4 ms·

> I am not mischaracterizing the criticisms. Yes you are. Their criticisms are about their right to privacy being violated by an undercover reporter. > It doe

> 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.
    - solomonb 3y ago
      > 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. Thank you. I appreciate your admission that you made a series of unfounded assumptions and then used that to judge people you don't know.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  They would vote in favor of Prop 13, which is bad. And you know this how, because it hasn't been repealed? Come on. 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? Students don't generally broadcast each others' secrets through a citywide daily newspaper. And while you could argue that the advent of social media gives them equivalent publishing power and some students abuse it, such usage is generally condemned. You have a weird fixation on the people in this story, maybe it's a good time to go for a walk.

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.
  - solomonb 3y ago
    > 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. Thank you. I appreciate your admission that you made a series of unfounded assumptions and then used that to judge people you don't know.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
anigbrowl 3y ago
They would vote in favor of Prop 13, which is bad. And you know this how, because it hasn't been repealed? Come on. 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? Students don't generally broadcast each others' secrets through a citywide daily newspaper. And while you could argue that the advent of social media gives them equivalent publishing power and some students abuse it, such usage is generally condemned. You have a weird fixation on the people in this story, maybe it's a good time to go for a walk.