1,326 karma · joined November 11, 2016
Whence "should"? Why "equitable"? Why care about what everyone wants?
You trying to dominate somebody with these normative assertions?
Wait until it is asked for.
The federal ADEA (the Age Discrimination in Employment Act) only creates a right of action for people over 40.
It’s a weird one for sure. I wonder, if age were a suspect classification like sex, if the ADEA itself would be unconstitutional.
So, “sex” is a protected class, and the protection applies to everyone. There have been cases protecting males from discrimination on the basis of sex (for example - where a state had a higher minimum drinking age for men than women).
To be more direct, I’m suspicious that this is just a misleading / question begging way of saying “in 73% of accidents, someone was speeding.” Which doesn’t really tell me anything unless I have already accepted the premise that speeding is usually a problem.
I think a lot of people just prefer to live in their own house with their own yard where they can’t hear their neighbors. And those people prefer to travel in private transport that can hold a few kids and is protected from the weather.
The sentence you quoted literally presumes that that is the case. I say if you think it’s ok for one group to impose its values on kids as a whole you should think what these parents are doing (trying to impose their values) is ok.
But I suggest we should instead try to look for non-zero-sum solutions where neither group does that.
By and large I agree with them. But, I don’t think that when the people running a public institution disproportionately represent one cultural perspective, we should automatically trust what they believe about what is “good” or “important,” especially when they are making decisions over the objections of another group in the public. Like I said above, I don’t think you should dismiss a person’s perspective only because if immutable characteristics, but when one group controlling an institution treats its own preferences as an objectively correct “view from nowhere” you should be suspicious. I was persuaded to this idea by my fellow lefties, who seem to forget it entirely when the group running the institution is like them (college educated. Likes PBS) and the group objecting is one they don’t like (conservative white Christians).
“People like me have views that are right and good and children of The Other will be better off if we can teach them the backwards, ignorant values of their parents are wrong” is the view of the “parents should have no say” crowd of today and the “Indian residential schools are a good idea” crowd of the past.
If a person thinks that to the greatest degree possible the preferences of conservative / working class parents shouldn’t hamper access for other kids, i’m with them. If they think “the experts” who happen to be the same SEC / social class as themselves are neutral arbiters of goodness, I think they should reflect on what that generally looks like.
As for Austin and Chicago, we’re talking about public schools here. A context where parents who aren’t well off are forced to send their kids to be taught by agents of the state. It is a much bigger deal if the public schools only represent the views of the liberal college educated class.
And do you feel this way about other government services “these people can receive government benefits too if they agree to sending their children to 3 hours of conservative political indoctrination per week. If they have a problem with that, I guess they shouldn’t be poor.”
Should citizens have influence over the police? I mean if they don’t like the service they can always just move to a rich neighborhood.
ETA: I should not have jumped to conclusions. Maybe you think poor and middle class parents should be able to influence their kids education too. Maybe you’re pro vouchers or something.
As to the question “what about books I think are really bad?” I don’t see how that’s much different than what these parents are asking.
And personally, I would expect high school libraries to have Lenin’s “What is to be done?” and Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” I wonder how many do?
Personally, I would look for solutions that maximize the chances of everybody getting what they want. Maybe parents can sign a waiver for their kids to get certain books, maybe this is all an argument for school choice. Just because government funds the schools doesn’t mean we have to put parents in this zero sum position where they’re fighting over who gets to present their values to the other side’s kids.
Personally, I think it’s good for kids to be presented with a lot of different perspectives. I’ve read several of the books on these lists since they started going around and haven’t found one I think is inappropriate for a high schooler to choose to read.
But I wonder how many books raising explicit concerns about trans issues are stocked in these libraries? If they stock How To Be An Antiracist, do they have books that are critical of that?
Also, I think it would be helpful if the people defending these books focused on a substantive defense of the content instead of trying to invalidate the opinions of their critics based on identity characteristics.
The state can’t take away my guns. The state doesn’t have to buy me any guns.
The wikipedia article gp linked and I quoted says that street is another word for road and is usually used for paved roads. I’d say that that is consistent with how i’ve seen people use those words.
And of course using words as they are commonly used doesn’t make people bad or stupid. Similarly, using a non-standard definition of a word in some narrow setting doesn’t make the people doing that bad or stupid. But it’s silly for people in that latter group to behave as if the definition they’ve made up is the REAL one that other people just don’t know about.
ETA: I don’t think I have a word for what they’re calling “streets.” Which makes sense; I’m sure if there were an existing word for this, urban planners would just use that instead of repurposing “street.” If it were up to me, I probably would have chosen a different word, since this usage is so at odds with the norm, but I don’t think it matters much as long as the usage is consistent within the discipline itself.
I lived in NYC for a decade and know plenty of city residents, none of whom make this distinction. I really hope this doesn’t turn into a case of niche experts redefining a common word and then insisting that people using the normal definition are somehow wrong or less precise.
Yes, inferring bad motives to other people is bad. We should try to be charitable.
>> They might judge you and believe the reason you're not on camera is because you're busy doing something else.
Sounds like these people ^^^ are the ones who need to hear that message.
I assume this is part of the appeal. The group over individual rights.
Then how about you try again and answer it directly this time?
Gas powered electric generators
If anything it seems like you would agree that in the absence of evidence humility is appropriate. People who acted like only fringe conspiracy theorists would even consider lab origins should reflect on their overconfidence and arrogance. It’s not a slam dunk either way and probably never will be, if i had to guess.