Jump to content

The destruction of America's public education system


Captainant

Recommended Posts

  On 1/30/2023 at 8:50 PM, GenXer said:

Nope. Freeware for the introduction, and then I had him demonstrate his capability. I taught him advanced things from there. I gave him an assignment that used those more advanced things. Total cost was $0 and some of my time. Infinite ROI.

You should have your kids also look at Miro. It’s great for brainstorming and their templates are quite useful. It’s decent for creating workflows. Lucidchart is really good for workflows. If they have any interest in software development, I suggest Axure for building prototypes.

Expand  

I meant I hope you weren't paying an arm and a leg for tuition at a clearly inferior and insufficient private school. That would be worse than a bad free education, probably.

I have just started using Miro boards myself, now that you say that, at work and like it a lot!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idaho lawmaker teaches guns and feminism

Figured this was a good place as any.

Gun book:

  Quote

The description for the book reads: “In this super fun book for kids, we’ll walk you through how awesome the AR-15 is, how it can be used for good, and why the Gun Grabbing Lefties should focus on something more productive.”

Expand  

Feminism book:

  Quote

The book also states that feminists believe a secret group called the patriarchy is lurking around every corner and that they believe there are no differences between women and men. In the book, Lenney writes that feminism hasn’t been needed in the U.S. since women were granted the right to vote “a loooooooong time ago.”

But since gaining that right in 1920, women have fought for equal pay, fought against discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace, fought for equal education opportunity through Title IX, worked for the passage of the Violence Against Women Act, and gained the right to open a bank account.

In addition to talking about how women can be police officers, astronauts, and engineers, the book mentions how there’s nothing more awesome than coming home to a delicious dinner, how some women like making sandwiches and that there have been lots of women in the White House — “America has had over 45 First Ladies.”

Expand  

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/30/2023 at 7:04 PM, HornOnTheBayou said:

Every educator in America agrees that the idea of parents not being involved in their children's education is wrong. That is why no one at the meeting you attended said that.

And thank you for clarifying that you don't see public schools as a child abuse sex cult, you only think they have the same policies. But again, respectfully, fuck off with that shit.

Expand  

Were you the one giving the orientation?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/30/2023 at 6:13 PM, Neonmoon said:

I don't think we should allow the bible on school property. Exposing children to manipulative cults that promote stories of bigotry, rape, and incest are not beneficial or provide educational value. However, that is my belief which may not be shared by everyone. I'm not trying to force my beliefs on others. You believe nudity and pictures of sex do not provide any value to teenagers in developing emotionally or sexually in a healthy way. That belief is not supported by any studies of human development. You want to force others to follow your beliefs. No one is harmed by normal depictions of sex

Expand  

First, I think my atheistic bona fides are pretty well established around here. I still own a Bible and other religious books. I don’t own a Koran because I understand that it’s important to find a good translation and I don’t know which is best. So I’m limited to online resources. I don’t believe in religion but as an American I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they choose even if I don’t respect their actual belief. I think religion is a problem and that we’d be better off without it. I also know that we’re a superstitious people prone to hallucination and we’ll never get rid of it. If we did get rid of religion then we’d create new ones. So I don’t agree that we shouldn’t allow the Bible on school property. I think that’s ridiculous. We should allow the Bible and the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and any other religious texts. There’s nothing wrong with teaching about religion. We should neither endorse nor promote any religion in public schools. And that includes athletic coaches using it as a recruiting tool. The government and all its institutions should be secular. Religion of any kind should be left up to the individual to pursue in whatever way they see fit so long as they’re not trying to force it on anyone else. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way...

I invite you to share with me the clinical data which demonstrates that viewing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity can “provide...value to teenagers in developing emotionally or sexually in a healthy way.” Show me the studies. I invite you to find some sexual deviant about whom you can credibly say, “If only they’d had a graphic novel to read in high school that showed a woman eating pussy, then they’d be totally normal right now.”

Why haven’t I heard anyone say before that what we really need in the schools are graphic novels depicting people engaged in sexual activity in order to develop healthy and well balanced adults? Where has that been? Why did nobody exclaim, “Finally! I’ve been saying for years that we need more books in school showing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity!” when Macanudo first posted that pic? I see some people here defending a practice that I’ve never seen them advocate before. I believe there’s a strong possibility that you haven’t actually held this opinion until just now and are defending it arbitrarily. But if there are studies which demonstrate that comic book illustrations of a couple of rug munchers help children develop into healthy and balanced adults whereas children not exposed to such images might be less likely to do so, then I look forward to reviewing your data. I doubt they exist.

I believe sex ed should be taught in schools. Kids are interested in sex, they’re curious about it, and some are going to do it. I believe we should hand out free condoms. Kids are going to have sex anyway whether we teach them about it or not. We want to keep them all healthy and well informed and we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the public schools to demonstrate various ways of engaging in sex regardless of the genders of the participants. They can figure out what works for them and their partners on their own.

Sure, we all knew what oral sex was when we were young. And yeah, a lot of us were eager to experience it. I’ve met a number of women who were not at all good at giving a blowjob. I didn’t conclude that their high school had failed to adequately prepare them for adult life. But let’s suppose that, as you claim to believe, that showing pictures to kids in school of people engaged in sexual activity helps them the develop into healthy adults. Obviously you’re in favor of showing pictures of cunnilingus. We’ve established that. What about fellatio? Should we teach that? Should we teach that their partner will appreciate it if they swallow? What about anal sex? Should we show that? Should we teach little Suzy that she might enjoy it if her boyfriend licks her anus or slips a finger in there while they’re copulating? Some chicks dig that. Should we teach her that gay men aren’t the only gender that might like being anally penetrated by a man’s penis? What about sucking on toes? Some people like that. What about rubber and leather fetishes? What about spanking and BDSM? What about role playing or dressing up as Catholic schoolgirls? Or dressing up as cartoon characters or animals? We could devote a whole separate discussion just to masturbation. What exactly is the public school’s responsibility to teach the children? I think a large part of the subject falls outside their jurisdiction. Teach them the basics and let them figure out the rest on their own.

I noticed you didn’t address my comments about the real problem being societal ignorance and the fact that, for example, homosexual children are told that they’re bad (and all of the things you said that together boil down to basically that). Presumably that’s the religious tie-in to your post I quoted. I’ve seen it claimed that showing pictures to homosexual kids of people engaged in homosexual activities will help normalize it for them, to help them see that it’s not deviant behavior. Can’t we just tell them that? Do they need to see the sex act? What about just seeing queer people presented as normal and accepted in the media and popular culture? What about those poor kids whose parents are ignorant and cruel and tell them they’re evil or beat them or kick them out of the house when they find out they’re queer? Is seeing an illustration of a same sex couple engaging in oral sex in a graphic novel really going to make things better for them? Again, I’m going to need to see the data because I have a hard time believing that it is.

I don’t think it’s inherently bad for kids to see pictures of nudity or of people engaging in sexual activity if they’re mature enough to see it. I’m not convinced that it’s the public school’s responsibility to show it to them and I think responsible parents should probably have some say in the matter. I was surprised when Macanudo posted that pic. I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t think that was the sort of thing that was being made available in any schools. I wouldn’t call it pornography but there are people on the right who will and that’s exactly the sort of thing they’ll use to promote their agenda of discrimination against the LGBTQ community in general. Do you really believe that’s appropriate material for the public schools or are you just defending it in order to stick it to those people?

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/31/2023 at 6:11 PM, CooterBrown said:
It really shows how fucked we are as a society that we get hung up on one page of sex in a book while we are cool with our teens reading any of thousands of books with violence, substance abuse, racism, and sexism.
No shit. Ask those people how they'd feel about a HS student reading "American Sniper"...
  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  On 1/31/2023 at 11:57 PM, tchookem said:
  On 1/31/2023 at 6:11 PM, CooterBrown said:
It really shows how fucked we are as a society that we get hung up on one page of sex in a book while we are cool with our teens reading any of thousands of books with violence, substance abuse, racism, and sexism.
Expand  

No shit. Ask those people how they'd feel about a HS student reading "American Sniper"...

Expand  

I’ll go you one better.  These parents are freaked out about what’s in a school library, meanwhile their kids have smartphones, tablets, or computers that the parents are probably not monitoring full-time, and probably don’t have any kind of filters on them.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pornographic is a stretch; maybe vaguely pornographic? Or just go with the classic term, dirty. 

I’m not up on today’s LGTBQ comic books — I’m a Richie Rich fan myself — but if the posted pages are representative, inclusion in any kind of modern canon seems to be a big stretch as well. It reads like a comic book version of Dawson’s Creek.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/31/2023 at 8:56 AM, WhatTheBuck said:

First, I think my atheistic bona fides are pretty well established around here. I still own a Bible and other religious books. I don’t own a Koran because I understand that it’s important to find a good translation and I don’t know which is best. So I’m limited to online resources. I don’t believe in religion but as an American I respect everyone’s right to believe whatever they choose even if I don’t respect their actual belief. I think religion is a problem and that we’d be better off without it. I also know that we’re a superstitious people prone to hallucination and we’ll never get rid of it. If we did get rid of religion then we’d create new ones. So I don’t agree that we shouldn’t allow the Bible on school property. I think that’s ridiculous. We should allow the Bible and the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita and any other religious texts. There’s nothing wrong with teaching about religion. We should neither endorse nor promote any religion in public schools. And that includes athletic coaches using it as a recruiting tool. The government and all its institutions should be secular. Religion of any kind should be left up to the individual to pursue in whatever way they see fit so long as they’re not trying to force it on anyone else. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way...

I invite you to share with me the clinical data which demonstrates that viewing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity can “provide...value to teenagers in developing emotionally or sexually in a healthy way.” Show me the studies. I invite you to find some sexual deviant about whom you can credibly say, “If only they’d had a graphic novel to read in high school that showed a woman eating pussy, then they’d be totally normal right now.”

Why haven’t I heard anyone say before that what we really need in the schools are graphic novels depicting people engaged in sexual activity in order to develop healthy and well balanced adults? Where has that been? Why did nobody exclaim, “Finally! I’ve been saying for years that we need more books in school showing pictures of people engaged in sexual activity!” when Macanudo first posted that pic? I see some people here defending a practice that I’ve never seen them advocate before. I believe there’s a strong possibility that you haven’t actually held this opinion until just now and are defending it arbitrarily. But if there are studies which demonstrate that comic book illustrations of a couple of rug munchers help children develop into healthy and balanced adults whereas children not exposed to such images might be less likely to do so, then I look forward to reviewing your data. I doubt they exist.

I believe sex ed should be taught in schools. Kids are interested in sex, they’re curious about it, and some are going to do it. I believe we should hand out free condoms. Kids are going to have sex anyway whether we teach them about it or not. We want to keep them all healthy and well informed and we want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the public schools to demonstrate various ways of engaging in sex regardless of the genders of the participants. They can figure out what works for them and their partners on their own.

Sure, we all knew what oral sex was when we were young. And yeah, a lot of us were eager to experience it. I’ve met a number of women who were not at all good at giving a blowjob. I didn’t conclude that their high school had failed to adequately prepare them for adult life. But let’s suppose that, as you claim to believe, that showing pictures to kids in school of people engaged in sexual activity helps them the develop into healthy adults. Obviously you’re in favor of showing pictures of cunnilingus. We’ve established that. What about fellatio? Should we teach that? Should we teach that their partner will appreciate it if they swallow? What about anal sex? Should we show that? Should we teach little Suzy that she might enjoy it if her boyfriend licks her anus or slips a finger in there while they’re copulating? Some chicks dig that. Should we teach her that gay men aren’t the only gender that might like being anally penetrated by a man’s penis? What about sucking on toes? Some people like that. What about rubber and leather fetishes? What about spanking and BDSM? What about role playing or dressing up as Catholic schoolgirls? Or dressing up as cartoon characters or animals? We could devote a whole separate discussion just to masturbation. What exactly is the public school’s responsibility to teach the children? I think a large part of the subject falls outside their jurisdiction. Teach them the basics and let them figure out the rest on their own.

I noticed you didn’t address my comments about the real problem being societal ignorance and the fact that, for example, homosexual children are told that they’re bad (and all of the things you said that together boil down to basically that). Presumably that’s the religious tie-in to your post I quoted. I’ve seen it claimed that showing pictures to homosexual kids of people engaged in homosexual activities will help normalize it for them, to help them see that it’s not deviant behavior. Can’t we just tell them that? Do they need to see the sex act? What about just seeing queer people presented as normal and accepted in the media and popular culture? What about those poor kids whose parents are ignorant and cruel and tell them they’re evil or beat them or kick them out of the house when they find out they’re queer? Is seeing an illustration of a same sex couple engaging in oral sex in a graphic novel really going to make things better for them? Again, I’m going to need to see the data because I have a hard time believing that it is.

I don’t think it’s inherently bad for kids to see pictures of nudity or of people engaging in sexual activity if they’re mature enough to see it. I’m not convinced that it’s the public school’s responsibility to show it to them and I think responsible parents should probably have some say in the matter. I was surprised when Macanudo posted that pic. I wasn’t expecting that. I didn’t think that was the sort of thing that was being made available in any schools. I wouldn’t call it pornography but there are people on the right who will and that’s exactly the sort of thing they’ll use to promote their agenda of discrimination against the LGBTQ community in general. Do you really believe that’s appropriate material for the public schools or are you just defending it in order to stick it to those people?

 

Expand  

First off, hire an editor. Do you think 14 pages is an effective way to communicate any point you were trying to make? Is this a LOBO sock? 

Second, I can provide you with clinical studies, but that doesn’t matter, because neither of us are doctors, and it won’t change your beliefs. Beliefs are are emotional and no amount of clinical data will change that. But since you asked. Pictures Help  

Jesus, I just read the ‘what should we teach’ the paragraph. Are you okay? But to answer your questions directly, should we teach all that? Yes. In my opinion, yes. There is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral about anything you listed. You clearly believe there is, especially if a teenager is involved. Sexuality, and any expression thereof between two caring and consenting partners should be embraced. But to get back to the original point of this topic, this wasn’t about “teaching”. It was about banning a book. If you don’t want the sex ed teacher to explain sexuality isn’t wrong, or that a rimjob won’t harm your child, or that Sally going down on Samantha isn’t scary, fine. Just don’t ban the book in case Sally or Samantha want to learn about what their feeling on their own time. 

I’m not trying to stick it to anyone. I’m just trying to argue that sexuality, depicted in a healthy normal non-violent way is beneficial to teenager development. 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any of you have ever listened to kids from age 10 on talk in groups you would know they already discuss these things. One of the things about living in NYC is sometimes I get on the subway or bus and a group of teenagers will openly talk about sexual topics. as if no one is around. The things they already know that they googled or friends told them is pretty in-depth. I think it would be helpful to educate them as well in school at a younger age than the norm. 
 

If you don’t want your children in a class at a younger age you should have the ability to pull them from that class, but I think starting around age 10 is good for a class to broach the subject of sex.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/31/2023 at 5:09 PM, safe sex said:

A description of the book, from its Wikipedia:


Alison Bechdel, its author, received a MacArthur genius grant several years ago, largely for her work on Fun Home. Here are the pages (which is a generous term for how much real estate the "porn" takes up):

Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.13.0
Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.11.5
Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.39.4

And I couldn't even find the last page/panel to post. You are severely out of touch if you don't see how that this book, even with just those pages/panels I've posted here, can help teenagers examine their own emotions. You are severely out of touch if you think this is pornography in high school libraries, which also often contain Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, Invisible Man, Lady Chatterly's Lover, A Clockwork Orange, A Separate Peace, etc., etc., all of which have more "objectionable" material but which still often fall under required reading.

So yes, this is perfectly appropriate for a high school library, and it should be in every high school library, as it is a important piece of the modern literary canon.

Expand  

erection GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/31/2023 at 5:09 PM, safe sex said:

A description of the book, from its Wikipedia:


Alison Bechdel, its author, received a MacArthur genius grant several years ago, largely for her work on Fun Home. Here are the pages (which is a generous term for how much real estate the "porn" takes up):

Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.13.0
Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.11.5
Screen%20Shot%202015-08-25%20at%206.39.4

And I couldn't even find the last page/panel to post. You are severely out of touch if you don't see how that this book, even with just those pages/panels I've posted here, can help teenagers examine their own emotions. You are severely out of touch if you think this is pornography in high school libraries, which also often contain Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, Invisible Man, Lady Chatterly's Lover, A Clockwork Orange, A Separate Peace, etc., etc., all of which have more "objectionable" material but which still often fall under required reading.

So yes, this is perfectly appropriate for a high school library, and it should be in every high school library, as it is a important piece of the modern literary canon.

Expand  

Had you ever heard of the book before now?

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/1/2023 at 5:59 AM, UpperWestside said:

If any of you have ever listened to kids from age 10 on talk in groups you would know they already discuss these things. One of the things about living in NYC is sometimes I get on the subway or bus and a group of teenagers will openly talk about sexual topics. as if no one is around. The things they already know that they googled or friends told them is pretty in-depth. I think it would be helpful to educate them as well in school at a younger age than the norm. 
 

If you don’t want your children in a class at a younger age you should have the ability to pull them from that class, but I think starting around age 10 is good for a class to broach the subject of sex.

Expand  

These kids have grown up with the internet. They’ve been surrounded by porn since they were able to access it. It’s a whole different world from when their parents grew up. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/1/2023 at 2:33 PM, tokamak said:
So this education savings account thing is basically the death blow for public education in the state, right? Already critically underfunded and now we’re gonna pull a bunch of (taxpayer) money out to give it to religious schools?

Yep. It doesn’t help many that are not already in private school since those schools already operate near capacity. They’re also free to discriminate against any applicants as they see fit and still collect state money from those they do accept.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion. Well done, folks. My wife and I both were surprised at the soft core graphic depictions in Safe’s post, as well as the hookah. But we weren’t disturbed, and can understand the importance of that graphic novel as a whole, as well as agree its inclusion would improve sex ed curriculum.

Politically, oblique images of any sex act is an easier target than the word “cornhole,” and those targeting such oppose teaching even generalizations of human sexuality. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/1/2023 at 3:57 AM, Neonmoon said:

First off, hire an editor. Do you think 14 pages is an effective way to communicate any point you were trying to make? Is this a LOBO sock? 

Second, I can provide you with clinical studies, but that doesn’t matter, because neither of us are doctors, and it won’t change your beliefs. Beliefs are are emotional and no amount of clinical data will change that. But since you asked. Pictures Help  

Jesus, I just read the ‘what should we teach’ the paragraph. Are you okay? But to answer your questions directly, should we teach all that? Yes. In my opinion, yes. There is nothing wrong, illegal, immoral about anything you listed. You clearly believe there is, especially if a teenager is involved. Sexuality, and any expression thereof between two caring and consenting partners should be embraced. But to get back to the original point of this topic, this wasn’t about “teaching”. It was about banning a book. If you don’t want the sex ed teacher to explain sexuality isn’t wrong, or that a rimjob won’t harm your child, or that Sally going down on Samantha isn’t scary, fine. Just don’t ban the book in case Sally or Samantha want to learn about what their feeling on their own time. 

I’m not trying to stick it to anyone. I’m just trying to argue that sexuality, depicted in a healthy normal non-violent way is beneficial to teenager development. 

Expand  

I’m sorry. Did I use too many words for your brain to cogitate upon? Perhaps that gives us some insight into why you’re defending a comic book. You don’t have to be a doctor to understand scientific research. It does require being able to digest more material than can be contained in a tweet. Your wisecrack doesn’t inspire confidence in your ability to grasp a scientific study even if you could cite one.

Okay, I’ll try to turn down the snark now but I think that was warranted. Hire an editor? Don’t take this the wrong way, but fuck off. This isn’t Twitter.

The abstract you linked isn’t relevant. No one is arguing that illustrations don’t aid in education. That study is about communication in the doctor-patient relationship. From the introduction: “Lower health literacy is prevalent in the US and is linked to limited understanding of one’s medical condition and treatment. Pictures increase comprehension, recall, adherence and attention in health settings.” That graphic novel isn’t being provided by a medical doctor to a patient so they can better understand oral sex. I’ll bet it’s not a textbook in a health class. For future reference, do your googling to find out if there’s clinical evidence that supports your assertion before you make the claim that there is. Because what you linked isn’t it. ‘I’m sure it’s out there but neither of us could understand it because we’re not doctors’ is not a valid argument. Your imagination is not proof. And speak for yourself when it comes to your inability to read and comprehend a scientific study. I should note that, though all of my science books contained illustrations, none of them were graphic novels.

Okay, so maybe just a little more snark.

Speaking of illustrations used for education, I’m familiar with illustrations like this:

028DA23C-90BA-45A4-BC01-5BC52780682A.png.4a9a7ed09ecef1e25e0abfcbd29b23c5.png.

You don’t need to show an image of two people copulating in order to teach about human sexuality. Teach them the basics and answer any questions the students might have. At some point you’re going to have to answer with, “You’re just going to have to figure that out for yourself.” (Like, suppose if someone asks you what it tastes like.)

I don’t care what the subject is, but frankly, unless it was for an art class, I’d be concerned if I found my child was reading a graphic novel as part of their school work. I don’t care if it was about the American Revolution or the writing of the Constitution. Here’s another quote from the abstract you linked: “Because the average US adult reads at an eighth grade reading level or below, the National Institute of Health and American Medical Association recommend patient education materials be at a sixth grade reading level or below.” I’m not sending my kid to school so they can read at an 8th grade level. I’m sending them to school so they can not only read a scientific study but so they can conceive of the study, conduct the research, and publish their findings themselves if that’s what they want to do. 

If you want to argue that yes, every variety of sexual activity should be taught in the public schools then I think you’re veering into Monty Python territory. It’s not practical and it’s not necessary. (And perhaps you haven’t been exposed to some of the more, shall we say, “esoteric” varieties of behaviors some people practice.) Billions of years of evolution make it all pretty natural. We wouldn’t be here if the whole process weren’t fairly self explanatory. We have images of fetuses touching their genitals in the womb. Touching yourself is as natural as it gets. Have you ever noticed how infant children put everything in their mouth? There are a lot of nerve endings in there and it’s one of the most sensitive parts of our body. The instinct to suck on the female nipple is literally as fundamental as any in our mammalian nature. We’re called mammals for a reason.

About oral sex: You can use your mouth during sexual activity in any way you like, in any way that pleases you and your partner. There, that’s everything you need to know about oral sex. But this book isn’t teaching how to have oral sex. Everybody knows how to have oral sex. Not everybody knows how to do it well but it’s not the responsibility of the public schools to teach that.

Nobody reaches their sexual peak until after high school. I believe in the adage that you learn by doing. I think that applies to sexual activity as much as anything else. So far I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s beneficial to the emotional development of teenagers of any persuasion to be exposed to images of other people having sex. I’ve only seen some people insisting that it is beneficial as though that’s self-evident. I remain unconvinced.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/2/2023 at 4:56 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

I’m sorry. Did I use too many words for your brain to cogitate upon? Perhaps that gives us some insight into why you’re defending a comic book. You don’t have to be a doctor to understand scientific research. It does require being able to digest more material than can be contained in a tweet. Your wisecrack doesn’t inspire confidence in your ability to grasp a scientific study even if you could cite one.

Okay, I’ll try to turn down the snark now but I think that was warranted. Hire an editor? Don’t take this the wrong way, but fuck off. This isn’t Twitter.

The abstract you linked isn’t relevant. No one is arguing that illustrations don’t aid in education. That study is about communication in the doctor-patient relationship. From the introduction: “Lower health literacy is prevalent in the US and is linked to limited understanding of one’s medical condition and treatment. Pictures increase comprehension, recall, adherence and attention in health settings.” That graphic novel isn’t being provided by a medical doctor to a patient so they can better understand oral sex. I’ll bet it’s not a textbook in a health class. For future reference, do your googling to find out if there’s clinical evidence that supports your assertion before you make the claim that there is. Because what you linked isn’t it. ‘I’m sure it’s out there but neither of us could understand it because we’re not doctors’ is not a valid argument. Your imagination is not proof. And speak for yourself when it comes to your inability to read and comprehend a scientific study. I should note that, though all of my science books contained illustrations, none of them were graphic novels.

Okay, so maybe just a little more snark.

Speaking of illustrations used for education, I’m familiar with illustrations like this:

028DA23C-90BA-45A4-BC01-5BC52780682A.png.4a9a7ed09ecef1e25e0abfcbd29b23c5.png.

You don’t need to show an image of two people copulating in order to teach about human sexuality. Teach them the basics and answer any questions the students might have. At some point you’re going to have to answer with, “You’re just going to have to figure that out for yourself.” (Like, suppose if someone asks you what it tastes like.)

I don’t care what the subject is, but frankly, unless it was for an art class, I’d be concerned if I found my child was reading a graphic novel as part of their school work. I don’t care if it was about the American Revolution or the writing of the Constitution. Here’s another quote from the abstract you linked: “Because the average US adult reads at an eighth grade reading level or below, the National Institute of Health and American Medical Association recommend patient education materials be at a sixth grade reading level or below.” I’m not sending my kid to school so they can read at an 8th grade level. I’m sending them to school so they can not only read a scientific study but so they can conceive of the study, conduct the research, and publish their findings themselves if that’s what they want to do. 

If you want to argue that yes, every variety of sexual activity should be taught in the public schools then I think you’re veering into Monty Python territory. It’s not practical and it’s not necessary. (And perhaps you haven’t been exposed to some of the more, shall we say, “esoteric” varieties of behaviors some people practice.) Billions of years of evolution make it all pretty natural. We wouldn’t be here if the whole process weren’t fairly self explanatory. We have images of fetuses touching their genitals in the womb. Touching yourself is as natural as it gets. Have you ever noticed how infant children put everything in their mouth? There are a lot of nerve endings in there and it’s one of the most sensitive parts of our body. The instinct to suck on the female nipple is literally as fundamental as any in our mammalian nature. We’re called mammals for a reason.

About oral sex: You can use your mouth during sexual activity in any way you like, in any way that pleases you and your partner. There, that’s everything you need to know about oral sex. But this book isn’t teaching how to have oral sex. Everybody knows how to have oral sex. Not everybody knows how to do it well but it’s not the responsibility of the public schools to teach that.

Nobody reaches their sexual peak until after high school. I believe in the adage that you learn by doing. I think that applies to sexual activity as much as anything else. So far I haven’t seen any evidence that it’s beneficial to the emotional development of teenagers of any persuasion to be exposed to images of other people having sex. I’ve only seen some people insisting that it is beneficial as though that’s self-evident. I remain unconvinced.

Expand  

 

cutlipclass.png

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for posting something semi newsworthy…  

The state board of education, whose appointed chairman is a chiropractor from Lufkin, held a preliminary vote to stand down in their opposition of school vouchers. Just last November they voted to oppose it. The only hope to save what’s left of public schools is, checks notes, rural republicans in the house. Lordy
 

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/02/state-board-of-education-school-vouchers/

  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Article from Texas Monthly just came out.  Hits close to home since this is about my area in Dripping Springs. 

 

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/campaign-to-sabotage-texas-public-schools/?fbclid=IwAR0qmJKgdbM9D8mFzXs_cxTVLNTaue74rK6B2_S-5scnG4uNnV7nNYzBU4w

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 1/30/2023 at 9:44 PM, Anwar Namtut said:

Idaho lawmaker teaches guns and feminism

Figured this was a good place as any.

Expand  

Speaking of Idaho

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/02/idaho-bill-would-allow-parents-to-sue-over-harmful-books-in-schools-libraries/

  Quote

A new Idaho bill would open schools and public libraries to lawsuits for allowing minors to obtain books, films and other media that depict sexual content deemed “offensive.” 

The legislation, from Rep. Jaron Crane, R-Nampa, would allow parents to sue schools and libraries if employees gave their child “harmful” material or if the institution failed to take “reasonable steps to restrict access” to “harmful” materials for minors.

Expand  
  Quote

Currently, schools, libraries, colleges, universities and museums are exempt from the law barring the distribution of “harmful” materials to minors. Last year, the Idaho House passed a bill that would have removed the exemption and made employees of those institutions liable for criminal penalties. Senate Republicans declined to hold a hearing on the bill, effectively killing it.

Crane’s bill creates civil, rather than criminal, liability for schools and libraries. A guardian of a child who was able to obtain “harmful” material from a library or school can claim $10,000 in statutory damages for each instance the material was obtained

Expand  

simon cowell facepalm GIF

"offensive" is going to be whatever some snowflake makes it out to be, whether or not it actually meets the criteria that's been tossed about (depictions of sex, nudity, etc.) and it also means some parents are going to look at it as an easy way to make some money.  

Meanwhile, they ignore what their kids are doing on their smartphones.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't stand these book burning assholes but I also think it's an overreach that removing these books are depriving students of finding reading material that helps them understand any challenges they're facing.

When young Eddie was in a small town Texas junior high in the mid-80s, our school library mainly consisted of books from pre-1970. Internet wasn't even a dream for us. I still recall picking books off the shelf that showed previous students checking out the books from the 40s. To say we had a lack of book variety is an understatement.

Today, most students have access to everything in the world via the internet. I recognize that some students may have limited access due to parental controls but I bet even that is a rare case. I still say the book burners should be denied but I also don't see this as big of an issue as some say it is.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/14/2023 at 3:00 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can't stand these book burning assholes but I also think it's an overreach that removing these books are depriving students of finding reading material that helps them understand any challenges they're facing.

When young Eddie was in a small town Texas junior high in the mid-80s, our school library mainly consisted of books from pre-1970. Internet wasn't even a dream for us. I still recall picking books off the shelf that showed previous students checking out the books from the 40s. To say we had a lack of book variety is an understatement.

Today, most students have access to everything in the world via the internet. I recognize that some students may have limited access due to parental controls but I bet even that is a rare case. I still say the book burners should be denied but I also don't see this as big of an issue as some say it is.

Expand  

Cool, then let's ban the bible, too..."Christians" can find bible verses online...that's all they really need.   

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/14/2023 at 3:46 PM, DigglerontheHoof said:

Cool, then let's ban the bible, too..."Christians" can find bible verses online...that's all they really need.   

Expand  

Conservatives have been focusing on running for smaller elected offices like school boards, so many areas in Texas will face conservatives policies whether individuals like it or not.  Elections have consequences.  Elect Qanon adherents or CRT fearmongers, and they will look to influence the students.

When you hear the Right talk about college students being indoctrinated by evil, Communist professors, just remember that the Right is actively doing the same via local elections.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Right Wing, despite some of the recent in-house squabbles, has to be credited for their ability to align their interests toward a common goal. It's always been about money and power, and their latest strategy, a multi- pronged approach, is winning.

To wit:

K-12 education is a venture capitalist's gold mine and as this article I've linked points out, "one of the last honeypots for Wall Street." I first read this article (link below) back when I served on a bond committee for our local ISD (that Dripping Springs article gave me some PTSD I tell you) and the article is even more relevant today.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/venture-capitalists-are-poised-disrupt-everything-about-education-market/

We're talking big big money, and the various entities that rely on that money. The publishers of textbooks, software, testing services, and on and on. Billions. Billions of state and federal tax dollars just waiting to be scooped up at will.

Tied into the comments about charter schools and private schools being able to influence who attends and what they study are those curriculum decisions on the aforementioned publications. What is emphasized or omitted in the textbooks, the libraries, the classrooms. As one of the largest states, Texas is a curriculum influencer. and that has a domino effect throughout education. The power of who attends which school and what the students study falls into the hands of the state, the local powers that be (school boards), and the billionaires who funded it all.

For the top tier class, having a large mass of uneducated citizenry is to their benefit. The greater the income inequality, the less mobility to change classes, to change jobs, to change lives. For others in power,  it is having a overarching theocratic form of education that indoctrinates the citizenry to serve whom they say to serve and to deem worthy whom they say is worthy.

Studying America's past and the history of slavery isn't just about racism. Students who learn about slavery also learn about labor and freedom, about politics and power, about what things have changed over time and what haven't.

The coalitions within the GOP have aligned with these goals in mind and regardless of who is the upfront on the news  'leader,' the money and power behind the scenes has not ever stopped doing what they do best.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/14/2023 at 3:00 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can't stand these book burning assholes but I also think it's an overreach that removing these books are depriving students of finding reading material that helps them understand any challenges they're facing.

Expand  

The problem is that these assholes aren't going to stop.  These are just the first steps, and for an example of how far things can go, Dan Patrick has already made it one of the focuses of the legislature to police what universities are teaching in terms of history and race.

You know Texas's history will not be taught honestly - things like this little assembly/document from February of 1861 will be banned.

https://www.tsl.texas.gov/ref/abouttx/secession/2feb1861.html

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former as one of the co-equal States thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility [sic] and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.

....

and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/14/2023 at 2:42 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Speaking of Idaho

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/02/idaho-bill-would-allow-parents-to-sue-over-harmful-books-in-schools-libraries/

simon cowell facepalm GIF

"offensive" is going to be whatever some snowflake makes it out to be, whether or not it actually meets the criteria that's been tossed about (depictions of sex, nudity, etc.) and it also means some parents are going to look at it as an easy way to make some money.  

Meanwhile, they ignore what their kids are doing on their smartphones.

Expand  

What some Idahoans deem “offensive” would soon include science books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 2/14/2023 at 3:00 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I can't stand these book burning assholes but I also think it's an overreach that removing these books are depriving students of finding reading material that helps them understand any challenges they're facing.

When young Eddie was in a small town Texas junior high in the mid-80s, our school library mainly consisted of books from pre-1970. Internet wasn't even a dream for us. I still recall picking books off the shelf that showed previous students checking out the books from the 40s. To say we had a lack of book variety is an understatement.

Today, most students have access to everything in the world via the internet. I recognize that some students may have limited access due to parental controls but I bet even that is a rare case. I still say the book burners should be denied but I also don't see this as big of an issue as some say it is.

Expand  

You really could've just posted this, unironically:

This is fine' creator reflects on 10 years of the comic meme : NPR

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...