45 ms·
Anyone else find it strange that a country that has often fallen in line with "think of the children" arguments for hypothetical dangers appears to be completel
by cassalian 6y ago
Anyone else find it strange that a country that has often fallen in line with "think of the children" arguments for hypothetical dangers appears to be completely uncaring about very real dangers of social isolation that are impacting our youth?
- ls612 6y agoIt’s almost like people don’t actually care for the children, they just know of the social consequences of crossing those who claim they do.
- rayiner 6y agoOr, it’s like education is a state and local issue and there is a US military sized budget line item called state and local education spending that’s not included in OP’s calculation of federal spending.
- germinalphrase 6y agoThe US federal gov’t spends about 3x as much on those over the age of 65 than it does those under the age of 18 (including transfer payments to parents of those children)[0]. Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote. [0]https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/23xx/doc2300/fsec.pdf https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/23x...
- selimthegrim 6y agoWhy so?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- germinalphrase 6y agoThe young have little/no independent earning capacity. The investment we put in the young has a much longer time to accrue positive personal, social and economic benefits. Positive interventions in youth poverty and social stability reduce lifelong skill and mental health deficits that promote adult health, wellness and independence.
- an_opabinia 6y agoI think you flipped the numbers my dude. The federal government spent "about $615 billion—on transfer payments and services for people age 65 or older" in 2000, and "Federal spending on children in 2000 will total about $148 billion, or $175 billion if payments to the children’s parents are included"
- germinalphrase 6y agoIndeed, I did. Edited to avoid arguing against my own position.
- tachyonbeam 6y agoI'm assuming you mean the US spends 33% as much on those under 18 as it does on those over 65 (otherwise your comment about voting makes no sense)? If so, it seem sensible for the government to spend more on the elderly, simply because they cost most and there is nobody else to pay for it. People under 18 typically have one or two parents to care for them. Older people don't have parents and don't necessarily have family to pay for their housing, food, etc. Then you also have to factor in that healthcare costs for the elderly are necessarily more expensive. Not saying kids don't deserve to be well-cared for. I was a welfare kid and I'm glad there were welfare programs. Just saying I think we'll all be glad we can also get some help when we're over 65, especially if we can't count on our family (I have no siblings and may not have children).
- sillyconesally 6y agoThere is net negative value in keeping people alive in their retirement age. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8 Bill is right. Fortunately, Covid mostly effects the elderly and is helping to correct this situation without uncomfortable "death panels". The other positive is that this will get everyone on board with a global digital identity registry, which will help with everything from climate change mitigation to solving global inequality.
- Cederfjard 6y agoI feel like the comment about voting makes perfect sense? They’re saying that children don’t vote, but old people do, so of course it’s the latter group that gets the most resources - they vote, so they have power over politicians, so politicians cater to them. That said, I think you have a good point with the rest of your comment. Edit: Oh I think I see the confusion now. Did the grandparent change their comment? At any rate, my understanding is that they’re saying that for each dollar the government spends on a child, it’s spending three dollars on a person over 65.
- bko 6y agoUS spending more than average OECD country on education in relative terms (GDP) and even more in absolute terms due to higher GDP It's just that high absolute amount of medicare spending throws off the comparison. https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_education.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF1_2_Public_expenditure_educat...
- Tossito190 6y agoIf you throw money at a black hole, and put the expenditures under the "education" column, that's where it will be counted. You should see the inane &#@* they buy, and the volumes of it they purchase.
- kortilla 6y agoThat includes social security. What a stupid comparison. The whole point of social security is a government retirement program based on you putting money into it.
- ghaff 6y agoAnd another decent chunk is federal civilian and military pensions which is also a benefit earned by working.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago> Personally, I think that should be flipped, but kid’s don’t vote. The most interesting place I've seen this type of argument made it along these lines: - US policy is for housing to appreciate in cost over time - Housing is demanded by young people starting new households, and freed up by old people dying or moving into group housing. - Housing policy is thus a massive ongoing transfer of wealth from incipient households to long-established ones. - This is no way for a non-dysfunctional society to operate
- sudosteph 6y agoThat dynamic is actually one of the reasons I think Corey Booker's "baby bonds" idea is so clever. If a child enters adulthood with some amount that has grown in a way that matches up with the economic growth at large, then maybe they won't be locked out of housing ownership.
- ZoomerCretin 6y agoThere is not enough housing. The solution to rising prices isn't giving people more money to further bid up the price, but to increase the supply of housing which would lower (or at the very least, slow the growth of) housing prices.
- dan-robertson 6y agoRising house prices are not a technical problem. Having house prices fall is a very big political problem.
- dillondoyle 6y agoI LOVE that West Wing episode. A group of kids get shuffled around the white house, not important, ignored. The leader of his school group gets to ask a question to President Bartlet after impressing a staffer. "Do you think the budget deficit is especially unfair to younger Americans?" -> " a follow up, do you think we'd have such a large deficit if children were allowed to vote?" Such a good use of debate. I think it's worth debating whether to give teens the right to vote. In my mind at least to 13 and up - but it's capricious / hard to draw the line or come up with 'tests' that aren't flat out repeating our disgusting past treatment of Black Americans. The West Wing episode [clip below] spells out some of the argument: I miss the West Wing universe. Would be awesome to see a reboot optimistic show about getting things accomplished, showing a vision for how it's possible to tackle climate change and our other ailments. But move the show past today's progress (it does not treat women well/give them voice, stance on gay marriage etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSDxg-bDw1A
- mjevans 6y agoAn A or B in highschool level Social Studies (how your government works) sounds like a good baseline; but that course would have to be moved down to middle-school.
- dillondoyle 6y agoThat was my first thought but there are so many potential pitfalls & problems. What about learning disabled, disadvantaged, just having no access or poor school/lack of opportunity etc. And what if you fail!? we can't deny the right to vote because you can't pass a test. That's what we did to black Americans. though to be honest I'm the type that judge people who don't vote. I get mad when people say 'but it doesn't do anything' but they don't vote!!! I think it should be mandatory it's the least you can do for our country. You don't have to vote for anyone can always write sponge bob or black it out as an F you to the system. Or better yet, work to elect people & pass measures that change the system!
- dan-robertson 6y ago
- sokoloff 6y agoThe overwhelming majority of that spending is social security and other retirement programs which are earned (and often paid-for) benefits from a lifetime of work. The next largest (by far) category is Medicare which was largely, but not entirely, paid for by a lifetime of work. Take just the retirement program figures out and the figures are much closer to what you prefer. Take out the half of Medicare that was paid for by seniors and it’s even closer.
- readflaggedcomm 6y agoAnd by "earned" you're evoking a moral argument, not a financial or legal one, because in the 40s and 50s Congress rejected the fully-funded model of social security. Just because you paid in doesn't mean anything will remain to take out.
- sokoloff 6y agoIn addition to a moral one, I’m invoking a mathematical and practical argument, in that you earn credits by contributing to social security and your payments are scaled by those credits.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- afavour 6y ago“think of the children” has always been a lie, though. Or at best a surface level truth. When the rubber hits the road (i.e. when it comes to spending money) the US as a country doesn’t care about things like early childhood education all that much. In many ways the pandemic response was in line with the norm: rich kids do just fine, poorer kids are mostly ignored.
- lisper 6y agoIt's not quite a lie, just a very narrow scope. The implied context of "think of the children" is usually something like, "Think of how horrible it would be if the children were exposed to temptations like sex and drugs." Other aspects of children's welfare don't figure as highly in the calculus of those who espouse this slogan.
- afavour 6y agoYeah, that's kind of what I was thinking with "surface level truth". I think if you asked the majority of the US population if they cared about children they'd say yes and I don't think they would be lying. But there's an ignorance of the bigger picture.
- lisper 6y agoI think that's still not the right way to look at it. Calling it "ignorance" is unnecessarily pejorative. It's a difference in quality metric. Some people attach a lot of value to avoiding (what they believe to be) moral transgressions because they believe it imperils their soul in the afterlife or something like that. You may vehemently disagree with this goal, but if you accept that as a goal then this narrowly focused "think of the children" actually makes logical sense because the afterlife lasts a lot longer than this one does.
- vagrantJin 6y ago> but if you accept that as a goal then this narrowly focused "think of the children" actually makes logical sense because the afterlife lasts a lot longer than this one does. The afterlife may last for a few minutes for all we know. While I do agree with you that not everything neccesarily needs to be looked at and judged quantitatively, the deep dive into esoteric ideas such as the afterlife is misplaced.
- happytoexplain 6y agoI don't understand - are you implying that the act of deciding to have a long lockdown necessitates that the decision makers do not care about children, or are there specifics you are leaving unsaid?
- matz1 6y agoIsn't it obvious? The lockdown harm the children.
- croes 6y agoSo does dead parents and grandparents.
- _Microft 6y agoThe length of lockdowns is the problem, here in Germany at least. An even harder lockdown limited in length would have most likely achieved better control of the pandemic than the on-going half-measures and we would have been out of it earlier as well.
- adolph 6y agoThe interdependence of humans means that no lockdown could be hard or long enough and the independence of humans means that nobody would actually live under such a hypothetical regime anyway (starting at the top especially). As it stands the worst of both worlds was erected, a lockdown too soft to effectively “eradicate” the virus and too hard to prevent the economic and psychological ills that have predictably presented themselves. The bright spot is that the anticipated deaths due to over utilization of healthcare resources seen in northern Italy has been mostly avoided. Maybe the worst of both worlds has been the least bad option.
- kortilla 6y ago“Think of the children” is a tool to manipulate people. It’s not an end-goal in itself, especially if it costs a lot of money.
- aidenn0 6y agoYou aren't the only one to suggest in this thread that "think of the children" is usually disingenuous. It is definitely an end goal for a lot of people (otherwise the argument would have no power to manipulate people). I think people make many choices that are harmful to children because they are trying to protect them and/or work to ensure their children's success.
- monocasa 6y agoThey were balancing it against what they saw in Italy: allowing the virus to get out of hand and overwhelm the hospital system and your death rate from covid jumps into the double digits. Kids would be pretty depressed being surrounded by a 8 digit body count in the US too.
- donovanian 6y ago> Kids would be pretty depressed being surrounded by a 8 digit body count in the US too. Let’s make sure they’re depressed when their brains are irreversibly stunted from missing the crucial social interactions necessary for development. Also, let’s pile on the misery with a generation of kids with stunted literacy. Good luck teaching reading with a freaking mask on. It’s indefensible.
- sillyconesally 6y agoThe technocratic left hates you and your children. It's that simple. This website shadow bans comments critical of lockdown. The technocrats want to replace you with foreign workers that they can exploit and they want your kids poor and desperately stuck working in the gig economy.
- nradov 6y agoDo you have any proof that that would have increased depression rates in children relative to what we see today? And an 8 digit body count would be impossible in the US for a disease with a >99% survival rate. So quit the hyperbole.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- monocasa 6y agoWhat proof would you believe without empirically letting the death rate get into the double digits to begin with?
- gravypod 6y agoI don't know if you live in the US but for anyone who doesn't I think this mainly boils down to this: the average US citizen does not believe metal health issues are real. In high school I've met people who were clearly suicidal and I've seen the advice given to them: "Just go outside more" or "you don't have anything to be sad about". One of my friends was depressed and suicidal through high school. He often acted out and got sent to a out-of-school suspension program. There he told people what he was depressed and had thoughts of self harm. What did the advisors of this program say? They didn't believe he was depressed! They said "If you want to kill yourself then why don't you go to the train down the block and jump in front of it". This is all anacdata but it's my guess that the HN-bubble likely selects for people who don't think like this so it might not seem like this on the internet.
- kayodelycaon 6y agoThis was my experience growing up. I was suicidal by fourth grade. I was told by the school consular it was my fault that I was being bullied and was feeling bad about myself. My parents’ solution was to take me to a Christian consular who didn’t really help the situation. All of my symptoms of being bipolar were explained as my deliberate choice to be a unrepentant, sinful child. I didn’t see a proper psychiatrist until I was 33. My mom figured something was wrong because my uncle was bipolar and it’s genetic. Didn’t tell me that until I was diagnosed. Probably because my dad thinks my bipolar uncle is demon-possessed. Many other people in my support group have similar stories. If anything, I was one of the lucky ones since my parents were otherwise very supportive.
- xondono 6y agoAs opposed to what? All countries use the same argument to push popular programs, even if it makes little sense. I don’t see the US using the argument more than Spain for instance. We’ve had a new “educational reform” every ~8 years with every government change, because “think of the children”, when everyone knew the reasons had nothing to do with the children.
- john_moscow 6y agoThe country has been heavily banking on discouraging the rank-and-file class from having children, and replacing them through immigration. And the ones that are already in the system are very heavily discouraged against the path to independent success and self-esteem. So the recent events are just another step in the same direction. P.S. I don't think it's a carefully engineered master plan to eliminate independent thinkers, but rather what the society converges into when you eliminate the need for regular people to solve the problems on a daily basis. Medieval feudalism over again.
- lettergram 6y agoIt’s not the whole country. It’s largely the propagation of fear from the media and the teachers unions who don’t want to work (and the politicians trying to push large stimulus checks to the unions). For instance, Florida never shut down schools. In contrast, Chicago and SF teachers unions are/were pushing to keep schools closed. The “science” (note: much of it is not peer reviewed) thus far indicates it’s safe to open schools and there’s little to no risk. at this point most at risk individuals have been vaccinated and estimates were that 40-70% of people already had covid19 (so even less risk of spread). Children have reduced risk of spreading disease as well.
- sillyconesally 6y agoYour comment will be flagged and removed. You cannot be this open minded and critical of the lockdown religion.
- monocasa 6y agoThe teachers I know have been working harder under lockdown than they did during in person.
- scurvy 6y agoThere's often a large disconnect between teacher's union leadership and membership. Probably not unlike most union compositions in the US.
- monocasa 6y agoI don't follow in context. How would union leadership be avoiding work by reopening schools?
- samr71 6y agoAnd the students I know all say the teachers are phoning it in... Anecdotes aren't useful here. I suspect once the data starts coming out, we'll see some serious educational deficits in most kids.
- sjg007 6y agoThe issue with covid is now the mutants. England did not lock down the schools this past winter and the B117 spread thru the schools into the wider population. Brazil and its variant seems to be even worse and they basically let the virus rip from day 1. These new variants are more lethal and more transmissible. So now we are really screwed unless the vaccine proves effective enough with masks to slow the spread. And that’s not guaranteed. And then we have the rest of the world to deal with. I don’t expect covid to go away for at least 5 years and that includes boosters and masking. And lots of covid tests.
- nradov 6y agoIt's horrifying how we've allowed politicians to inflict collective punishment on our children for over a year. The data is clear that COVID-19 is less dangerous to children than seasonal influenza.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThey can still bring it home to parents, grandparents, and the general community. It’s silly to dismiss the indirect effects as if they don’t exist.
- nradov 6y agoThere is little or no evidence that children frequently transmit the virus to adults. And even if there was, it wouldn't be ethical to collectively punish all children just to marginally reduce the risk to a minority of vulnerable people.
- smoldesu 6y agoSo in your eyes, it's more ethical to infect children with a disease that could kill their parents/grandparents than it is to keep them home?
- umanwizard 6y agoYes, it can be, depending on the probability behind that “could”. (Anything could kill anyone, so you need to be more specific)
- Bartkusa 6y agohttps://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-07-19-20-intl/h_a5b2022896050361c7c0798e8210e659 https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-07-... > Researchers in South Korea have found that children between the ages of 10 and 19 can transmit Covid-19 within a household just as much as adults, according to new research published in the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention journal Emerging Infectious Diseases
- swayvil 6y agoTo be fair, this whole covid fiasco has worked better than a neutron bomb. It destroyed the people while leaving the infrastructure standing. Obviously it is entirely intentional.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Griffinsauce 6y ago"think of the children" is only about keeping them free from sin, not actually educating them because well educated children are likely to become atheist adults. Getting money out of politics and the church out of education are the two most effective things we can do to advance our civilization.
- Mountain_Skies 6y agoHow is any of that relevant to a pandemic and isolation?
- 13415 6y agoThe way I understand it, GP's thesis was that "think of the children" has always been mostly just a slogan for Christian moralists to prevent "sin" and hasn't involved really thinking about what's best for the children, so there is no contradiction now with this slogan and not caring about the children much during the pandemic, as the OP suggested.
- Griffinsauce 6y agoBingo.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- plk8nn 6y agoIs it social isolation? Or children living a care free life shocked to learn there really are invisible monsters? Being socially isolated wasn’t the only new reality they had to assimilate. As someone who grew up rural, DIY, ending up further left than Sanders, the one size fits all assembly line model of education we push kids through doesn’t really seem like it’s thinking of the children. It seems more like it’s “think of the past greatness these behaviors brought to the motherland!” As usual the real outcome is forcing intense logistical effort on the masses to manage all this for diminishing returns in their paycheck and increase in stress. It’s hard for me to see it as truth instead of hand me down narrative. The Greeks taught math and physics before we had bachelors and PhDs. Our educational system looks back to medieval France, where pretentious ranking for political reasons took hold, when the top down hierarchy knew best! If we want to think of the children stop forcing them to fellate grandpas old wives tales
- emkoemko 6y agoif US really cared about children they would ended the humanitarian crisis in Yemen... so far 85 000+ children under 5 starved to death and they saying 400,000 are going to if this blockade doesn't end.
- jacob2484 6y agoIt's up to the U.S. to fix every single problem?
- whatthesmack 6y agoNot necessarily. But at least don't actively perpetuate problems.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- heavyset_go 6y agoFrom[1]: > Meanwhile, aid agencies say the embargo imposed by the U.S. (and UK-backed) Arab coalition has had dramatic effect with about 80% of population in urgent need of vital resources such as food, water and medical supplies. Saudi Arabia, reportedly relying on U.S. intelligence reports and surveillance images for target selection, began airstrikes, some of which were against weapons and aircraft. The U.S. has dispatched warships in the region after Houthi missiles targeted the UAE-operated HSV-2 Swift, which some critics interpreted as the U.S. reinforcing the coalition blockade. According to Iranian sources, it has refueled Saudi planes, sent the Saudi military targeting intelligence, and resupplied them with tens of billions of dollars worth of bombs. The U.S. (and the UK) support the effort through arms sales and technical assistance. Amnesty International urged the U.S. and the UK to stop supplying arms to Saudi Arabia and to the Saudi-led coalition. It has been reported that U.S. is regarded as an indirect partner for Saudi Arabia in the war and blockade on Yemen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Yemen#United_States's_role https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Yemen#United_State...
- reilly3000 6y agoWe could end it in a minute if there wasn’t Security-for-Oil based policy.
- theknocker 6y agoIt's not strange at all. It's completely expected that nothing is real until enough liberal news outlets put it in a headline, preferably a polemic one. By the way, dan, I'm aware that I'm shadowbanned. It does have side-effects.
- onethought 6y agoNo weirder than “prolife” folks often intersecting heavily with “pro war” and “anti lockdown” folks. US lives in a weird bubble where they ignore the very successful policies around the world and create these weird internal narratives that they all follow relatively blindly
- austincheney 6y agoI am convinced social isolation is a convenient excuse to blame for preexisting mental health problems once the primary coping mechanisms are removed. Nonsense like very real danger of social isolation ignores valid problems that were previously discarded out of inconvenience.
- cheald 6y agoIt's not strange at all. "Think of the children" has forever been an emotional ploy to gain political power, not an actual concern for the children.
- rcpt 6y agoHaving one or both parents spend the rest of their lives suffering from a chronic illness isn't exactly great for kids either.
- standardUser 6y ago"Rest of their lives" is a pretty bold and, frankly, made-up thing to say about an illness that has barely existed for a year.
- heavyset_go 6y agoIf that bothers you, replace it with "Having one or both parents spend the rest of their children's lives in graves isn't exactly great for kids either." > frankly, made-up thing The CDC disagrees with your opinion. From the CDC's "Long-Term Effects of COVID-19" article[1]: > The most commonly reported long-term symptoms include: > Fatigue, Shortness of breath, Cough, Joint pain, Chest pain > Other reported long-term symptoms include: > Difficulty with thinking and concentration (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”), Depression, Muscle pain, Headache, Intermittent fever, Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations) > More serious long-term complications appear to be less common but have been reported. These have been noted to affect different organ systems in the body. These include: > Cardiovascular: inflammation of the heart muscle > Respiratory: lung function abnormalities > Renal: acute kidney injury > Dermatologic: rash, hair loss > Neurological: smell and taste problems, sleep issues, difficulty with concentration, memory problems > Psychiatric: depression, anxiety, changes in mood [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects....
- standardUser 6y agoMuch like it is literally impossible to prove antibodies for COVID-19 last for greater than a year, because the illness has not been around long enough to prove such a thing, it is also impossible to prove COVID-19 symptoms can last greater than a year.
- pessimizer 6y agoAnybody else find it strange that having students out of school for another few months for their teachers to be vaccinated is being painted as the most important thing in the world when they've already been out of school for a year? It's fine to mourn the damage that's been done from kids being locked up for a year. To act like the marginal damage from adding a few more months to that year is murder, that's political. To act like the risk to teachers and the families they care for is obviously less important without doing the math is just hatred for working people. edit: how about this - you're allowed to send your kids back to school if you're willing to stand in a room filled with 30 different people from 30 different households for 8 hours a day, unvaccinated.
- dadjoker 6y agoMy daughter has been doing exactly that all year as a teacher in a private school. My son has been attending full day class in a private school long before vaccinations were available. This has been true for private schools all around the country (fortunately w we don't have teachers unions who think they deserve extra special protection, more than everyone else in society). And guess what? No problems. Wash your hands, stay home when you're sick and it's amazing how there are no dreaded COVID "superspreader" events. I have been out on the front lines as a first responder since the beginning w/o a vaccination. And I would gladly be anywhere without vaccinations and masks, because I know the stats and probabilities, and I don't cower in the face of risk, as lockdown and mask proponents are. People get sick. People die (2.8M in the US, per the CDC) It's happened since the beginning of humans, and it will always be that way. In past pandemics we never were paranoid cowards like this (smallpox, asian flu, etc), but somehow all of that wisdom was trashed last year because people are so afraid of risk and think they can actually "control" a virus. Good luck with that. We need to accept that 3 million Americans will die this year and we can't keep everyone alive forever no matter how hard we try - And that our bizarre fixation on making every decision as if Covid19 deaths are the only societal outcome that matters is profoundly wrong.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- 6y ago
- bjourne 6y agoWhen push comes to shove, children can't vote, but 70-80 year old geezers can. And many politicians are in their age bracket too. Forcing kids to give up a year of their childhood just to (in the best case, assuming school closures are effective) provide old people with a month or so extra average lifespan is unjust and incredibly cruel.
- SkyMarshal 6y agoWell the decision is to either send them to school and risk them all getting infected with and becoming superspreaders of a novel, fast-spreading virus that we don't fully understand yet, or keep them home and risk mental health issues from social isolation. We chose the less harmful option, it's not that complicated. There's no conspiracy here.
- orangecat 6y agoWe chose the less harmful option, it's not that complicated. Ron DeSantis would agree.
- hintymad 6y agoWell, it is for the good of children as the worst thing a child can get is "implicit racism" that can't be cleansed. As teacher's union repeatedly said, reopening schools even in this December is "a recipe for propagating structural racism". See? what's bigger than racism? Nothing is bigger than racisms, be it truths, problems, issues, or challenges in the US. So, if you dare to mention reopening the school again, you're a racist. If you dare to discuss education reform, you're a damn racist. If you dare to challenge teachers union, you're a racist. Case closed.
- AshWolfy 6y agoI mean the "education reform movement" was started by segregationists after brown v board of ed, and many southern counties privatized schools to avoid complying
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Anyone else find it strange that a country that has often fallen in line with "think of the children" arguments for hypothetical dangers appears to be completely uncaring about very real dangers of social isolation that are impacting our youth? No, because (1) it hasn't fallen in line with “think of the children” so much as invoked it as a post-hoc rationalization, and (2) isn't indifferent to the danger here; both the left side (who has been arguing the need to apply the resources for safe reopening of schools) and the right side (who has been opposing those expenditures but pushing reopening anyway) are in agreement that it is a serious concern.
- hourislate 6y ago>about very real dangers of social isolation that are impacting our youth? Can you imagine if this happened when there was no Internet, Mobile phones, Long Distance still existed, no Satellite TV, etc? I grew up like that (Rural Farm) and there were periods of months during the summer I just read books, and wandered around outside and didn't see another kid for what seemed an eternity. If I complained my parents would find me some work to do. My wife thinks I'm normal so I guess it turned out ok, didn't need any mental therapy or anything.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoIt's only strange if you thought "think about the children" had anything to do with the children. It's always just about the control.
- HonestOp001 6y agoIt is never about the children. It is always about he teachers unions using students and children to accomplish a political goal. If you do not raise teacher pay, you are hurting children. Do not fund education in the next funding round, hurting the children. The second the teachers needed to be brave and show what bravery was, they buckled, hid, and showed that it was all bluster.
- JediWing 6y ago...Because not wanting to expose kids to COVID at the height of the pandemic is so very uncaring of children?
- FuckButtons 6y agoNot really - since i don’t think those arguments were ever about children as much as they were about protecting the feelings of infantilized adults.
- notsureaboutpg 6y agoActually, I think it makes exact sense since "think of the children" is now such a ridiculed phrase in mainstream media and thought. We actually should, often, think about the children, but people did not like this excuse when it was used to argue against the vulgarity of music, television, movies, video games, etc. and now when it actually mattered we didn't care. Like the boy who cried wolf.
- qubit000 6y agoProblem is US leaders are elected based on populism rather than merit and whether theyre actually competent, let alone qualified. The result is a political system that rewards morally bankrupt, sociopathic behavior that prioritizes self interest and profits over people. Many will say it has worked considering how wealthy the US is and how it facilitates innovation. However, this is only made possible by the fact US, as global reserve currency of the world, is able to print $$$ w/impunity while exporting much of the resulting inflation which rest of the world has to bare -- essentially subsidizing US wealth.