3 ms·

Elon doesn't live with most of his kids - why would he even care? His reason for moving is the taxes are less in Texas for now and the laws will turn a blind ey

Elon doesn't live with most of his kids - why would he even care? His reason for moving is the taxes are less in Texas for now and the laws will turn a blind eye to environmental damage his companies do. As the population continues to grow in Tx that will change. Elon should be required to get a trolling license. Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:) My favorite thing lately is that NYT dedicated and entire article [1] to Elon goal 1 million people on Mars in the next twenty years. Tesla has been working almost that long not getting self driving cars to work. Why on Earth would anyone bother to take seriously putting 1 million people on Mars in 20 years - something several orders of magnitude more difficult. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/technology/elon-musk-spacex-mars.html#:~:text=Gica%20Tam-,Elon%20Musk's%20Plan%20to%20Put%20a%20Million%20Earthlings%20on%20Mars,Musk%20has%20volunteered%20his%20sperm https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/11/technology/elon-musk-spac....

derdi 2y ago
> Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:) The law seems to be about making it possible for kids to lie without the school snitching on them. You should be in favor of this law, no?
- sqeaky 2y ago
  Exactly. The law is about preventing abuse from fundamentalists towards their children. If the school must snitch and the school must report then a person who believes their kid being gay will go to hell will abuse their child until they pretend to no be gay.
- strangattractor 2y ago
  First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Second as much as I love CA the state has become increasingly interested in creating unenforcible and intrusive laws. Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already) it seems to ignore other things. Like the following: 1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to report that now and would likely not even know or care. If they do no make an official request to Teachers or staff etc then who's to know. This reminds of when fundamentalist claimed prayer was banned in schools. That has never been the case. School lead or Staff lead prayer was banned. Any child that wished to pray before eating lunch was totally free to do so. 2. It assumes that knee jerk reaction on the part of all fundamentalist parents. (feels weird for an atheist to defend fundamentalist but here we are) 3. Where's the data to back this decision up? 4. There are likely situations where it might be important for the parent to know what their child is doing. What if they are in a cult and want to change their name to unintelligible gibberish - wait Musk is probably ok with that. What if someone is convincing them to get illegal surgery?
  - derdi 2y ago
    > First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Sure, but about what? To me it came across as "I acknowledge my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". Now it sounds more like "I deny my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". > 3. Where's the data to back this decision up? As I understand it from other posters, individual schools had already ordered their teachers to snitch to parents. (How is that for government overreach?) The bill still allows teachers to snitch to parents, it just prevents the school from ordering them to snitch.
    - strangattractor 2y ago
      "The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth." [1] [1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parents-when-students-change-pronouns-california-says-no/2024/07#:~:text=California%20became%20the%20first%20state,targeted%20transgender%20youth%20in%20schools https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parent.... So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA.
      - dragonwriter 2y ago
        > So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA. No, it wasn't. The article is, at best, abusing "rebuke" to mean "buck the trend", but the law does not literally rebuke foreign state laws. It addresses two related issues, both of which do, in fact, exist in California: (1) It provides school-based support and resources for LGBTQ+ students and families thereof responsive to research on specific needs of that community, including the significant effect of family support on well-being, (2) It prohibits local districts from forced-outing policies, which have been adopted by at least four districts (at least one of which has been forced to put enforcement on hold because of a temporary restraining order issued in a lawsuit brought against the policy), and are under discussion by more than a dozen more.

derdi 2y ago

> Yes - I agree (I am a parent) that the law is stupid. If a kid doesn't want their parents to know something they should do it the old fashion way and lie as I did and my parents did before me etc:) The law seems to be about making it possible for kids to lie without the school snitching on them. You should be in favor of this law, no?

sqeaky 2y ago
Exactly. The law is about preventing abuse from fundamentalists towards their children. If the school must snitch and the school must report then a person who believes their kid being gay will go to hell will abuse their child until they pretend to no be gay.
strangattractor 2y ago
First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Second as much as I love CA the state has become increasingly interested in creating unenforcible and intrusive laws. Although I can see a case for protecting children from abusive parents (we have laws for that already) it seems to ignore other things. Like the following: 1. AFAIK - If a kid decides to change their pronoun around their friends the school is not required to report that now and would likely not even know or care. If they do no make an official request to Teachers or staff etc then who's to know. This reminds of when fundamentalist claimed prayer was banned in schools. That has never been the case. School lead or Staff lead prayer was banned. Any child that wished to pray before eating lunch was totally free to do so. 2. It assumes that knee jerk reaction on the part of all fundamentalist parents. (feels weird for an atheist to defend fundamentalist but here we are) 3. Where's the data to back this decision up? 4. There are likely situations where it might be important for the parent to know what their child is doing. What if they are in a cult and want to change their name to unintelligible gibberish - wait Musk is probably ok with that. What if someone is convincing them to get illegal surgery?
- derdi 2y ago
  > First the :) means I was somewhat joking. Sure, but about what? To me it came across as "I acknowledge my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". Now it sounds more like "I deny my kids' right to privacy and chose to phrase this humorously". > 3. Where's the data to back this decision up? As I understand it from other posters, individual schools had already ordered their teachers to snitch to parents. (How is that for government overreach?) The bill still allows teachers to snitch to parents, it just prevents the school from ordering them to snitch.
  - strangattractor 2y ago
    "The measure Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed on Monday, is the first to rebuke laws in a handful of other states that say educators must alert parents if a student requests to go by a different name or pronouns. At least 10 states say educators and classmates don’t have to use a student’s name or pronouns if it doesn’t align with a student’s sex assigned at birth." [1] [1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parents-when-students-change-pronouns-california-says-no/2024/07#:~:text=California%20became%20the%20first%20state,targeted%20transgender%20youth%20in%20schools https://www.edweek.org/leadership/should-schools-tell-parent.... So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA.
    - dragonwriter 2y ago
      > So the law was passed to fix a problem that does not exist in CA. No, it wasn't. The article is, at best, abusing "rebuke" to mean "buck the trend", but the law does not literally rebuke foreign state laws. It addresses two related issues, both of which do, in fact, exist in California: (1) It provides school-based support and resources for LGBTQ+ students and families thereof responsive to research on specific needs of that community, including the significant effect of family support on well-being, (2) It prohibits local districts from forced-outing policies, which have been adopted by at least four districts (at least one of which has been forced to put enforcement on hold because of a temporary restraining order issued in a lawsuit brought against the policy), and are under discussion by more than a dozen more.