School Kids - Pawns in Social Reform and their Domestic Terrorist Parents

[Ann]

California:
 

 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

12 minutes ago, Ann said:

California:
 

 

 

"It takes a village."

 

According to the President and First Lady that worked VERY hard to keep their child out of the public eye while in the White House, of course.

[Boyst]

2 hours ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

"It takes a village."

 

According to the President and First Lady that worked VERY hard to keep their child out of the public eye while in the White House, of course.

are you connected enough to have heard the stories about the BS they were up to? they rivaled the Bush twins if not surpassed.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, Boyst said:

are you connected enough to have heard the stories about the BS they were up to? they rivaled the Bush twins if not surpassed.

 

I'm talking about Chelsea.  "It takes a village" was originally Hillary's line.  

[Ann]

 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Ann]

Godley Independent School District, Texas, is making parents sign this during the enrollment process.

 

You can’t move on to the next page in the registration process unless you sign this & give up your 1A rights. 

 

I would like to remind a lot of you that while school is in session, many of my articles and reports are from parents who have reached out to me to bring attention to serious issues within the public school system because they are being shut out, silenced and threatened by school administration and teachers. 

 

You know that your school has a problem when you have to force parents to sign something like this.

 

 

[Taro T]

34 minutes ago, Ann said:

Godley Independent School District, Texas, is making parents sign this during the enrollment process.

 

You can’t move on to the next page in the registration process unless you sign this & give up your 1A rights. 

 

I would like to remind a lot of you that while school is in session, many of my articles and reports are from parents who have reached out to me to bring attention to serious issues within the public school system because they are being shut out, silenced and threatened by school administration and teachers. 

 

You know that your school has a problem when you have to force parents to sign something like this.

 

 

 

It's an admission that there's an issue/issues at the school.  But it isn't necessarily that of the school/teachers. 

And, while admitting it's sad that the school has to essentially hit parents over the head before complaining about issues they're having with the school / teachers / other students / etc; when did it change from the right thing to do being "if you or your child has a problem, talk with the teacher 1st, then the administration, & then escalate to outside parties if you can't get to an acceptable understanding from that" to complain on-line or to a reporter about something and THEN try to address it through "proper" channels?

 

Isn't that common sense that if you have an issue with someone, you take it up with them 1st before running on to some other person?  Nothing on that page says that parents are giving up their 1st amendment rights to speak to whomever they want.  (And presumably broadcast over SM all their complaints.)  They just agree to try to talk to the teacher/principal 1st.  Heck, it doesn't even say they'll actually talk to the the teacher/principal 1st; it just says the parent agrees to "contact" the teacher/administration 1st.  If it said they can't contact outsiders at all nor tell their story at all; that would be VERY bad.  But that's not what it's saying.

 

And the 2nd highlighted item merely says "we agree that not everything on the internet is necessarily true."  Seems sad that they feel a need to get people to agree to that.  But don't see where simply acknowledging that is somehow diminishing their 1st amendment rights.  Hey, not everything on the internet is true.  Yeah, so ####ing what?

 

And personally like the idea of making parents agree not to doxx other students.  (Which is what the next unhighlighted item covers.)

 

Is there something else there?  Not seeing it.

[Ann]

5 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

It's an admission that there's an issue/issues at the school.  But it isn't necessarily that of the school/teachers. 

And, while admitting it's sad that the school has to essentially hit parents over the head before complaining about issues they're having with the school / teachers / other students / etc; when did it change from the right thing to do being "if you or your child has a problem, talk with the teacher 1st, then the administration, & then escalate to outside parties if you can't get to an acceptable understanding from that" to complain on-line or to a reporter about something and THEN try to address it through "proper" channels?

 

Isn't that common sense that if you have an issue with someone, you take it up with them 1st before running on to some other person?  Nothing on that page says that parents are giving up their 1st amendment rights to speak to whomever they want.  (And presumably broadcast over SM all their complaints.)  They just agree to try to talk to the teacher/principal 1st.  Heck, it doesn't even say they'll actually talk to the the teacher/principal 1st; it just says the parent agrees to "contact" the teacher/administration 1st.  If it said they can't contact outsiders at all nor tell their story at all; that would be VERY bad.  But that's not what it's saying.

 

And the 2nd highlighted item merely says "we agree that not everything on the internet is necessarily true."  Seems sad that they feel a need to get people to agree to that.  But don't see where simply acknowledging that is somehow diminishing their 1st amendment rights.  Hey, not everything on the internet is true.  Yeah, so ####ing what?

 

And personally like the idea of making parents agree not to doxx other students.  (Which is what the next unhighlighted item covers.)

 

Is there something else there?  Not seeing it.

Who says things go anywhere administration-wise if there are complaints? Is this another instance of trying to control information and hide bad behavior? Why can't parents take their complaints public?

(Agree about not doxxing kids)

[Chandemonium]

44 minutes ago, Ann said:

Godley Independent School District, Texas, is making parents sign this during the enrollment process.

 

You can’t move on to the next page in the registration process unless you sign this & give up your 1A rights. 

 

I would like to remind a lot of you that while school is in session, many of my articles and reports are from parents who have reached out to me to bring attention to serious issues within the public school system because they are being shut out, silenced and threatened by school administration and teachers. 

 

You know that your school has a problem when you have to force parents to sign something like this.

 

 

I don’t see how this giving up 1A rights. The sentence preceding the list is “I acknowledge the following best practices.” The fact that the practices are also written in first person language and say will rather than should does make it seem like an oath, and is likely intentional. Nevertheless, acknowledging best practices is not the same thing as pledging to actually behave that way, and there’s no consequences prescribed for not following those practices. 

[Taro T]

1 minute ago, Ann said:

Who says things go anywhere administration-wise if there are complaints? Is this another instance of trying to control information and hide bad behavior? Why can't parents take their complaints public?

(Agree about not doxxing kids)

 

Again, WHERE in that does it say you have to have anything actually move forward through the administration before going outside the "chain of command?"  It JUST says "If I have an issue with something at school, I will not IMMEDIATELY (emphasis mine) post to Social Media.  I will first CONTACT (again emphasis mine) the teacher or administrator to understand the full situation and understand all facts."

 

It doesn't say the parent will NOT go to social media (nor the traditional media, either ftm) at all, just that they won't go there prior to trying to have all the information available.  And, personally, would say that if they AREN'T able to speak to the teacher or administrator in a timely manner THAT in itself would provide an understanding of the full situation and facts.

 

Honestly not seeing how it is wrong or bad to TRY to resolve the issue directly before running to TMZ or Tik-tok or whatever.  Realizing news cycles being what they are, but is it really going to affect the outcome waiting a few hours or a day or 2 before posting the perceived issue to the world?  Honestly not seeing it.  Maybe you could point out what is being missed here?  'Cause, simply am not seeing it.

 

And to answer your questions: 1. nobody is saying that; 2. possibly, but if it is, it ISN'T going to be effective though it MAY actually save EVERYONE some serious angst should the adults involved, maybe, discuss what the issue is before literally making a federal case out of it; and 3. where does it say they can't, personally don't see anywhere that is says they CAN'T go public.

[Ann]

Just now, Taro T said:

 

Again, WHERE in that does it say you have to have anything actually move forward through the administration before going outside the "chain of command?"  It JUST says "If I have an issue with something at school, I will not IMMEDIATELY (emphasis mine) post to Social Media.  I will first CONTACT (again emphasis mine) the teacher or administrator to understand the full situation and understand all facts."

 

It doesn't say the parent will NOT go to social media (nor the traditional media, either ftm) at all, just that they won't go there prior to trying to have all the information available.  And, personally, would say that if they AREN'T able to speak to the teacher or administrator in a timely manner THAT in itself would provide an understanding of the full situation and facts.

 

Honestly not seeing how it is wrong or bad to TRY to resolve the issue directly before running to TMZ or Tik-tok or whatever.  Realizing news cycles being what they are, but is it really going to affect the outcome waiting a few hours or a day or 2 before posting the perceived issue to the world?  Honestly not seeing it.  Maybe you could point out what is being missed here?  'Cause, simply am not seeing it.

 

And to answer your questions: 1. nobody is saying that; 2. possibly, but if it is, it ISN'T going to be effective though it MAY actually save EVERYONE some serious angst should the adults involved, maybe, discuss what the issue is before literally making a federal case out of it; and 3. where does it say they can't, personally don't see anywhere that is says they CAN'T go public.

Why shouldn't someone immediately take to social media if they choose to?  I am not saying it is right or a good idea, but why shouldn't someone have the right to do so?
 

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why shouldn't someone immediately take to social media if they choose to?  I am not saying it is right or a good idea, but why shouldn't someone have the right to do so?
 

 

Why?  Because, just playing devil's advocate here, MAYBE the story they're getting from their kid ISN'T actually the truth?  Or, maybe the kid, and therefore the parent only has PART of the story?  

 

Why, because maybe they'll incite others to be pissed off about something that ISN'T ACTUALLY happening?  Anecdote here - when they redesigned the quarter about 20 yeasrs ago, had an uncle REALLY pissed off that they took "In God We Trust" off the quarter.  That is, until he was shown that it was still there, it was just moved to the circumferential edge.  He'd gotten riled up over something that wasn't even true and he'd gotten others riled up over something that isn't true.

 

Sure, they have the right to do so as an American citizen; but don't people also have the responsibility to not go spreading falsehoods if they can help it?

 

After all the BS we've seen from others going around half cocked, why would anyone other than a person who monetizes these sort of stories, want to see people running to the media before understanding what is actually happening? 

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

18 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why shouldn't someone immediately take to social media if they choose to?  I am not saying it is right or a good idea, but why shouldn't someone have the right to do so?
 

 

Because, as I recall, criticizing a school board now constitutes domestic terrorism.

 

Or maybe that's just in Virginia.

[Ann]

Just now, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Because, as I recall, criticizing a school board now constitutes domestic terrorism.

 

Or maybe that's just in Virginia.

Yup

[Uncle Joe]

27 minutes ago, Ann said:

Why shouldn't someone immediately take to social media if they choose to?  I am not saying it is right or a good idea, but why shouldn't someone have the right to do so?
 

Because Jimmy Carter isn't dead.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

4 minutes ago, Uncle Joe said:

Because Jimmy Carter isn't dead.

 

Guy's 99, been in hospice for a year, and is basically a walking liver spot.  I'd be more skeptical of reports of Francisco Franco's death than Jimmy Carter's.   So just excuse the shit out of me...

 

[Uncle Joe]

5 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

Guy's 99, been in hospice for a year, and is basically a walking liver spot.  I'd be more skeptical of reports of Francisco Franco's death than Jimmy Carter's.   So just excuse the shit out of me...

 

It wasn't a personal shot. I was just pointing out that you can't believe everything on X in real time. 

Yes, I am happy they took away Twitter's "fact checkers" but we can't even determine if Biden is alive or an AI recording. 🍻

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

1 minute ago, Uncle Joe said:

It wasn't a personal shot. I was just pointing out that you can't believe everything on X in real time. 

Yes, I am happy they took away Twitter's "fact checkers" but we can't even determine if Biden is alive or an AI recording. 🍻

 

I know it wasn't a personal shot.  Why do you think I toasted you? 

[Uncle Joe]

6 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

I know it wasn't a personal shot.  Why do you think I toasted you? 

Yeah, I got that as I was posting. That's why I ended with Prost.