It is really sad how many people would trust teachers in a classroom with guns but not books.
Not people generally.
Conservatives, specifically.
Frankly, I'm at the point where I'm starting to question if even that part:whole relationship is really applicable.
Don't get me wrong: I understand why it's a really bad thing to start dehumanizing your enemy, but WTF are you supposed to do when they jettison everything but venal hatred and sociopathy and thus dehumanize themselves?
They are also trying to get rid of teachers. Eventually charter schools will just have a person in a classroom pressing play for a video and handing out papers. Grading and testing will be done through computers. A psych report will be made for each student to determine how to brainwash them further.
The pen is mightier.
Also, schools can't afford books. Giving every (or even a few) teachers guns would cost millions per school district. We have money for more guns but not computers and books
Republicans don’t want freedom, they want to be feared. Because fear is respect to them. And the imbued threat by carrying a gun and the false demand of respect it projects is useless. At no point in human history, regardless of the punishment, has crime of any sort not existed. Carting around guns on every hip won’t change that at all.
Turns out if you expect someone might pull a gun on you while you commit a crime, youll just bring a gun with you too.
I wonder how many students changed their minds about becoming teachers because of what’s been going on over the last few years.
Gutting education is part of the plan for any authoritarian takeover. Knowledge is power. Why give the people the power? How very unauthoritarian.
I'm not sure about that, but it has been clear for the past few decades then education funding in many areas of the country has dropped. Annoying paperwork and class sizes have gone up, resources have gone down. On average, it's less appealing than it once was.
I mean - I know I decided against pursuing it many decades ago because it was the same then.
We're basically living in a poorer, angrier Reagan era.
Knee-jerk ignorant republican impulse after knee-jerk ignorant republican impulse, enabled and lubricated by the gullible and lazy non-voting bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL idiots, you end up in a completely preventable hellhole.
Calling them knee jerk ignorant impulses under minds the fact that is a plan they have been working on for 60 years and they are almost successful
gullible and lazy non-voting bOtH pArTiEs ArE tHe SaMe LoL idiots,
They aren't gullible and lazy. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are campaigning for their issues.
One good example is Medicare for All, which is supported by a majority of voters, but not supported by Harris and Trump.
True. And if anyone thinks it can't happen where they are, they should ask themselves "does my country have social media? Do we have a good grasp of media literacy?"
Because (spoiler) it can happen and probably is right now. You've got some version of Fox News, you've got some version of Trump and you've got some population of MAGA Qanuts. Everywhere.
Well you're not wrong in your point, we have that as well, but most of our Qanuts are watching American Fox News (and all the related crazies on YT) exactly because our media is such that Fox News wasn't allowed to call itself Fox News, because of how shit it was. So Fox does broadcast here, but none of their news shows.
However, even if the propaganda is of a higher quality and not as intentional, it's still there.
The core problem is the same. Greedy asshole doing whatever for more profits. We just have better regulations so it's not yet as bad, but that's the direction we're headed.
Finland, btw.
its extremely preventable too, Americans are extremely ignorant and brainwashed as you mentioned.
This is a really good point, but I feel like an English teacher would have written "whom I married."
Non native English speaker here with a genuine question; wouldn’t “telling the students whom I married” mean that the teacher married the students instead of telling students about their spouse?
I think you're right. The clause should actually be something like "disclose to my students the gender of my spouse." How does that sound?
You are correct. Your English is great!
Either a comma or parentheses are what would make the difference.
I will tell the students whom I married.
Now the students know who was at your wedding.
I will tell the students, whom I married.
I will tell the students (whom I married).
You're only telling something to the students that you married.
Honestly... Just raise your children abroad where dying at school isn't the lead cause of childhood mortality.
I thought you were making a joke but the number one cause of childhood mortality in the US is firearms. Number two is vehicles.
No problems here though, what can you do right? Thoughts and prayers!
Interestingly, the most dangerous thing to have around children is a pool.
Drowning is the number 1 cause of death for children ages 1-4 in the US and still asking the leading causes of death all through childhood. Most of those deaths are in pools.
8 percent of houses have pools, whereas 40 percent have guns.
Firearm-related deaths are a leading cause of death in 1-19 year old kids, but homicide is a fraction of that number, and school shootings is a fraction of that fraction. The biggest category for firearm deaths are accidental shootings in minority communities in the city. School shootings is not even close to being a leading cause of death.
This is what I keep saying. If I thought my kids' teachers were evil indoctrinators trying to force an ideology I definitely wouldn't want them to have a gun, and if I thought they were trustworthy enough to have a gun around my child I'd be totally fine with them making any and all decisions about what else they were going to do in that classroom.
Of course, not being an insane person, I actually want them to not need a gun at all and also for them to have the freedom and resources to teach and stock their classroom as they see fit.
Is arming teachers a serious argument by anyone?
Quite a number of far right idiots are, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, yes. It is a topic of debate going back decades and typically gets revived after a publicized school shooting.
Our school (who wasn't actually considering it) said the insurance company would drop our coverage if we allowed armed teachers on pemesis. Honestly, I think I'd quit if I knew someone on staff was concealed carrying. We deal with a lot of shot, but the last thing I want between me and a troubled kid is a gun.
Teacher here. I consider all of the teachers I've worked with, and I consider how few of them I would trust with a loaded firearm under the best possible circumstances (maybe 10 percent).
Then I consider the number of those who would actually consider using a firearm (down to about 3 percent).
And then I consider how many of those I would trust with a firearm in a room full of students... and it's zero.
I finally just avoided the problem by moving to a country where civilians are not generally allowed to own guns and school shootings are not a problem.
I’ve been hearing that exact argument since Columbine.
No abortion! No abortion after birth!
Unless it's at school.
Well, once they're armed they can just choose whatever books
Not people generally.
Conservatives, specifically.
The latter is true but the rest is bunk.
Could you elaborate? I'm sincerely unsure what you're saying. Thanks in advance!
Let them teach what they want and have the ability to carry and defend themselves if necessary
Except that's not how it works. If you let more people bring weapons into schools, you will definitely see increasing amounts of weapons being used in schools, even if you're pretending that the weapons are supposed to be only for self-defense.
If you're serious about reducing mass shootings, the globe has shown us that you can do so by reducing the number of guns available in society. It really is that simple. Simple, but not easy, because many Americans love their weapons.
The confederates parading in their silly hats have wanted that for years.
No.
How is whom he married relevant to English Language Arts class?
Because people like to connect with other people and share anecdotes about their own life. That's human nature.
A man can say he spent the weekend with his husband camping in the woods and how it reminds them of a poem.
A woman can say her wife is picking her up after work and they're going to a bookstore to pickup the newest book in a series.
These are innocuous statements and yet some states/people would vilify them.
So teachers must never share any details about their personal lives and only ever speak about books?
One would think that reflection of the impact of literature on ones personal life is an important part of analysis.
Also that teachers should be fully and authentically present for their students, not just glorified YouTube lectures.
It’s an excellent question.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/called-dont-gay-rules-expanded-12th-grade-florida/story?id=98691183
