1
Social Media's Cringiest Conservative Is Running for School Board -- As a Democrat
(www.rollingstone.com)
I wonder if she figured out what "woke" is yet?
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2701 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Conservatism is the opposite of whatever liberals stand for, updated daily.
Fuckers give homeschooling a bad name when it has so much potential.
Homeschooling is child abuse, in the majority of cases. Kids need to interact with other kids, and be taught by people who are trained to do it effectively with curriculum that isn’t based on the invisible man in the sky’s alleged preferences.
haha no it isn't, don't be absurd about topics for which you only scratch the surface in knowing anything about. Please further don't pretend you're a child psychologist who has the end-all interpretation of understanding what children need.
You refer to homeschooling in stereotypes as though every homeschooled household is the Turpin family. Your frame of reference is squarely based on on the worst offenders that hit the news headlines. Yet throughout university you probably didn't realize there were many of us in your classes who socialized just fine and aced classes in a variety of difficult majors.
You stereotype homeschooling from these outliers; such pointing to worst offenders is like if I were to point out the prevalence of school shooters and teen suicides public schooling produces and the associated risks and blanketing that as a reason to not go to public-school. It's almost like there's a bit more nuance than you lend credence. I'll even be willing to submit cons that should be addressed and considered before anyone else considers for themselves.
So if you're really interested in extending this beyond your shallow understanding, then please, let's engage in this wholeheartedly and I can provide with both reason and evidence precisely why you're incorrect. You miss a wide variety of benefits from homeschooling that I'd be happy to walk you through if you are genuinely interested in going beyond mere stereotypes.
For starters, please separate religious fundamentalism from the act of schooling; these are two separate things and secular homeschoolers like us who believe in science and quality education exist.
Signed, a homeschooled person now in his 30s who excelled in a STEM field and is now married with 2 kids to a publicly-schooled wife who agrees with the merits of homeschooling.
Lmfao I love that your argument for home schooling includes talking down on someone's intelligence for not being qualified to speak on child psychology. Yet you're advocating that people that aren't qualified should be allowed to teach their kids and don't yourself have a degree relating to the field
My guy, the dude literally called it child abuse without any evidence or position of expertise whatsoever. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you can point to me where homeschooling is classified as child abuse under any major regulatory body or psychology association, I'll eat my words.
There is evidence that homeschooling yields more effective outcomes, so while your response is cute and snarky, it isn't really grounded in anything substantive. One would know this if they actually knew anything about homeschooling.
Fuck it. Since nobody seems to care about hyperbole I'll just call public schooling child abuse. After all, I'd bet money that even after factoring proportionality more suicides and homicides occur as a direct result of public schooling.
Are you basing this rant on your personal (anecdotal) experience of it working out for you, or actual statistics?
What statistics are you looking for? I do have statistics supporting the fact that homeschoolers as a general population outperform the average public schooler, academically (which is certainly one major argument of the previous user's concerns when referring to quality teachers).
And of course it goes both ways. I'm curious if those critical of homeschooling are using any sort of statistics to support their arguments as opposed to equivalent anecdotes and skewed perceptions based on news headlines.
Also, just curious: do you view the previous user's response to me a "rant" as well?
Put'em up. Got statistics? Show statistics. I don't care one whit about this argument (I homeschool my kid because I don't want him to get shot), but if you say your allegation is supported by evidence, provide the evidence. Which ones?: Yes. Let's see'em.
Isn't it amusing that nobody down-voted the user who replied to me attacking homeschooling, literally blanket calling everyone who engages in it child abuse without any merit and giving zero credible evidence or statistics, themselves?
I wonder, are you going to ask them for statistics?
And sure; merely a google search away:
Edit: See? Down-voted for literally giving sources while zero has been given as a counter-argument in return and literally not one substantive counter-point or even an acceptance to have an honest conversation so far. Just ad hominems against me and anonymous dissent.
72% of the homeschooled student learned for 5 hours each week
(If this is true that's very alarming) But a few lines later it reads:
The number of students who learned for between 25 to 40 hours a week was 50%.
There are plenty of other examples of contradicting statistics and strange grammar on this page, it makes me feel like it was written by someone homeschooled...
Considering there are kids who've gone through high school and done it in a third of the time or less, I seriously question how many substantive hours of engaged learning is actually occurring. Quality (and with it, engagement), not just quantity is all that matters. At the end of the day, isn't it more concerning to you that such amount of time is sufficient to outperform the average public schooler?
Edit: Moreover have you considered the fact that there is a 1:1 teacher ratio, and a teacher who has an invested interested in seeing their own child succeed? That the learning environment can be adapted according to that child's needs? That there is literally the aggregate of all human knowledge and online learning programs and homeschool co-ops and that homeschooled kids can utilize public school facilities and even join sports teams? Shit, I did theater....
Most critics don't. They only see the ones that make the news or people that "act" differently to them.
But is it 72% learn for 5 hours a week or 50% learn for 25-40 hours? Both can't be true.
Having a student teacher ratio 10x-20x greater than public schools one would hope that homeschoolers drastically outperform public school students, rather than just have marginally better academics. It's also worth considering that many families can't afford to have a parent teaching instead of working.
In my state, there are no reporting or testing requirements, and parents themselves issue highschool diplomas for their kids. With such lax rules in most states, how trustworthy can surveys even be about the academic performance of homeschoolers?
That's a fair point and without delving into which source this comes from in the article, my guess is they meant to say, "72% learn for at least 5 hours a week while 50% learn for 25-40".
But yeah that's fair. As I wrote from the start homeschooling is not without its downsides and definitely circumstantial. For example, if both parents are working full-time jobs, then it's probably not feasible in most cases. Either way, the general data does conclude that outcomes are better, which ultimately is all that really matters for the sake of this discussion.
In the state I lived most of my childhood, we had to do standardized testing like public schooled kids, and in addition be evaluated every end of year by a certified teacher who reviewed our learning materials (an end-of-year portfolio, basically).
In my later years, we moved to a state that like you mentioned has minimal requirements. This can of course be abused but also be a blessing under certain circumstances where an education be adapted to unique life situations.
Well your second link can't be trusted because it's from a biased source. Literally paid research by the home education group.
The first one is interesting in that it seems to be a hirable think tank. But, does at least seem to be pulling data from sources.
Now you did in fact supply sources more than the people you are arguing against but you started with emotional responses and then angrily stated that you provided resources elsewhere which isn't a great look and will build bias against you. So now you are facing a losing argument to pivot to "facts" late and with bias just makes it really hard to take your side seriously at this point.
Take a step back and let it go or start over. And know starting over is also gonna be uphill with the hole that's been dug. Sorry man. Humans are emotional at their core. All of us.
While I can understand taking with a grain of salt on a level of trust, the fact is, I've provided evidence and nobody here has been able to provide a modicum of evidence to the contrary yet. I appreciate your recognition of this. I think it's also worth pointing out that being biased does not preclude being right (e.g., a climate scientist could be considered "biased" on their case for climate change; but their evidence still strong.)
To be clear, I feel I responded to that user with an assertive, passionate response that was proportionate to the amount of substance and emotion they put into their own comments. I question if you gave a second look at what they actually wrote, what evidence they provided, and what "emotion" they brought to the table. I freely admit I'm passionate about this; but I also know for a fact that I know more on this subject-matter than any individual here that has replied to me. Sorry if that sounds arrogant, but it's frustrating when you see the same tropes play out over and over again. As you can imagine, this isn't my first discussion on this topic.
So in the end I ask: to How should I have responded that would satisfy you and meet the equivalent level of detail the user I replied to gave (and was up-voted)?
I’m just looking at nces statistics, specifically the percentage of parents that homeschool for moral or religious reasons, and drawing conclusions that may very well be bullshit. Glad it worked out for you, but I can’t help but feel sorry for kids I’ve known who would have benefited from a secular education. It’s pretty embarrassing to explain evolution to a twentysomething.
I confess I was a bit triggered by calling it child abuse in blanket terms, so I thank you for this comment. It's not suitable for everyone and yes, absolutely religious fundamentalism is a major issue. It just sucks for secular parents like us to be under that umbrella generalization. I suspect if one could partition data between secular and religious homeschooled groups there would be a pretty stark contrast in performance and objective life satisfaction.
Why are you writing like you're attempting to sound smart? Anyway, for someone who "excelled" in college, you provide surprisingly little substance in your argument. So I'll gently call you out: Convince us you're not just basing your entire argument off of personal experience.
Now I'm not saying I'm on either side. I've heard reports from both ends of that spectrum. So, lennybird, which side should we accept more strongly?
The top level comment literally provides zero substance. Why didn't you call it out?
Substance wasn't really my focus. We all have the capacity to look things up ourselves. How the other user said it, the snarkiness and better-than-thou feel, it felt like a bit much. I'm all for opinions, they get conversations going and usually someone learns something or at least has a good time. You're right though, I should have asked for the same from the original comment and not gotten stuck on the one.
Have an upvote, I deserve the call out here.
My god, man.
you provide surprisingly little substance in your argument.
Substance wasn’t really my focus
The double-standard is palpable. So I'm "snarky," but you're a liar.
I matched snarkiness with snarkiness; the previous user literally called what I went through and what I do for my kids "child abuse" and you don't fucking object to that? I'm not supposed to get passionate about that? Should I have written more typos, kissed their ass more? What would've received your blessing, exactly?
Give me a fucking break and grow up.
Tell me, what exactly did I write that makes me, "sound smart"? Please, be detailed. Is that your own insecurity talking? I've written many comments like this on other subjects, but isn't it funny how it's this specific subject-matter that makes people so often attack my character. Isn't that more of a reflection on you? Let's just start here before proceeding further.
For calling me out on little substance, it's curious that both (1) You haven't given any support to the opposite conclusion whatsoever, and (2) have only lightly cherry-picked at what you perceive as being low-hanging fruit without really countering anything, or even offering genuine questions of inquiry.
Tell me, what exactly did I write that makes me, "sound smart"
Nothing. Trying to, like they said? Plenty.
Oh really? Like where?
Edit: Just as I suspected. Low-blow cheapshot snarkiness;... But nothing in the way of substance.
You're deflecting, just like you have in other replies I've seen. Substance. You have the proof, right? It's important, so share with the class.
They were home schooled. They don't know what that means.
Damn. You're kind of an asshole, aren't you? Mother must be proud, huh buddy?
Did you learn bullying and ganging up on people in school, too?
Did you learn bullying and ganging up on people in school, too?
Ironically, yeah, sort of.
Learning to read the room and make jokes (sometimes at other's expense) is certainly something you learn from frequently socializing outside of your immediate circle.
Something that your extreme touchiness in this thread highlights. You're in an internet forum taking an aggressive stance on something unpopular, and repeatedly whine that other's aren't held to the same expectations.
You stood on the hill to die. You chose that. You homeschooling mommy and daddy can't insulate you when you leave your safe space.
And yes, that last snark was bullying. I couldn't help myself.
Ah yes, the tragedy of identifying cognitive bias and desiring "same expectations."
How very wrong and terrible of me, lol.
But yes, please keep putting doubling-down on your own ignorance and ego above learning.
That I'm nothing like you is something I am quite proud of, so I guess I'll leave it there.
How am I deflecting? Is this projection? You're deflecting, actually. Again, do tell me where I attempt to "sound smart."
Just gave it to the other user. Feel free to read.