comment
stringlengths 1
9.86k
| context
listlengths 0
530
|
|---|---|
>
This dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!"
] |
>
This is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny."
] |
>
I’m here for the prizes!!
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda"
] |
>
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving person
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!"
] |
>
What’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person"
] |
>
Rick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles."
] |
>
People need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as "the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' " I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama."
] |
>
Decent politicians and his constituents must stop him from being sworn in.
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.",
">\n\nPeople need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as \"the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' \" I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human"
] |
>
What does it take to get a vote of no confidence and have a new election?
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.",
">\n\nPeople need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as \"the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' \" I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human",
">\n\nDecent politicians and his constituents must stop him from being sworn in."
] |
>
Will be interesting to see if this particular criminal Conman is going to face Charges.Since certain other Criminals have yet to face any.
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.",
">\n\nPeople need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as \"the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' \" I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human",
">\n\nDecent politicians and his constituents must stop him from being sworn in.",
">\n\nWhat does it take to get a vote of no confidence and have a new election?"
] |
>
I’m wondering if he collected any life insurance after her mother died in n the 9/11 attack… Wait, what was that? 🤔
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.",
">\n\nPeople need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as \"the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' \" I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human",
">\n\nDecent politicians and his constituents must stop him from being sworn in.",
">\n\nWhat does it take to get a vote of no confidence and have a new election?",
">\n\nWill be interesting to see if this particular criminal Conman is going to face Charges.Since certain other Criminals have yet to face any."
] |
>
|
[
"What a ridiculous system that this is the only way he’ll face consequences \nLie to your constituents, nothing we can do; put the wrong number on a form, your ass is grass",
">\n\nTrump put lots of wrong numbers on lots of forms, and he hasn't been charged. Yet.\nRules for the rich and connected are just different.",
">\n\nRules for thee and not for me",
">\n\nWe're going to find out soon that he's actually just a hologram.",
">\n\nSaw this elsewhere: someone else named George Santos should show up at the swearing-in ceremony and insist he's the real George Santos and simply claim the seat. Who knows which George Santos the district actually elected?",
">\n\nPeople running for office file a signed form announcing their candidacy, file petitions, etc. This idea wouldn't work.",
">\n\nSomeone willing to lie about everything in their work history and lied about their own mother's death is certainly the kind of person who would lie with regard to finances.",
">\n\nI'd missed the news about his mother, that's even crappier than his fake dog rescue charity scam.",
">\n\nOh it's better, he lied that she died in 9/11, then that she was there but survived and he implied she died of a related cancer, but it was 15 years later, and then he grifted a Catholic Church into paying for the funeral. \nUsed to be you lied about - personal connection to 9/11 and the common folk of Nassau county and Queens, many of who actually knew and loved people who died there, would wipe that smirk right of your face. Seems a bunch of those folks, many of whom were republicans then as well as now, are now willing to look past the insult to their lost loved ones as long as they can own the libs. Never forget, lol.",
">\n\nShe looks like she ate part of the towers!",
">\n\nHe’s going to bolt to Russia soon",
">\n\nWe have plenty of windows here",
">\n\nI'm thinking the Feds will find his finances criminal...ish.",
">\n\n\"No no, I said I payed \"My Taxes.\" that's the name of my yacht. Deck was leaky.",
">\n\nMy question is, if he misrepresented his biography, credentials, and professional standing to obtain funding, can’t he be charged with fraud? Anyone else misrepresenting themselves (e.g. impersonation) would immediately be charged if they obtained funding in this manner.",
">\n\nFeels very Anna Sorokin-esque.",
">\n\nMFer claimed he knew how to do formulas in Excel. Liar!",
">\n\nWho would lie about such a thing on their resume?",
">\n\nWhy do his glasses suddenly look like they aren’t prescription?",
">\n\nThere are younger pictures of him on the internet without glasses.",
">\n\nThis is the number one question the press needs to be hounding. Santos went from a net worth of barely $70k to over $1.7 MILLION in one year. He then self donated from his own dark money fund to his campaign. All from a fake consulting company that has yet to report any clients. \nHe’s most likely a little Russian satellite.",
">\n\nThat's my guess as well. In fact I'd wager he is far from the only one.",
">\n\nNow do Justice Kavanaugh...",
">\n\nRussian asset says what?",
">\n\nI'm starting to think not everything this guy says and does is on the up and up!",
">\n\nThis is the real lead, everything else amounts to the lies he was paid to tell.",
">\n\nI wonder how long this investigation will take.",
">\n\nThere's no way his books are clean.",
">\n\nDon’t brag on national media outlets that you went from homeless to millions in the bank literally overnight.",
">\n\nHe has very small teeth and I’m surprised he didn’t claim that as a disability. \n“My small teeth create a dis-ability for others to exploit”",
">\n\nRoh roh!!",
">\n\nThis dude is like Trump. Their hubris motivated them to run for office which consequently invited mass scrutiny.",
">\n\nThis is just more targeted anti jew-ish agenda",
">\n\nI’m here for the prizes!!",
">\n\nCouldn't have happened to a more deserving person",
">\n\nWhat’s the current conversion rate from Rubles, cuz that’s a lot of Rubles.",
">\n\nRick Moranis will play him in the docu-drama.",
">\n\nPeople need to stop referring to him as George Santos and start referring to him as \"the humanoid who uses the designation 'George Santos.' \" I don't think that's his real name and I'm not sure he's actually human",
">\n\nDecent politicians and his constituents must stop him from being sworn in.",
">\n\nWhat does it take to get a vote of no confidence and have a new election?",
">\n\nWill be interesting to see if this particular criminal Conman is going to face Charges.Since certain other Criminals have yet to face any.",
">\n\nI’m wondering if he collected any life insurance after her mother died in n the 9/11 attack… Wait, what was that? 🤔"
] |
The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.
|
[] |
>
I'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed."
] |
>
Not long enough.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain."
] |
>
The racist prick can’t vote now 😂
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough."
] |
>
I am genuinely surprised the defense of "FBI Made Me Do It" did not get him off
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂"
] |
>
Trump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off"
] |
>
Nah, only maybe till next Monday.
Once they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns."
] |
>
Fucked around and found out
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them."
] |
>
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out"
] |
>
Oh does that rub the wrong way
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed."
] |
>
Mot enough
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way"
] |
>
Good. Lock them up!
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough"
] |
>
i wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!"
] |
>
Nice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.
Troglodyte ass motha sucka.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison."
] |
>
Good.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka."
] |
>
What kind of dinner menu do they have?
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood."
] |
>
Good. Fuck him!
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?"
] |
>
Enjoy prison asshole!
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!"
] |
>
Why say "nearly 20" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say "16"?
Edit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!"
] |
>
If you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years"
] |
>
Why read it when I always find the meat of it right here in the comments?I refuse to give them clicks after the 2016 bs.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years",
">\n\nIf you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years."
] |
>
After the attempted appeals, I would be interested in seeing someone interview him. I am curious if he will ever regret what he has done.
But then again, my uncle who recently came out of prison said they were constantly playing Fox News on the tvs. Almost as if they were trying to brain wash them
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years",
">\n\nIf you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years.",
">\n\nWhy read it when I always find the meat of it right here in the comments?I refuse to give them clicks after the 2016 bs."
] |
>
He FAFO.
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years",
">\n\nIf you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years.",
">\n\nWhy read it when I always find the meat of it right here in the comments?I refuse to give them clicks after the 2016 bs.",
">\n\nAfter the attempted appeals, I would be interested in seeing someone interview him. I am curious if he will ever regret what he has done.\nBut then again, my uncle who recently came out of prison said they were constantly playing Fox News on the tvs. Almost as if they were trying to brain wash them"
] |
>
"Liberate Michigan"
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years",
">\n\nIf you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years.",
">\n\nWhy read it when I always find the meat of it right here in the comments?I refuse to give them clicks after the 2016 bs.",
">\n\nAfter the attempted appeals, I would be interested in seeing someone interview him. I am curious if he will ever regret what he has done.\nBut then again, my uncle who recently came out of prison said they were constantly playing Fox News on the tvs. Almost as if they were trying to brain wash them",
">\n\nHe FAFO."
] |
>
|
[
"The charge is kidnapping, but let’s not be naive and think she was going to ever be released unharmed.",
">\n\nI'm so glad to see actual consequences for some of these right wing terrorists. Now let's keep this up and move our way up the food chain.",
">\n\nNot long enough.",
">\n\nThe racist prick can’t vote now 😂",
">\n\nI am genuinely surprised the defense of \"FBI Made Me Do It\" did not get him off",
">\n\nTrump is going to run on pardoning these clowns.",
">\n\nNah, only maybe till next Monday.\nOnce they’re out of the news cycle he’ll forget all about them.",
">\n\nFucked around and found out",
">\n\nThe dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.",
">\n\nOh does that rub the wrong way",
">\n\nMot enough",
">\n\nGood. Lock them up!",
">\n\ni wonder if mtg will visit him in prison.",
">\n\nNice. Maybe a fellow prisoner will punch his nose the other way and straighten it out.\nTroglodyte ass motha sucka.",
">\n\nGood.",
">\n\nWhat kind of dinner menu do they have?",
">\n\nGood. Fuck him!",
">\n\nEnjoy prison asshole!",
">\n\nWhy say \"nearly 20\" when it would have been easier, shorter, and more accurate, to say \"16\"?\nEdit: this was a different guy from the one who got 16 years",
">\n\nIf you actually read the article, he was sentenced to 235 months, or 19.5 years.",
">\n\nWhy read it when I always find the meat of it right here in the comments?I refuse to give them clicks after the 2016 bs.",
">\n\nAfter the attempted appeals, I would be interested in seeing someone interview him. I am curious if he will ever regret what he has done.\nBut then again, my uncle who recently came out of prison said they were constantly playing Fox News on the tvs. Almost as if they were trying to brain wash them",
">\n\nHe FAFO.",
">\n\n\"Liberate Michigan\""
] |
This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.
Remember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not "thoughts had in the shower!"
(For an explanation of what a "showerthought" is, please read this page.)
Rule-breaking posts may result in bans.
|
[] |
>
|
[
"This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans."
] |
What keycaps are those?
|
[] |
>
I also wanna know
|
[
"What keycaps are those?"
] |
>
look above
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know"
] |
>
Looks good - everyone seems to be using those akko keycaps (typed on an akko 3068b plus with those exact keycaps).
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know",
">\n\nlook above"
] |
>
What keycaps are they mate?
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know",
">\n\nlook above",
">\n\nLooks good - everyone seems to be using those akko keycaps (typed on an akko 3068b plus with those exact keycaps)."
] |
>
Very cool, enjoy it!
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know",
">\n\nlook above",
">\n\nLooks good - everyone seems to be using those akko keycaps (typed on an akko 3068b plus with those exact keycaps).",
">\n\nWhat keycaps are they mate?"
] |
>
thanks
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know",
">\n\nlook above",
">\n\nLooks good - everyone seems to be using those akko keycaps (typed on an akko 3068b plus with those exact keycaps).",
">\n\nWhat keycaps are they mate?",
">\n\nVery cool, enjoy it!"
] |
>
|
[
"What keycaps are those?",
">\n\nI also wanna know",
">\n\nlook above",
">\n\nLooks good - everyone seems to be using those akko keycaps (typed on an akko 3068b plus with those exact keycaps).",
">\n\nWhat keycaps are they mate?",
">\n\nVery cool, enjoy it!",
">\n\nthanks"
] |
For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.
|
[] |
>
If someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices."
] |
>
For anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway."
] |
>
Sure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year?
SPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.
And with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either.
No place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds."
] |
>
Retirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement."
] |
>
Congrats on your survival
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)"
] |
>
I wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.
It is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival"
] |
>
Tesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water."
] |
>
I paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee."
] |
>
Oh no! Must raise prices again.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas."
] |
>
The full article:
"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.
Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.
Ten of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.
Investors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.
Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.
The benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.
"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023," said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.
While recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.
Markets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .
At 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.
Southwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.
Declining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.
The S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows."
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again."
] |
>
Stocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\""
] |
>
If Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year."
] |
>
"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall."
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short."
] |
>
Stocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly.
Just because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\""
] |
>
Buckle up ! We may see actual price discovery at the end of the 2nd quarter 2023. I'm gonna be the second smartest person in the homeless shelter.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\"",
">\n\nStocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly. \nJust because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class."
] |
>
If people keep freaking out about a potential recession, all it will do is create that recession...
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\"",
">\n\nStocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly. \nJust because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class.",
">\n\nBuckle up ! We may see actual price discovery at the end of the 2nd quarter 2023. I'm gonna be the second smartest person in the homeless shelter."
] |
>
I Wish it was that simple.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\"",
">\n\nStocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly. \nJust because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class.",
">\n\nBuckle up ! We may see actual price discovery at the end of the 2nd quarter 2023. I'm gonna be the second smartest person in the homeless shelter.",
">\n\nIf people keep freaking out about a potential recession, all it will do is create that recession..."
] |
>
Lol didn’t the stock market go down earlier because oil prices were high?
Like, can we just get rid of the stock market? I’m tired of people pretending like it’s an important part of our economy instead of the casino for rich people that it is.
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\"",
">\n\nStocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly. \nJust because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class.",
">\n\nBuckle up ! We may see actual price discovery at the end of the 2nd quarter 2023. I'm gonna be the second smartest person in the homeless shelter.",
">\n\nIf people keep freaking out about a potential recession, all it will do is create that recession...",
">\n\nI Wish it was that simple."
] |
>
|
[
"For people relying on stocks for retirement here comes the bad time. On the other hand, those who can weather it now is the good time to swoop in and buy stocks at discounted prices.",
">\n\nIf someone's retired, most of their money shouldn't be in the stock market anyway.",
">\n\nFor anyone not in the know, the closer you get to retirement age, the more you’re supposed to pull your money out of the stock market into much lower risk places, like savings and bonds.",
">\n\nSure, but what happens when the bond markets tank like they have been this year? \nSPY is down 21%, but BND is down 15%.\nAnd with year over year inflation at 7%, cash isn't exactly safe either. \nNo place has been safe, and much like 2008-09, there are a lot of people who are going to be much poorer in retirement than they expected. Even those that shifted towards bonds and cash as they nearer retirement.",
">\n\nRetirees who get Social Security will be getting a raise in Jan, 8.7%. As a retiree, I just did not look at Stocks until after the recovery - lowered my stress level, I didn't get wealthy, but I also did not have a stroke. :-)",
">\n\nCongrats on your survival",
">\n\nI wish weak oil prices would translate to cheaper oil for consumers instead of inflated profits for oil companies.\nIt is still costing $4.30 a gallon for home heating oil which is around $540 a month for heat and hot water.",
">\n\nTesla down 69%. Niiiccceee.",
">\n\nI paid more for a dozen eggs today than a gallon of gas.",
">\n\nOh no! Must raise prices again.",
">\n\nThe full article:\n\"Dec 28 (Reuters) - Wall Street's main indexes fell on Wednesday, giving up modest initial gains, on growing concern about a recession in 2023 and surging COVID-19 cases in China, the world's top oil importer.\nApple Inc (AAPL.O), Alphabet Inc (GOOGL.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) fell between 0.9% and 2.3% as the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield recovered from a brief fall to rise for a third straight session.\nTen of the 11 S&P 500 (.SPX) sector indexes were lower. Energy stocks (.SPNY) were the biggest losers with a 1.9% drop as worries over demand in China weighed on oil prices.\nInvestors have been carefully assessing China's move to reopen its COVID-battered economy against the backdrop of a surge in infections.\nTesla Inc (TSLA.O) rose 3% in choppy trade, after hitting its lowest level in more than two years in the previous session. The stock is down nearly 69% for the year.\nThe benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX) is down 20% year-to-date and set for its biggest annual loss since the financial crisis of 2008. The rout has been more severe for the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC), down 34% for the same period.\n\"What's happening today is modest continuation of those underlying dynamics, that the market is finally starting to take seriously will we have a recession 2023,\" said Michael Green, chief strategist and portfolio manager at Simplify Asset Management in New York.\nWhile recent data pointing to an easing in inflationary pressures has bolstered hopes of smaller rate hikes, a tight labor market and a resilient American economy have spurred worries that rates could stay higher for longer.\nMarkets are now pricing in 69% odds of a 25-basis point rate hike at the U.S. central bank's February meeting and see rates peaking at 4.94% in the first half of next year. .\nAt 2:27 p.m. ET, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.DJI) fell 222.54 points, or 0.67%, to 33,019.02, the S&P 500 (.SPX) lost 29.8 points, or 0.78%, at 3,799.45 and the Nasdaq Composite (.IXIC) dropped 102.49 points, or 0.99%, to 10,250.74.\nSouthwest Airlines Co (LUV.N) dropped 4.1% a day after the carrier came under fire from the U.S. government for canceling thousands of flights.\nDeclining issues outnumbered advancing ones on the NYSE by a 3.34-to-1 ratio; on Nasdaq, a 1.81-to-1 ratio favored decliners.\nThe S&P 500 posted seven new 52-week highs and seven new lows; the Nasdaq Composite recorded 50 new highs and 378 new lows.\"",
">\n\nStocks fall on investor expectation for end of calendar year.",
">\n\nIf Russia refuses to sell at the capped price to nations who are capping the price, then it's going to cause the petrodollar to collapse while supplies run short.",
">\n\n\"Camel farts in Saudi...stocks fall.\"",
">\n\nStocks were way up when the average citizen was struggling and stocks are down and the average citizen is struggling. The stock market is rigged for those who have mega server farms and high end data transmission around the stock servers to intercept trade data as it occurs and plan accordingly. \nJust because Wallstreet bets got one win on GameStop doesn't mean the system still isn't just a way to funnel more money up to the investor class.",
">\n\nBuckle up ! We may see actual price discovery at the end of the 2nd quarter 2023. I'm gonna be the second smartest person in the homeless shelter.",
">\n\nIf people keep freaking out about a potential recession, all it will do is create that recession...",
">\n\nI Wish it was that simple.",
">\n\nLol didn’t the stock market go down earlier because oil prices were high? \nLike, can we just get rid of the stock market? I’m tired of people pretending like it’s an important part of our economy instead of the casino for rich people that it is."
] |
It was totally corrupt. The company stopped the clinical trials when they were told it didn't work. Then... they met with the FDA and got it fast tracked against everyone's recommendation.
|
[] |
>
Seems like the FDA is way too easily manipulated to the point of being counterproductive.
|
[
"It was totally corrupt. The company stopped the clinical trials when they were told it didn't work. Then... they met with the FDA and got it fast tracked against everyone's recommendation."
] |
>
the FDA, the FDA said, the FDA suggested - who at the FDA?
|
[
"It was totally corrupt. The company stopped the clinical trials when they were told it didn't work. Then... they met with the FDA and got it fast tracked against everyone's recommendation.",
">\n\nSeems like the FDA is way too easily manipulated to the point of being counterproductive."
] |
>
Exactly, why is the Washington Post blaming it on "The FDA" like it's some conscious entity making decisions for itself without people?
|
[
"It was totally corrupt. The company stopped the clinical trials when they were told it didn't work. Then... they met with the FDA and got it fast tracked against everyone's recommendation.",
">\n\nSeems like the FDA is way too easily manipulated to the point of being counterproductive.",
">\n\nthe FDA, the FDA said, the FDA suggested - who at the FDA?"
] |
>
|
[
"It was totally corrupt. The company stopped the clinical trials when they were told it didn't work. Then... they met with the FDA and got it fast tracked against everyone's recommendation.",
">\n\nSeems like the FDA is way too easily manipulated to the point of being counterproductive.",
">\n\nthe FDA, the FDA said, the FDA suggested - who at the FDA?",
">\n\nExactly, why is the Washington Post blaming it on \"The FDA\" like it's some conscious entity making decisions for itself without people?"
] |
I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing
When I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide
Similarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content
None of this is new
|
[] |
>
None of this is new
What's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new"
] |
>
Teachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom.
I think parents are trying to control what the students are taught.
I think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing."
] |
>
I am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power.
The only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.
Also if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce."
] |
>
I think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is "age appropriate" is the same thing as "censorship".
Certainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors.
For example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book "Gender Queer" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure.
Having this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t…."
] |
>
I cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography.
With the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment.
My argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality.
It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.
Also, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot."
] |
>
Idk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.
Also, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.
It's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it."
] |
>
"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented."
You proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot.
Do you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility."
] |
>
I proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.
It's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.
So too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?"
] |
>
"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented".
These are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me.
For what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay."
] |
>
An inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating."
] |
>
If Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless."
] |
>
As a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?"
] |
>
I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.
.
I wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990
Doctors were recommending that shit
So you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child."
] |
>
Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible."
] |
>
Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.
You could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt."
] |
>
Everything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.
My children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)
Until they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.
It is my job as a parent to take those decisions on.
This will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.
That being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.
This is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to "until they're an adult the parents rule ".
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question."
] |
>
This ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children.
Each of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason.
It's just not feasible to say "let the parents handle it" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \"."
] |
>
I don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life"
] |
>
I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.
I personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.
I also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that.
While this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this."
] |
>
I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long
Me too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.
The rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis ."
] |
>
Its a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school.
And I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will."
] |
>
I find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics.
Parents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body …."
] |
>
I hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become. If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.
Children also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age. My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up. The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican, mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….",
">\n\nI find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. \nParents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents."
] |
>
Parents scream "indoctrination" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids. When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents. Signed, An exhausted teacher
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….",
">\n\nI find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. \nParents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents.",
">\n\nI hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become. If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.\nChildren also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age. My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up. The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican, mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party."
] |
>
They want their own brand of indoctrination. But they dont consider their ignorance and bigotry indoctrination, they consider it the "truth".
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….",
">\n\nI find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. \nParents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents.",
">\n\nI hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become. If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.\nChildren also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age. My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up. The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican, mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party.",
">\n\nParents scream \"indoctrination\" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids. When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents. Signed, An exhausted teacher"
] |
>
Well, of course they do. Which I think is kind of the whole point here.
And before I go further, I'm assuming you're a Democrat (or sympathic to Democrats broadly) like myself.
If a die hard Republican majority took control of our local school board and started teaching in history class that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, what would you and I think? We'd think they were crazy! And rightfully so. But the school board would firmly and truthfully believe that they are teaching real history and we are the crazy ones. Now, you're responding to my comment right now going "but we are right, Trump lost! How can there be a dispute here?"
But, and this is my main point, the actual truth doesn't matter in this situation. Of course our truth is the actual truth. But in this scenario the guys teaching the lie control the levers of state power. So the lie will be taught as truth and the truth will be taught as a lie.
What this comes down to is a matter of state power and how it's exercised. And we always need to remember that the other side can and will exercise state power at some point in a highly competitive Democracy, such as we have here.
Which is why I think this question is so complicated. Parents need real levers of control over their children's education, because at some point many of us will need to use those levers to defend our kids from fucking nut jobs who happen to be running the state that day.
This is a Democracy. We need to be mindful we don't build a state empowered to wreck our own and our children's lives because an idiot won an election.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….",
">\n\nI find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. \nParents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents.",
">\n\nI hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become. If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.\nChildren also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age. My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up. The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican, mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party.",
">\n\nParents scream \"indoctrination\" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids. When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents. Signed, An exhausted teacher",
">\n\nThey want their own brand of indoctrination. But they dont consider their ignorance and bigotry indoctrination, they consider it the \"truth\"."
] |
>
I get what you are saying, but that is not the greatest example. The election wasnt stolen. This is not something that can be spun, it is strictly a conspiracy theory. No credible professional in any capacity anywhere agrees with that regardless of political party. It just didnt happen. It's not something that is historically debated. There is no debate, it did not happen. Public schools teach historical facts. Now, one can choose to focus something (ie schools focus or lack thereof on historical injustices) but schools curriculum's wont allow for something that is made up, to be taught. You cant focus on something that doesnt exist. Homeschool sure, or a private school sure, they can teach fictitious stuff (religion, conspiracy theories etc), but not in public schools. No state official in any state will teach something that is 100% false in a public school. And this would trickle down to the local level, which ultimately answers to the state. No state official would be on board with that. They arent. That's just a fact.
But again, I do get that parents should have a good amount of control over their kids. I think that is already the case. Parents get the final say in anything and everything. Heck in my day permission slips were the norm, and they still are. You dont want your kid learning something, boom sign a permission slip have them excused. Done. Not a problem. Parents already have those levers of control. They arent getting taken away. It's all a contrived moral panic over nothing, used to get votes and consolidate power. It does nothing beneficial, except to promulgate fear, ignorance and hate. It's a big nothing burger. If you go down this rabbit hole, then what's next? Should public schools be allowed to teach kids that we didnt really land on the moon, that 9/11 was an inside job, that Bill Gates experiments on African kids?
Now, I also agree that it is quite complicated because the issue might be one that cannot be preempted with a permission form. If the class is going to discuss LGBTQ issues on a specific day for example, then it's real easy, permission forms sent out sign or dont sign boom, done. But it one of the kids textbooks has two men or women as parents, is that something that had to be preempted with a permission slip? You have to sign a permission slip for the whole school year because the textbook has pictures of same sex couples? That textbook will be used all year long, not just on a particular day. What if there are interracial couples in the book and somebody takes issue with that? Whats the overton window here? Maybe the racially mixed couples would not have been acceptable 40 years ago in kids textbooks and parents would have complained but it's ok now, and any complaints would ne negligible. I suspect the same sex couples may still raise eyebrows now (not as much as before) but in 40 years it will be the norm. This is all very dicey, and it seems as if unfortunately, ignorance and bigotry take time to dissipate. Tough pill to swallow for minorities, in this case LGBTQ (especially the T) to basically say, "hey you all are not even close to being accepted by the mainstream so people will continue to be suspicious and view you all as pedophiles, just as they used to do with the L's G's and B's but in time they will accept you more. Sorry but you all have to wait it out." But hey, they burned witches for thousands of years, so it's a cruel fact of reality that ignorance takes extremely long to be diminished, although with the advent of modern technology access to information is readily available so that is speeding up the process and providing a bulwark against ignorance and all its accompanying maladies.
|
[
"I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing\nWhen I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide\nSimilarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content\nNone of this is new",
">\n\n\nNone of this is new\n\nWhat's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing.",
">\n\nTeachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. \nI think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. \nI think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce.",
">\n\nI am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. \nThe only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.\nAlso if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t….",
">\n\nI think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is \"age appropriate\" is the same thing as \"censorship\".\nCertainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever. However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors. \nFor example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book \"Gender Queer\" because it depicts graphic pornography. Is that tantamount to censorship? It's a tough question for sure. \nHaving this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot.",
">\n\nI cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. \nWith the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment. \nMy argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. \nIt makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.\nAlso, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it.",
">\n\nIdk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. \nAlso, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.\nIt's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented.\"\nYou proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. \nDo you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever?",
">\n\nI proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.\nIt's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.\nSo too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay.",
">\n\n\"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented\".\nThese are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. \nFor what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game. I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating.",
">\n\nAn inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.",
">\n\nIf Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?",
">\n\nAs a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child.",
">\n\n\nI trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.\n\n.\n\nI wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990\nDoctors were recommending that shit\n\nSo you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible.",
">\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt.",
">\n\n\nCircumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.\n\nYou could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question.",
">\n\nEverything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.\nMy children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)\nUntil they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions, and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.\nIt is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. \nThis will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.\nThat being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.\nThis is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to \"until they're an adult the parents rule \".",
">\n\nThis ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. \nEach of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. \nIt's just not feasible to say \"let the parents handle it\" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life",
">\n\nI don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this.",
">\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children. I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.\nI personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.\nI also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. \nWhile this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .",
">\n\n\nI sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long\n\nMe too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.\nThe rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.",
">\n\nIts a great topic. I myself have been almsot physically assaulted when I tell a parent that I think they are doing a disservice homeschooling a kid or sending him or her to some fundamentalist school. \nAnd I honestly view it ad an attempt to isolate people from the collectove institutions that used to make us citizens, ie members of a political body ….",
">\n\nI find it really telling how these pushes for “parents’ rights” in schools both 1) really glorify ignorance, and 2) only apply to parents who fit a very specific social and political mould. Nobody going to a school board meeting to scream about parental rights seems to give a shit that a lot of other parents would really like their kids to get a comprehensive education, including on LGBTQ+ topics. \nParents shouldn’t get to keep their kids in perpetual ignorance in an effort to ensure that their kids never develop opinions that may contradict their parents.",
">\n\nI hate to break it to all the right-wing parents on here, but children are individuals and you cannot control every single aspect of who they are and who they will become. If they are gay, they are gay and all you will accomplish by subjecting them to your homophobic attitudes is to cause them to hate themselves, and probably ruin any chance of having a good relationship with them when they are adults.\nChildren also get to choose their own political and social beliefs and are capable of forming them at a fairly young age. My sister and I always had more liberal views than my parents did when we were growing up. The funny thing is my parents’ views evolved over the years and they no longer vote Republican, mostly because they are so turned off by the book-burning, witch-hunting, anti-science, Capitol-storming nature of today’s Republican Party.",
">\n\nParents scream \"indoctrination\" at schools.....all the while indoctrinating the shit out of their own kids. When students project crazy attitudes at school, it's 99% learned from their parents. Signed, An exhausted teacher",
">\n\nThey want their own brand of indoctrination. But they dont consider their ignorance and bigotry indoctrination, they consider it the \"truth\".",
">\n\nWell, of course they do. Which I think is kind of the whole point here.\nAnd before I go further, I'm assuming you're a Democrat (or sympathic to Democrats broadly) like myself.\nIf a die hard Republican majority took control of our local school board and started teaching in history class that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, what would you and I think? We'd think they were crazy! And rightfully so. But the school board would firmly and truthfully believe that they are teaching real history and we are the crazy ones. Now, you're responding to my comment right now going \"but we are right, Trump lost! How can there be a dispute here?\" \nBut, and this is my main point, the actual truth doesn't matter in this situation. Of course our truth is the actual truth. But in this scenario the guys teaching the lie control the levers of state power. So the lie will be taught as truth and the truth will be taught as a lie.\nWhat this comes down to is a matter of state power and how it's exercised. And we always need to remember that the other side can and will exercise state power at some point in a highly competitive Democracy, such as we have here.\nWhich is why I think this question is so complicated. Parents need real levers of control over their children's education, because at some point many of us will need to use those levers to defend our kids from fucking nut jobs who happen to be running the state that day. \nThis is a Democracy. We need to be mindful we don't build a state empowered to wreck our own and our children's lives because an idiot won an election."
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.