The reason Teachers always lose their fight, and I was just made aware by this realization during the COVID pandemic, is that the teachers, real main job, what they’re truly, at the basic of levels, are hired to do, is babysit children so their parents can go to work and make the countries (whatever country their in) economic wheels turn. With the outlawing of child labor (making a comeback under Republican state legislatures), countries need their adults working, powering the engines of economy by which all governments function. Teachers are necessary babysitters first and foremost before anything else, they keep the children occupied during the day. Education comes a distant second in priority. Given this newly realized formulation, it becomes obvious that the state couldn’t care less how teachers enjoy their work, as long as they continue to show up to watch and police and jail the little ones for 8 hours a day.
I’m sorry, but your post seems incomplete or I’m reading too far past what you’re actually saying. Are you meaning to say this is what teachers are supposed to be doing (ie, pretending to be jailers instead of educators) or are you saying this needs to change somehow? Something else, maybe?
Like the way you write makes me think a lot of unflattering things about your stances, and I’m not sure why… like, for example, it seems like you’re saying it’s a good thing child labor protections are being taken away in Republican states… is that actually your position though? Or is that sarcasm that’s not coming through very well?
Sorry for the million questions but I see this is already getting quite heated, and I’m trying to figure out if the heat is warranted or if it’s a general misunderstanding.
He doesn’t need to come up with a comprehensive solution. I imagine he could have confidence in his perspective but not so much about how to resolve it. He characterized the situation in a way that seems callous but aligned with reality. You don’t have to cover all the basis when commenting.
If you agree with the characterization you can debate potential solutions. Seems more productive than doubting the stance the person who is bringing a potentially useful perspective. Generally it’s necessary to have a good grasp on reality when trying to solve an issue. Id rather see it as the first step towards a solution.
Oh I see it now, I gave an example of what their writing is leading me to believe about them. Odd that you’re reading that far into it that you’re telling me I doubt them while I’m asking for clarification.
I don’t know anything about this person, what is there to doubt yet? If anything, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification rather than joining the dogpile.
But since you’re here now, what do you think about what they’re saying? Do you understand it enough to make conclusions about their beliefs? Because that’s my problem right now, I don’t think I have enough to do it even though I’m interested in what they’re saying
I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.
My issue is the characterize seems to be all over the place at best and minorly nefarious at worse, but I think I totally get where you’re coming from.
I do appreciate the second guess though, I do sometimes write things in ways that make people think I actively dislike them when all I’m actually doing is reporting a reaction that I thought was interesting, and I think a little bit of that happened here.
In any case, legit, seems like we’re on the same page now
Unless you want the kids to grow up to be completely undeniably stupid, education has to happen at some point. Babysitters aren’t trained for or paid enough for that. Teachers aren’t paid enough for that.
Also all the costs you’re adding up are still nothing in comparison to having to pay a babysitter a livable hourly wage for 40+ hours a week, and then still have to feed and clothe the kids etc because the babysitter isn’t covering that for you out of their own pay.
So yes, on the point alone that you don’t have to personally employ someone on a full-time basis and pay them out of your own pocket just to make sure your kid doesn’t burn the house down while you’re gone, it is cheaper.
Don’t want to incur such costs? Don’t have kids that you have to do something with during the day.
Nobody’s denying that teachers keeping an eye on your kid slightly at school will prevent them from burning your house down, only that believing that’s the sole purpose of the teacher is asinine and so stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The people saying that obviously felt that way themselves in school and didn’t take it seriously. And it shows now.
He didn’t say “sole purpose”, he said “main job” in the context of what the typical lowest common denominator parent these days expects first from a school just so they can go to work. “Main job” implies there are other jobs teachers do that those same parents don’t consider as important as just keeping their kids busy so they can work. Perhaps you should read the post more carefully to avoid arguing against something that wasn’t argued in the first place.
Oh please, shit like “tutoring costs” or “cost to eat” are entirely disingenuous - ones some trust fund shit, and the other ignores the fact that children not in school still have feeding costs, for the actual few core things transport/supplies/etc. any developed nation will have a means of access for those who need it.
I haven’t even read the whole thing yet, but damn! You have a brain! I came here ready to take a dump on someone, but you… Make… Sense?? This does not compute. I gotta go somewhere else to empty my bowls. Good job.
The reason Teachers always lose their fight, and I was just made aware by this realization during the COVID pandemic, is that the teachers, real main job, what they’re truly, at the basic of levels, are hired to do, is babysit children so their parents can go to work and make the countries (whatever country their in) economic wheels turn. With the outlawing of child labor (making a comeback under Republican state legislatures), countries need their adults working, powering the engines of economy by which all governments function. Teachers are necessary babysitters first and foremost before anything else, they keep the children occupied during the day. Education comes a distant second in priority. Given this newly realized formulation, it becomes obvious that the state couldn’t care less how teachers enjoy their work, as long as they continue to show up to watch and police and jail the little ones for 8 hours a day.
/c/im14andthisisnew
I was distracted, by their extreme use, of extra punctuation, that they have, on each line.
I’m sorry, but your post seems incomplete or I’m reading too far past what you’re actually saying. Are you meaning to say this is what teachers are supposed to be doing (ie, pretending to be jailers instead of educators) or are you saying this needs to change somehow? Something else, maybe?
Like the way you write makes me think a lot of unflattering things about your stances, and I’m not sure why… like, for example, it seems like you’re saying it’s a good thing child labor protections are being taken away in Republican states… is that actually your position though? Or is that sarcasm that’s not coming through very well?
Sorry for the million questions but I see this is already getting quite heated, and I’m trying to figure out if the heat is warranted or if it’s a general misunderstanding.
He doesn’t need to come up with a comprehensive solution. I imagine he could have confidence in his perspective but not so much about how to resolve it. He characterized the situation in a way that seems callous but aligned with reality. You don’t have to cover all the basis when commenting.
If you agree with the characterization you can debate potential solutions. Seems more productive than doubting the stance the person who is bringing a potentially useful perspective. Generally it’s necessary to have a good grasp on reality when trying to solve an issue. Id rather see it as the first step towards a solution.
Oh I see it now, I gave an example of what their writing is leading me to believe about them. Odd that you’re reading that far into it that you’re telling me I doubt them while I’m asking for clarification.
I don’t know anything about this person, what is there to doubt yet? If anything, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt by asking for clarification rather than joining the dogpile.
But since you’re here now, what do you think about what they’re saying? Do you understand it enough to make conclusions about their beliefs? Because that’s my problem right now, I don’t think I have enough to do it even though I’m interested in what they’re saying
I mean to say that you were concerned or at least wondered if he endorses what he is seeing or not. I felt the need to comment because I usually ran into people thinking i supported a stance just because i was able to characterize it. It’s a typical reaction. I prefer to keep in mind that we don’t know his stance. He might be pessimistic and or frustrated with the issue. Alternatively he could be an idiot who enjoys the bad situation. It would be somewhat idiotic if he has no moral qualms because he would benefit more by not drawing attention into the root cause of the issue.
Oh I get that, no problem.
My issue is the characterize seems to be all over the place at best and minorly nefarious at worse, but I think I totally get where you’re coming from.
I do appreciate the second guess though, I do sometimes write things in ways that make people think I actively dislike them when all I’m actually doing is reporting a reaction that I thought was interesting, and I think a little bit of that happened here.
In any case, legit, seems like we’re on the same page now
Babysitters already exist so that makes fuck-all sense, numbnuts.
Babysitters are way more expensive for parents that would be paying taxes anyways to support public schools.
Oh the irony of people like you thinking they have a point.
Well thank goodness for intelligent retorts like this one for keeping me humble. Great points, bob!
It’s called money dumbarse.
Schools are free, babysitters are not.
Are they, though, really?
Babysitters are way more expensive for parents that would be paying taxes anyways to support public schools.
It’s not like you take your kid out of public school and all of a sudden you pay less in taxes, lol.
Babysitters != to actual prolonged childcare.
Yes.
Do they?
School supplies and materials?
Costs of transportation?
Extracurricular activities?
Uniforms or dress codes?
Costs to eat?
Tutoring costs because your kid is in public school?
Technology access requirements for the modern world like tablets or computers with specific often paid software?
Field trips and special projects?
I dunno, it’s all starting to add up to a little more than free.
Unless you want the kids to grow up to be completely undeniably stupid, education has to happen at some point. Babysitters aren’t trained for or paid enough for that. Teachers aren’t paid enough for that.
Also all the costs you’re adding up are still nothing in comparison to having to pay a babysitter a livable hourly wage for 40+ hours a week, and then still have to feed and clothe the kids etc because the babysitter isn’t covering that for you out of their own pay.
So yes, on the point alone that you don’t have to personally employ someone on a full-time basis and pay them out of your own pocket just to make sure your kid doesn’t burn the house down while you’re gone, it is cheaper.
Don’t want to incur such costs? Don’t have kids that you have to do something with during the day.
Nobody’s denying that teachers keeping an eye on your kid slightly at school will prevent them from burning your house down, only that believing that’s the sole purpose of the teacher is asinine and so stupid it makes my brain hurt.
The people saying that obviously felt that way themselves in school and didn’t take it seriously. And it shows now.
He didn’t say “sole purpose”, he said “main job” in the context of what the typical lowest common denominator parent these days expects first from a school just so they can go to work. “Main job” implies there are other jobs teachers do that those same parents don’t consider as important as just keeping their kids busy so they can work. Perhaps you should read the post more carefully to avoid arguing against something that wasn’t argued in the first place.
Stupidly pedantic.
Why don’t you just add every single expense incurred in their life to your list?
deleted by creator
Oh please, shit like “tutoring costs” or “cost to eat” are entirely disingenuous - ones some trust fund shit, and the other ignores the fact that children not in school still have feeding costs, for the actual few core things transport/supplies/etc. any developed nation will have a means of access for those who need it.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. You’re 100% correct.
I haven’t even read the whole thing yet, but damn! You have a brain! I came here ready to take a dump on someone, but you… Make… Sense?? This does not compute. I gotta go somewhere else to empty my bowls. Good job.