GaimanitePkat t1_jegvi4e wrote

Reply to Job Search by thopper60

Does the Tommy's carwash guy hire felons? He's on here a bunch, seems like a real good dude. I think a decent percentage of his staff are from Reddit


GaimanitePkat t1_jdd7nq2 wrote

>How about in this age they focus on one task that they are failing at now such as reading writing and math.

Reading, writing, and math are still all taught. Nobody is replacing these subjects.

History class is in danger, though, because people don't want children to learn history and would rather they learn lies such as "Black people in America were indentured servants" and "Native people and Pilgrims were friends who got along and the Pilgrims taught the Natives their good Christian ways peacefully".


>Why skip ahead to other concepts beyond understanding if they don’t have the basics to do so.
>Why skip to teach culture of any kind if they can’t read.

Are you suggesting that having BOOKS about other cultures is stopping children from being able to read?


>Why skip to teaching sexuality and anything related if I haven’t had a period yet and again have No deducing skills to be able to pick a decent human to share sexual acts with.

The book which was the subject of the bomb threat was not being taught. It was not the focus of any lessons, lectures, or homework. It simply existed in the school. It sat on a shelf in the school. A child who read that book would have to do so on their own time.

Neutrally acknowledging that LGBT+ people exist is not "teaching sexuality". Children in a school might have LGBT+ parents, neighbors, relatives, etc. Insisting that this topic is not allowed to be even mentioned, even in the most simple terms of "this exists," helps nobody.


>Do you think because this is a structure who by the way the white Christian brought here with them is the only structure.
>Do you think my culture had a classroom of village kids in it and one ndn lady taught them language in their teepee.

I'm not sure of what you are trying to accuse me of here.


GaimanitePkat t1_jdd0sil wrote

I think that the American public school system is definitely a mess than needs serious overhaul, but I don't think that banning books/lessons/curriculum/teaching staff that represent anything other than "straight white Christian" is a step in the direction to making schools safer, more inclusive, and a better learning environment for all children.


GaimanitePkat t1_jdcygyb wrote

>First of all. You are speaking with first people indigenous roots to the lands of the earth you may be standing on today.

I understand that.

And the people who are trying to ban books about LBGT+ people are also banning books about indigenous culture.

Because they think your culture is deviant, and lesser than white culture.

Again, these are the groups you're aligning yourself with.


GaimanitePkat t1_jdcvrde wrote

>family values

Almost always a dogwhistle term for conservative heteronormativity, shaming single parents, same-sex couples, and people who choose not to procreate, and establishing the white Christian nuclear family model (with stay at home mom) as superior to all others.

So basically it's a cute little wholesome term for institutionalized racism and misogyny.


>How about good grades being mandated for the basics that is in place vs the energy spent making sure books like this that cause controversy in the first place don’t even happen

So you're saying that you agree with books about LGBT+ people and people of color being banned from schools. As though a single book in a library is causing the downfall of the American public school system.


>Before we get our panties in a bunch to the point we are fighting to get it there in the first place and someone threatens to blow up schools for it

So you're saying that terroristic threats are to be expected for the crime of including books in a school library which discuss LGBT+ themes.


>Wasted efforts when they could be spending time invested in neutral materials teaching kids fundamentals

By "neutral", of course, you mean "devoid of LGBT+ themes or mention". Kind of like how being any color other than white, and any orientation other than heterosexual, and any religion other than Christian, is considered "political".

I can see by your post history that you're American Indian - why are you aligning yourself with the groups who think that books about your culture and history should also be banned from schools? Why do you talk about "family values" when, within living memory, that included forcible assimilation of indigenous children into white society?


GaimanitePkat t1_jdcml10 wrote

I read this really gross book once as a kid. There was this part with incest where the daughter was going to bang her father when he was drunk. There was also this part where a father offered up his daughter to a bunch of horny men to rape. There was a part about women being ripped open and their babies killed by being beaten against the ground, and another part where this soldier guy burns his own daughter to death. Actually there was a bunch of talk about babies being smashed against stuff, and a ton of stuff about virgin girls being raped. And these two kids laughed at a guy and then got torn apart by bears?

I forget the name of this book. I wonder what it was. I sure hope nobody's advocating for that book to be put in any schools because frankly that shit is not okay for kids.


GaimanitePkat t1_jdclt31 wrote

>I do however believe I would have some type of feelings if a school wanted to distribute books to my elementary aged child about any sex straight gay or otherwise

Does every child read every single book in the library? Is reading every single book present in the school library a requirement for children to graduate elementary school?

I was a voracious reader as a kid. I read dozens and dozens of books. I read books at recess. I read books under my desk in class. I read books at home. I read books on the bus. I didn't come close to reading every book in the library, and I honestly didn't even bother with the nonfiction section unless it was for an assigned project or if I wanted to look at cute pictures of animals in instructional books about pet care.

The word "distribute" implies that every child is being handed a copy of this book. That isn't what happened.


GaimanitePkat t1_jaw2feb wrote

I disagree. I've seen plenty of posts on other social media which use "unalive" in a completely serious and unironic way, just because they have become so used to changing their speech for TikTok's algorithm.

Whether or not it was "specifically prescribed," using a "tongue-in-cheek" jokey word to legitimately discuss the topic of death is by nature sugarcoating it and downplaying it.

It's why I get similarly annoyed when people say things like "sending nudes to minors is uncomfy" or "don't lewd the lolis". Using cutesy and euphemistic language to describe serious topics makes light of those topics.


GaimanitePkat t1_jatqbg3 wrote

>I don't know if anyone actually knows it those words hurt your discoverability or if it was just a hoax and people follow it because the algorithm is our almighty lord and we must follow its commands or else we will be forsaken by its light.

Either way, it's shit. Let's downplay impactful terms like "Kill" because otherwise maybe you won't get a lot of views on TikTok!! O noooo, where will we be if people can't see our TikToks?! Might as well be dead! I mean, unalived!