4 ms·

> It's insane to me that the now-adult students still oppose the journalist. They were victims of this law. Whatever they are saving on their taxes now, they lo

> It's insane to me that the now-adult students still oppose the journalist. They were victims of this law. Whatever they are saving on their taxes now, they lose in a lifetime of benefits - money and otherwise - from a better personal education and a better educated community. You are significantly mischaracterizing the criticisms by the students: > Trigueros said he was not among the most distressed of Jones’ classmates and listened to both sides of the debate. He understood the Chronicle’s attempt to reveal the challenges facing teachers and students, but said a major line was crossed when Jones stepped into the Peer Resource Center, where the school’s most vulnerable students gravitated and opened up. Nov. 3, 1992: Jonny Dror hangs out at the Peer Resource Center, a gathering space where students could speak their minds at George Washington High School in San Francisco. > “She saw kids were processing divorces and death and homelessness and coming out. She saw all of that,” he said. “We wanted to consider (Shann the reporter) an ally and advocate for us, (but there was) this deep betrayal, and we didn’t consent to all of that.”

doctorpangloss 3y ago
I am not mischaracterizing the criticisms. They should have the maturity by now to see that she was indeed trustworthy, to admit that their gut reactions were wrong, and it is especially bad of them to invoke the modern, pervasive and mischaracterized "consent" framework, today, in defense of their feeling pissed off 30 years ago. It doesn't change the fact that they are in favor of Prop 13. The average person in California is in favor of Prop 13, and that's exactly the problem! In that sense, it doesn't really matter what happened. They missed the point.
- solomonb 3y ago
  > I am not mischaracterizing the criticisms. Yes you are. Their criticisms are about their right to privacy being violated by an undercover reporter. > It doesn't change the fact that they would vote against repealing Prop 13. I missed the part of the article where a former student said that, can you show me?
  - doctorpangloss 3y ago
    > I missed the part of the article where a former student said that, can you show me? I apologize, I wrote what I was thinking down wrong. They would vote in favor of Prop 13, which is bad. Not sure why I wrote it backwards. It's true that they do not talk about this. But Prop 13 is still law. It is a popular law. Even though it hurt them. > Their criticisms are about their right to privacy being violated by an undercover reporter. Where did the reporter violate their privacy? She didn't write anything about it. She was indeed trustworthy. In a sense she met her obligations as a student, however pretend. But she did what a student would do under that covenant. And by the way, students violate each other's privacy then all the time. They aren't reporters, but they also go and tell the secrets she didn't, so are you going to say those students are the antagonists? Also, she had the approval of the administration. Perhaps they could have said that the peer space or whatever it is was off limits, but truthfully I think it is a much lower drama office than it sounds. You are getting hung up on really modern and broad meanings of things like privacy and consent and whatever. This isn't intersectionality programming Code of Conduct world. There's a specific thing and a specific harm, that isn't interesting at all, that occurred, in that specific place, with specific students, that doesn't generalize away from, well the students are the antagonists. That is the surprise of all of this. If she hadn't been in that peer counseling office, those same students would be just as pissed off, and they would still be looking out for #1, and still be missing the point entirely.
    - solomonb 3y ago
      > I apologize, I wrote what I was thinking down wrong. They would vote against Prop 13, which is bad. Where in the article does it show students advocating any position on Prop 13? You twisting the narrative to fit your agenda. > You are getting hung up on really modern and broad meanings of things like privacy and consent and whatever... Privacy is not a new concept and your response here is revealing.
      - doctorpangloss 3y ago
        > You twisting the narrative to fit your agenda. The students don't advocate any position on Prop 13. It's a popular law, and I'm a betting man, I would bet that the average Californian supports it, so the average student-now-adult does, and indeed, maybe that's why it was so hard for Jones to make a persuasive case. Unambitious students want low taxes more than they wanted better educations - sounds stupid, because it is. Anyway, my agenda is only the surprise at the students being the bad guys. I think their privacy got validated for some sense of privacy. I just don't think it matters, at all. I think they are wrong to care about it so much, and the particular way and circumstance and sense their violation occurred, keeps me protected for my privacy in all the ways it matters. They are totally orthogonal. Tough cookie.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

I am not mischaracterizing the criticisms. They should have the maturity by now to see that she was indeed trustworthy, to admit that their gut reactions were wrong, and it is especially bad of them to invoke the modern, pervasive and mischaracterized "consent" framework, today, in defense of their feeling pissed off 30 years ago. It doesn't change the fact that they are in favor of Prop 13. The average person in California is in favor of Prop 13, and that's exactly the problem! In that sense, it doesn't really matter what happened. They missed the point.

solomonb 3y ago
> I am not mischaracterizing the criticisms. Yes you are. Their criticisms are about their right to privacy being violated by an undercover reporter. > It doesn't change the fact that they would vote against repealing Prop 13. I missed the part of the article where a former student said that, can you show me?
- doctorpangloss 3y ago
  > I missed the part of the article where a former student said that, can you show me? I apologize, I wrote what I was thinking down wrong. They would vote in favor of Prop 13, which is bad. Not sure why I wrote it backwards. It's true that they do not talk about this. But Prop 13 is still law. It is a popular law. Even though it hurt them. > Their criticisms are about their right to privacy being violated by an undercover reporter. Where did the reporter violate their privacy? She didn't write anything about it. She was indeed trustworthy. In a sense she met her obligations as a student, however pretend. But she did what a student would do under that covenant. And by the way, students violate each other's privacy then all the time. They aren't reporters, but they also go and tell the secrets she didn't, so are you going to say those students are the antagonists? Also, she had the approval of the administration. Perhaps they could have said that the peer space or whatever it is was off limits, but truthfully I think it is a much lower drama office than it sounds. You are getting hung up on really modern and broad meanings of things like privacy and consent and whatever. This isn't intersectionality programming Code of Conduct world. There's a specific thing and a specific harm, that isn't interesting at all, that occurred, in that specific place, with specific students, that doesn't generalize away from, well the students are the antagonists. That is the surprise of all of this. If she hadn't been in that peer counseling office, those same students would be just as pissed off, and they would still be looking out for #1, and still be missing the point entirely.
  - solomonb 3y ago
    > I apologize, I wrote what I was thinking down wrong. They would vote against Prop 13, which is bad. Where in the article does it show students advocating any position on Prop 13? You twisting the narrative to fit your agenda. > You are getting hung up on really modern and broad meanings of things like privacy and consent and whatever... Privacy is not a new concept and your response here is revealing.
    - doctorpangloss 3y ago
      > You twisting the narrative to fit your agenda. The students don't advocate any position on Prop 13. It's a popular law, and I'm a betting man, I would bet that the average Californian supports it, so the average student-now-adult does, and indeed, maybe that's why it was so hard for Jones to make a persuasive case. Unambitious students want low taxes more than they wanted better educations - sounds stupid, because it is. Anyway, my agenda is only the surprise at the students being the bad guys. I think their privacy got validated for some sense of privacy. I just don't think it matters, at all. I think they are wrong to care about it so much, and the particular way and circumstance and sense their violation occurred, keeps me protected for my privacy in all the ways it matters. They are totally orthogonal. Tough cookie.