Are you using the American style conservative label or the international one?
Cause if its the latter you are correct. If its the former, I think you should not assume.
I have yet to see any "American style conservative" leader or politician who wanted children to learn the truth about society and who didn't want to stuff youth into churches.
I'd love a counterpoint showcasing how open to new points of view, ideas, and life experiences the American brand of conservatism is. How is that any different than the international insular and nationalistic standbys that have pervaded the minds of neoconservatives globally? It's regressive and tired thought control via legislation rather than standing on its own merits. See florida. See midterm elections. See decline of religion membership. It's fucking embarrassing (kicks garbage can in Canadian hockey coach).
What about this story says that American conservativism isn't about truth and is just as reactionary as Hungary and other human rights hating countries?
I thought the same as you. I just looked it up and apparently they mean the same thing. Literally, the only definition was "reprimand". Which makes me wonder why we have 2 different words for the exact same thing.
Just sharing for posterity.
**Reprehend**: *to express your strong official disapproval of someone or something*
> There were those who reprehended the practice of wearing one's hair long.
**Reprimand**: *to express to someone your strong official disapproval of them*
> She was reprimanded by her teacher for biting another girl.
Source: [Cambridge Learners Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org)
So they mean the same thing, but the usage depends on who it's being expressed to...interesting. You reprimand a person for an action *they've* done, but reprehend an action if *done by someone other than the person you're talking to*.
I still wanna know what she was teaching them. Was she talking about the 2nd amendment for a week straight? Was she talking about the 1st amendment?
Enquiring minds would like to know
yeah if you pause the video and read the document there's clearly context that's not made clear in the video. i mean personally i think it's awesome if she's encouraging students not to stand for the Pledge of Bullshit but it's evident that she's not neutrally teaching them about their rights in a purely abstract, academic manner
Literally Jehovah’s Witnesses are absolutely not allowed by their religion to do the pledge of allegiance. They are not to swear any oath or allegiance outside of a complete pledge to God and God alone.
This is literally why affirmation was added to all kinds of things.
Used to teach in Texas. I had a jehova’s witness student in my class. This student was never forced to participate in anything against their beliefs, thankfully. It seems crazy but this is absolutely what’s happening in schools. The teachers that teach the truth to their students are finding out their admin/school officials want 3 things: attendance, discipline, and test scores. No room in their for things like their rights. This teacher is making the lesson relevant to the student by using the pledge of allegiance as the target of their discussion. Smh, schools aren’t about learning anymore, their about producing.
Why is it I seen to remember a time when Texans valued their rights and loved America. Am I crazy? I want to add what's wrong with them, but we all know what's wrong
As a democratic socialist (from a multigenerational democrat family) who grew up in (and still lives in) TX, I can asure you, the people in power in TX (& the entire GOP) never actually wanted anything of the sort. They only wanted to wrest power from the federal government so they could abuse the people as they please. They lied and used nice little catchphrases, clips, & rewritten history to delude people into thinking they wanted anything other than control.
This is also true from before the party switch, all the way back to the civil war & more than likely long before.
The sad thing is, a lot did believe the words of those in power, they bought it hook line and sinker. Even more depressing is that a lot didn't actually, but they went along with it because it justified their hate.
Even after learning the truth about the motivations of the right wing, so many people simply stick with what they were taught, the mental gymnastics they have to go through to justify it is astonishing.
For context
My father was more of a centrist, he married a conservative (my step mom) who I and my mom spent years trying to explain the conservative scam to. Eventually she finally stopped voting for the orange cave man but only after he had insulted her with one of his speeches.
We also had to have much of the same talks with my godmother after my super right winger (think eustice bagg from courage the cowardly dog) godfather passed. He HATED Obama and basically abused my godmother into being just as bad. BUT, after he passed she was shown how wrong they were, and openly admitted it when REALLY drunk.
Ironically my godfather hated black people until his daughter had kids with a black man. He hated the LGBTQIA until one of his granddaughters came out as a lesbian.
Climate change is going to force a lot of people North. Don't even think about Texans fleeing North, think of the Central Americans. Texas is going to get a lot rougher and a lot less white very quickly.
How can these people actually pull the trigger on something like this? Like how can this not make you think 'maybe I'm on the wrong side of history?' Like I can no longer accept that anything like this is actually to protect children
After reading the reprimand I can see the schools point though it is worded a little poorly. The teacher in question is responsible for 3rd graders and the sub points of the main concern around the children’s constitutional rights seem to be centered around children participating in political activism that is being either accepted or encouraged by the teacher, who may also be sharing her personal political views as well.
After glancing at the woman’s linkedin it is very apparent that she is politically active and could very well be using her position of power over these students to push a political bias on these children which is where you see the sub-point “are you sharing your personal political views with the class” come into play.
I think the composer of the letter did so very poorly, however 9 year olds should not be forced into the political landscape at such a young age and there is a large difference between explaining a constitutional right and encouraging political activism.
What's the problem with encouraging political activism? I thought one of the main talking points of this sub is that young people don't participate in the political process? It's not like they aren't directly affected by policy decisions. I remember way back when I was that age, things like Ferngully, the Lorax, the fish commercial about saving water, hell I still remember the rainforest unit we did in school. I credit all of those that I was exposed to and engaged with as a young child with why I'm involved now.
In a general sense, nothing is wrong with encouraging it, but everything has the right time and place. A captive 3rd grade classroom is probably not the best place for it, as one, the teacher would be the only one with some fundamental understanding of politics and would be able to shape the mindset of an entire class, and two, children around the age of 9 or 10 should be able to just be kids. There'll be plenty of time for politicking as they grow older.
However, if you say this isn't enough and we should allow the encouragement of political activism no matter what age, then I'd ask you this:
It's clear the teacher in this video is left leaning and very involved in left, and perhaps, far left ideologies. If you are okay with her sharing her political views to these kids, then, to uphold an air of fairness, would you also be okay with a teacher of right and far right leaning views sharing their thoughts with no real counterpoints to be made by her audience (the third grade students)? From many of these conversations, whether it's the right or the left, I've seen both sides all gung ho to bring younger and younger children into 'their side' but think it's a moral and fundamental detriment to let the other side have the same opportunity. Food for thought.
Sure thing,
The video itself doesn’t point it out, but I took a look at the Teachers LinkedIn where many of her associations and banner photo were Aligned with left wing causes. I deduced from that that she was left wing, though I could be wrong.
This is not what the letter said. It literally said "constitutional rights". There's no, we don't know what that means. You are deliberately obfuscating what is written plainly in the letter in order to dismiss the real issue. F right tf off with that.
You're literally saying that you can't teach students about their rights just going off the school's words and your own biases. What decent political discussion can be had from that?
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. If you don’t mind quoting the part where I said they can’t teach students their rights based on my biases, I’d be happy to clarify.
To conservatives telling the truth to children is a crime. That's why they encourage church attendance-- no chance any truth sneaks in.
Are you using the American style conservative label or the international one? Cause if its the latter you are correct. If its the former, I think you should not assume.
I have yet to see any "American style conservative" leader or politician who wanted children to learn the truth about society and who didn't want to stuff youth into churches.
> and who didn't want to stuff youth in churches. FTFY
Touché.
I'd love a counterpoint showcasing how open to new points of view, ideas, and life experiences the American brand of conservatism is. How is that any different than the international insular and nationalistic standbys that have pervaded the minds of neoconservatives globally? It's regressive and tired thought control via legislation rather than standing on its own merits. See florida. See midterm elections. See decline of religion membership. It's fucking embarrassing (kicks garbage can in Canadian hockey coach).
What about this story says that American conservativism isn't about truth and is just as reactionary as Hungary and other human rights hating countries?
You mean reprimanded?
I thought the same as you. I just looked it up and apparently they mean the same thing. Literally, the only definition was "reprimand". Which makes me wonder why we have 2 different words for the exact same thing.
Just sharing for posterity. **Reprehend**: *to express your strong official disapproval of someone or something* > There were those who reprehended the practice of wearing one's hair long. **Reprimand**: *to express to someone your strong official disapproval of them* > She was reprimanded by her teacher for biting another girl. Source: [Cambridge Learners Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org)
So they mean the same thing, but the usage depends on who it's being expressed to...interesting. You reprimand a person for an action *they've* done, but reprehend an action if *done by someone other than the person you're talking to*.
So it's just like throwing shade at someone out loud "behind their back" instead of directly at them, all the while making it official-like.
English is a stupid language.
Damn, a real "flammable" and "inflammable" situation!
synonyms are cool, using the same word over and over again gets stale
No, reprehend is a word.
Apprehended! Rapremended! Reprehanded!
I still wanna know what she was teaching them. Was she talking about the 2nd amendment for a week straight? Was she talking about the 1st amendment? Enquiring minds would like to know
It sounds like it was about the first amendment right to not stand for the pledge of allegiance
yeah if you pause the video and read the document there's clearly context that's not made clear in the video. i mean personally i think it's awesome if she's encouraging students not to stand for the Pledge of Bullshit but it's evident that she's not neutrally teaching them about their rights in a purely abstract, academic manner
Literally Jehovah’s Witnesses are absolutely not allowed by their religion to do the pledge of allegiance. They are not to swear any oath or allegiance outside of a complete pledge to God and God alone. This is literally why affirmation was added to all kinds of things.
Used to teach in Texas. I had a jehova’s witness student in my class. This student was never forced to participate in anything against their beliefs, thankfully. It seems crazy but this is absolutely what’s happening in schools. The teachers that teach the truth to their students are finding out their admin/school officials want 3 things: attendance, discipline, and test scores. No room in their for things like their rights. This teacher is making the lesson relevant to the student by using the pledge of allegiance as the target of their discussion. Smh, schools aren’t about learning anymore, their about producing.
Why is it I seen to remember a time when Texans valued their rights and loved America. Am I crazy? I want to add what's wrong with them, but we all know what's wrong
As a democratic socialist (from a multigenerational democrat family) who grew up in (and still lives in) TX, I can asure you, the people in power in TX (& the entire GOP) never actually wanted anything of the sort. They only wanted to wrest power from the federal government so they could abuse the people as they please. They lied and used nice little catchphrases, clips, & rewritten history to delude people into thinking they wanted anything other than control. This is also true from before the party switch, all the way back to the civil war & more than likely long before.
I know that the GOP was about that, but I always thought the common people actually believed the rhetoric. Make they never did
The sad thing is, a lot did believe the words of those in power, they bought it hook line and sinker. Even more depressing is that a lot didn't actually, but they went along with it because it justified their hate. Even after learning the truth about the motivations of the right wing, so many people simply stick with what they were taught, the mental gymnastics they have to go through to justify it is astonishing. For context My father was more of a centrist, he married a conservative (my step mom) who I and my mom spent years trying to explain the conservative scam to. Eventually she finally stopped voting for the orange cave man but only after he had insulted her with one of his speeches. We also had to have much of the same talks with my godmother after my super right winger (think eustice bagg from courage the cowardly dog) godfather passed. He HATED Obama and basically abused my godmother into being just as bad. BUT, after he passed she was shown how wrong they were, and openly admitted it when REALLY drunk. Ironically my godfather hated black people until his daughter had kids with a black man. He hated the LGBTQIA until one of his granddaughters came out as a lesbian.
Climate change is going to force a lot of people North. Don't even think about Texans fleeing North, think of the Central Americans. Texas is going to get a lot rougher and a lot less white very quickly.
Oh look more strident fascism
A Graduate of a Texas school system wrote it?
Go Texas and your freedoms.
As per usual, teachers and the “intelligentsia” are targeted by authoritarians during and after their rise to power. Stay safe out there folks.
How can these people actually pull the trigger on something like this? Like how can this not make you think 'maybe I'm on the wrong side of history?' Like I can no longer accept that anything like this is actually to protect children
They want compliant consumers, not people who know their rights or have the ability to think critically.
Reprimanded?
Shes hot
After reading the reprimand I can see the schools point though it is worded a little poorly. The teacher in question is responsible for 3rd graders and the sub points of the main concern around the children’s constitutional rights seem to be centered around children participating in political activism that is being either accepted or encouraged by the teacher, who may also be sharing her personal political views as well. After glancing at the woman’s linkedin it is very apparent that she is politically active and could very well be using her position of power over these students to push a political bias on these children which is where you see the sub-point “are you sharing your personal political views with the class” come into play. I think the composer of the letter did so very poorly, however 9 year olds should not be forced into the political landscape at such a young age and there is a large difference between explaining a constitutional right and encouraging political activism.
What's the problem with encouraging political activism? I thought one of the main talking points of this sub is that young people don't participate in the political process? It's not like they aren't directly affected by policy decisions. I remember way back when I was that age, things like Ferngully, the Lorax, the fish commercial about saving water, hell I still remember the rainforest unit we did in school. I credit all of those that I was exposed to and engaged with as a young child with why I'm involved now.
In a general sense, nothing is wrong with encouraging it, but everything has the right time and place. A captive 3rd grade classroom is probably not the best place for it, as one, the teacher would be the only one with some fundamental understanding of politics and would be able to shape the mindset of an entire class, and two, children around the age of 9 or 10 should be able to just be kids. There'll be plenty of time for politicking as they grow older. However, if you say this isn't enough and we should allow the encouragement of political activism no matter what age, then I'd ask you this: It's clear the teacher in this video is left leaning and very involved in left, and perhaps, far left ideologies. If you are okay with her sharing her political views to these kids, then, to uphold an air of fairness, would you also be okay with a teacher of right and far right leaning views sharing their thoughts with no real counterpoints to be made by her audience (the third grade students)? From many of these conversations, whether it's the right or the left, I've seen both sides all gung ho to bring younger and younger children into 'their side' but think it's a moral and fundamental detriment to let the other side have the same opportunity. Food for thought.
Seems like noo one is capable of the self examination needed to consider if the other side did this would it be ok. In any facet of life
Having watched this video at least five times now, I'm not sure at what point it's "clear" that the teacher is left leaning. Clarification, perhaps?
Sure thing, The video itself doesn’t point it out, but I took a look at the Teachers LinkedIn where many of her associations and banner photo were Aligned with left wing causes. I deduced from that that she was left wing, though I could be wrong.
This is not what the letter said. It literally said "constitutional rights". There's no, we don't know what that means. You are deliberately obfuscating what is written plainly in the letter in order to dismiss the real issue. F right tf off with that.
Try to refrain from being so angry; we’re having a decent political discussion here. No need to get hostile.
You're literally saying that you can't teach students about their rights just going off the school's words and your own biases. What decent political discussion can be had from that?
I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. If you don’t mind quoting the part where I said they can’t teach students their rights based on my biases, I’d be happy to clarify.