4 ms·

> Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. Or to put it in other words, it's being ignored by al

> Wow, that is certainly going around the right-wing Christian news sites, almost all with the same copy. Or to put it in other words, it's being ignored by all other news sites. One would think treating children as property of the state, and requiring explicit indoctrination in "tolerance and diversity", would warrant more attention from our media that is so concerned with authoritarianism. > one of the arguments used by the judge was a statement made by one of the teenage girls [..] This is a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal, and was not, from what I can tell, a conclusion determined by the court. So it was not a conclusion, but the reasoning used to reach the conclusion. I don't see how that's any better.

Sabinus 4mo ago
How do you know that Western Christian outlets are reporting the story accurately?
- like_any_other 4mo ago
  That's a universal objection you could raise about any story. In any case, eesmith linked some Brazilian reporting on the case, and despite their nitpicking, it says broadly the same things.
  - eesmith 4mo ago
    While the details were significantly different. Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
    - like_any_other 4mo ago
      > Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error. > dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling. No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it. > and apparently not based on the ruling. The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference. The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.
eesmith 4mo ago
To put it in other words, there's no new journalism going on. This has the hallmarks of a US-centered rage-bait echo chamber. No one links to the Brazilian press coverage, which was not hard to find. No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). What little supporting evidence they gave comes from the statements from the family/defense. Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case? Your viewpoint seems to be that we should treat children as property of their parents, and only parents can decide what their kids may learn. You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I have that right?
- like_any_other 4mo ago
  > No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). Of all the stories I've read on the BBC, and I've read quite a few, I can count the number of times they linked to court documents on one hand, and have five fingers left over. They're not an exception. Nice tactical skepticism. > Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case? Reasonable questions. Maybe if all our "reliable", "trustworthy" media, watchdogs against authoritarianism, weren't ignoring the case, we might have some answers to them. > You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I have that right? "Don't point out problematic cases unless you have a fully formed alternative proposal." No, I'm not against enforcing "any" standards. But explicit ideological indoctrination is a far cry from "any".
  - eesmith 4mo ago
    My main objection was the near uniformity of all reporting on the topic, all seemingly derived from one English publication, with no links to Brazilian sources nor links to court documents - if available. As I demonstrated, these additional sources were not hard to find. Nice tactical skepticism to point to a minor part of my statement as if that were the totality of it. Are the sites which are promoting this article "reliable" and "trustworthy"? Why are they omitting facts like how the decision for 10 days of semi-open jail was rescinded? I do not understand how you can call this decision "authoritarianism", except if you have the extreme belief that any sort of compulsory education, or state control of educational standards which can override the parents, to be authoritarian. Since you do not, what actually is authoritarian here? We have explicit ideological indoctrination all the time. In the US we were indoctrinated into US ideology, which is why we talk about "our founding fathers", while the English are indoctrinated to be subjects of His/Her majesty. It's only when people don't like something that they call it "explicit ideological indoctrination". Do you think requiring kids to have age appropriate sexual education to be an explicit ideological indoctrination? Do you think that requirement is authoritarian? If the parents refuse to follow the law, as the case here, should they not be punished by the court?

Sabinus 4mo ago

How do you know that Western Christian outlets are reporting the story accurately?

like_any_other 4mo ago
That's a universal objection you could raise about any story. In any case, eesmith linked some Brazilian reporting on the case, and despite their nitpicking, it says broadly the same things.
- eesmith 4mo ago
  While the details were significantly different. Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics, and like how the judge supposedly ruled based on the kid's dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling.
  - like_any_other 4mo ago
    > Like how the parents didn't teach legally required topics The article said what they didn't teach, and that the court didn't like it. That those topics were legally required was implied - it's certainly how I interpreted it, despite no explicit line saying "oh by the way these topics are legally required/not required". In other words, the article didn't state it explicitly either way, the reasonable disambiguation is the correct one, and yet you're treating the absence of explicit disambiguation as a "significant" factual error. > dislike of funk and sertanejo was a claim from the family, and apparently not based on the ruling. No, according to you, it was "a claim made by the defense attorney in the appeal". That's a lot more trustworthy than just a random claim. Presumably lying (about things easily verifiable from a court transcript) in a legal filing is not looked kindly upon by courts, so it's reasonable to believe it. > and apparently not based on the ruling. The exact words were: The court also concluded that because the girls, aged 15 and 11, did not like “trap” or “sertanejo” (folk) music It doesn't say it was part of the ruling, only that it led to the ruling (since the judge stated it as a negative during court proceedings). I agree the wording could have been better, but as it can give the impression those words were in the actual final written judgment, not just the cause for that judgment. But that's a distinction without a difference. The only error (or rather, significant omission) is that the article should have mentioned the jail term was "limited release" or whatever modified sentence they got. That's it, and that's apparently enough to entirely dismiss reporting when you'd rather people just shut up about it. By this bar you could dismiss nearly any story from the BBC or the New York Times too.

eesmith 4mo ago

To put it in other words, there's no new journalism going on. This has the hallmarks of a US-centered rage-bait echo chamber. No one links to the Brazilian press coverage, which was not hard to find. No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). What little supporting evidence they gave comes from the statements from the family/defense. Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case? Your viewpoint seems to be that we should treat children as property of their parents, and only parents can decide what their kids may learn. You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I have that right?

like_any_other 4mo ago
> No one links to the court documents (I'm assuming it's public). Of all the stories I've read on the BBC, and I've read quite a few, I can count the number of times they linked to court documents on one hand, and have five fingers left over. They're not an exception. Nice tactical skepticism. > Can you tell me what "tolerance and diversity" means, in regards to the judgement? Does that phrase come from the judge, from the law, or from the parents? It seems perfectly chosen to cause a knee-jerk reaction from anyone who hates DEI. But what does it mean in a Brazilian context and in the context of this court case? Reasonable questions. Maybe if all our "reliable", "trustworthy" media, watchdogs against authoritarianism, weren't ignoring the case, we might have some answers to them. > You seem to be against compulsory education of any sort, and believe that the state should be prohibited from enforcing any educational standards which are contrary to the wishes of the parents. Do I have that right? "Don't point out problematic cases unless you have a fully formed alternative proposal." No, I'm not against enforcing "any" standards. But explicit ideological indoctrination is a far cry from "any".
- eesmith 4mo ago
  My main objection was the near uniformity of all reporting on the topic, all seemingly derived from one English publication, with no links to Brazilian sources nor links to court documents - if available. As I demonstrated, these additional sources were not hard to find. Nice tactical skepticism to point to a minor part of my statement as if that were the totality of it. Are the sites which are promoting this article "reliable" and "trustworthy"? Why are they omitting facts like how the decision for 10 days of semi-open jail was rescinded? I do not understand how you can call this decision "authoritarianism", except if you have the extreme belief that any sort of compulsory education, or state control of educational standards which can override the parents, to be authoritarian. Since you do not, what actually is authoritarian here? We have explicit ideological indoctrination all the time. In the US we were indoctrinated into US ideology, which is why we talk about "our founding fathers", while the English are indoctrinated to be subjects of His/Her majesty. It's only when people don't like something that they call it "explicit ideological indoctrination". Do you think requiring kids to have age appropriate sexual education to be an explicit ideological indoctrination? Do you think that requirement is authoritarian? If the parents refuse to follow the law, as the case here, should they not be punished by the court?