3 ms·

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 pre

by eesmith 3mo 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 3mo 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 3mo 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?

by eesmith 3mo ago

like_any_other 3mo 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 3mo 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?