Eh, there's a lot of regulations and room for whistleblowers in regards to the government's ability to get that in the USA, plus the 4th Amendment providing some pressure from the courts.
I'm not gonna say it's anywhere near perfect, but that friction significantly changes the average outcomes
Nothing. She recognized there was no way to fight back. Her principal just felt the need to tell her that if she were to try to defend herself, she would be the one held to be at fault by the principal. The union similarly did nothing. There is no quicker way to radicalize a pro-union liberal than to be told from their union that they will not defend you against threats of sexual assault at work.
I've read some other stories like this commented throughout the post. It's not far-fetched, cause even if a union is really for the teachers, it has to choose its battles.
Well exactly, and the democratic party is basically a mouthpiece of the teacher's unions. To criticize the teachers union at all would quickly remove you from the democrat party. My mom has shifted rightward a lot but is not a die-hard republican. She is a die-hard never democrat though. She votes straight ticket against the voter's pamphlet issued by the California's teacher's association every year.
I don't think you need to go that far but not punishing teachers for defending themselves from violence would be a good start honestly. Defend yourself from a kid hitting you and you're the one in trouble in most places.
Conservatives believe that people need to meet the same standards, and that it is racist to not hold people to those standards. This means if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher it's treated the same as if a white kid at a rich school hits a teacher - very seriously.
Liberals believe in intersectionalism, and that marginalized groups need unique affordances. This means accepting that if a black kid at a poor school hits a teacher, it may be because of poverty and racism and we should understand the issue in that context.
I must have missed that part of Voltaire. Its progressives (socialists) that believe in intersectionalism and they don't agree with liberals on almost anything. If you think otherwise, you just don't know what any of those terms actually mean.
Your correct in those terms actual meaning, but no, that’s now how they’re used in current mainstream political discourse in the USA. Do you live here?
Conservatives believe in defunding public education, social security and perpetuating root causes of a lot of issues like this that can directly be linked to, racism, poverty and lack of access to education.
Conservatives believe in double standards when it comes to "holding people to the same standards". White kids get off scott free way more often for the same crimes than kids of color.
Do your research.
I don't think this is consistent with reality. Are the historical inequities causing a lot these issues as you mention, or are you arguing there actually are no issues because in fact white kids are committing just as many crimes?
In a world where we solve racism, poverty, and lack of access to education do we expect white kids to now be committing way more crimes than non-whites?
Conservative people are definitely more favorable of tough punishment against students and giving teachers more power, but do conservative politicians actually pass laws to this effect? I'm wondering what a bad school looks like in a red vs blue district.
liberalism tends to see all of these issues as the results of the students being victims of something. She believes her students suffered from poor parenting and placed the blame on the families.
In her case, she's a brown woman teaching brown and black kids. She used to think the police were being racial in their interactions. Now she's like... Well they are hurting people and we can't help if the races of the perpetrators just so happen to be whatever
A whole slew of things she just changed her mind on essentially. She felt lied to by the progressive establishment. Moreover when she tried to do something or complain to the union, she was basically thrown under the bus. So her final bit of union sympathy also left her.
I would argue conservatism is the cause of this problem. Their constant attacks on educators and education in general are so pervasive.
Additionally, there's no world in which they want these parents to actually succeed. If there's ever a scenario where someone tries to improve the lives of these people, conservatives will argue that they do not deserve it because they don't contribute to society like conservatives do.
Some do, others will even get upset if you don't. It's pretty funny imho, for some reason they never communicate these things ahead of time. We're not mind readers!!!
I prefer to be polarized over being ignorant (and, frankly, I was polarized long before I was ever on twitter, long before Musk bought it). The financial times is not covering NSPM-7. The NyTimes has barely mentioned it. Ken Klippenstein certainly is covering it, though.
Technically, you don't need to be on twitter to follow him—but it's certainly easier to follow the general discourse if you are.
Among all these pictures there is exactly 1, the first one that would be an example of someone living in an important place, a middle of a road, and refusing to move.
And the occupied place isn't very important to the state, but rather only to a couple of residents.
All others just show that demolitions have started, and there are houses not yet demolished.
0/1.4 billions of people is actually convincing the other way you intended.
This reply doesn't make a lick of sense. You're just making things up off the top of your head.
The point is that China doesn't "just crush" dissenters. This is ignorant Western fantasy which is used by people to justify the dismantling of their own rights. China needs a Bill of Rights like the US's, and most of the US populace needs to stop being such a sucker for nearly century-old propaganda that it doesn't burn its own treasure in service of elite-propagated paranoia.
reply