A tame version of the process behind adding any new books.  Its a de facto ban on any new books, no book will get pass all the parents.  The teachers will probably marshal their resources to push through the bare minimum in books, but it'll be a battle to get any through.
...imagine the History textbooks!  Even worse, the Science textbooks!  There is literally NO way that a new science text book gets through, and they need to be updated YEARLY.

[EuchreJack]

Let me guess...

Republicans: I don't like acknowledging gay and trans people exist.

Democrats: I don't like Nazis calling for genocide.

Republicans: I don't like acknowledging gay and trans people exist.

Democrats: p-please use my she/her pronouns.  I might get m-mad...

Republicans: I don't like acknowledging gay and trans people exist.

Democrats: I don't like acknowledging any sane Republicans exist. (Dems control the media, EXCEPT Fox, Sinclair, and New York Post are firmly Extreme Republican)

I used to think this was ludicrous (on both points, actually).  But sadly, both are somewhat accurate.
Republicans have embraced their extremists.
Democrats have leveraged their media control quite heavily in the past couple of years.  Ever heard of Let's. Go. Brandon.?
(Three different news articles, for your review)