Comments by "J" (@jtgd) on "The Wall Street Journal"
channel.
-
2400
-
474
-
290
-
164
-
157
-
117
-
106
-
80
-
69
-
65
-
58
-
53
-
51
-
50
-
45
-
44
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
28
-
23
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
It’s funny cause when you ask for evidence of cases in Florida justifying the bill, and the examples seem to be ONLINE teachers with no verification of working in Florida not following a curriculum, or books not even affected by the laws.
What you do have is ambiguous language that allows parents to complain about something they subjectively disagree with, which puts teachers at risk of penalty over something that’s not even verifiably restricted in the law.
“Age appropriateness” isn’t objective in most cases. Surprisingly there’s lots of people who don’t know that 5 year olds touch themselves. And when there were controversy over an animated video shown to kindergartners informing them what they were doing regarding stimulating their privates, not to touch them in public, and to not let adults touch them there, people were outraged over “teaching them masturbation”, despite that actually being something that’s naturally observed for that level of development in youth.
I get protecting kids is important, but some are treating this like a witch hunt solely based on what they personally consider appropriate or not.
And there’s a difference in making kids aware of their actions when it’s literally relevant and natural for that action to happen, and actual child abuse.
Kids are naive, but they’re not incapable of comprehending literally anything.
Also, “uncomfortable” topics aren’t age inappropriate merely because they cause emotional discomfort.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@User84030 it’s sad that people either don’t see that, or play dumb and pretend there’s some state wide issue that NEEDS a law to prohibit.
Like seriously, I haven’t seen any actual situations used to justify the law, and literally 0 examples from Florida that justified the explicit expansion to 12th grade.
Like what do these supporters think is “instructed” in 12th grade that warrants parents to be “concerned about age inappropriate content”?
Do people actually believe teachers are putting on hardcore porn from K-12?
It’s literally culture war BS, and DeSantis chewed off more than he could bite with retaliating against Disney for merely disapproving a bill that has valid criticisms ignored to “own the libs”
This is why Florida has education issues. The populace is distracted, some willingly while they focus on issues that either barely if at all happened in the state, rather than current real issues in the state.
Ultimately it’s a net negative effect because though the bill doesn’t really stop something that likely never required legislation, it does make it harder to discuss topics some parents don’t like, under threat of legal action.
Like some either don’t understand or care that Education employees don’t actually need to be guilty of breaking the law, but merely being accused can contribute to legal risks and criticism for things that doesn’t have to fall under the law.
If you need any real world examples from Florida that proves that problem, it’s the mother upset her kid’s school didn’t send out permission slips/notices that their kid will see a picture of the David statue…. The kid mind you is a 6th grader, and the “pornographic picture” is a 500 year old statue depicted in a lesson about renaissance art.
Like this is moronic.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@謬 it isn’t. You’re assuming.
There’s a difference between the US Justice department, and the justice department under Putin.
Putin’s opposition ends up either dead, or imprisoned. They quite literally illegalized open opposition to Putin’s war.
Doesn’t mean the US hasn’t used its laws for geopolitical reasons, but let’s not pretend the US justice system and the Russian one are one of the same, or of equal integrity.
You do something Putin doesn’t like, and you’ll literally be in jail charged with whatever crime they want. Doesn’t even matter if it’s true or not, but I’d trust the American legal system before the Russian, considering that I can criticize my president for whatever and NOT end up serving years in prison
How often do we take Russians, arrest them and accuse them of espionage WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY EVIDENCE OR PROOF SUPPORTING IT?
But you’ll probably argue that charging someone 10 years over a small quantity of weed is fair because “well, it’s illegal!”, while ignoring the non-natural rate of imprisonment by Judicial authorities
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marshall2.015 because parents can and already have created controversy against school officials over something that actually wasn’t applicable under the law, but the parent believes a 6th grader seeing the Statue of David equates to pornography IN AN ART CLASS.
People criticize it because the wording is so ambiguous, what actually violates the law isn’t objectively specific.
Because it isn’t specific, parents can invoke it, or point to it while claiming “THE LESSON IS PORNOGRAPHIC” just because their kid sees a picture that’s not actually considered porn, and is literally one of the most well known pieces of art in human history.
Doesn’t matter whether Disney cares or not. Doesn’t mean it’s ok for state governors to punish companies because they disagree with what the governors do.
The first amendment applies to companies too, and suggesting free speech suddenly shouldn’t apply to companies that produce media might as well be your argument to weaken the freedom of speech in the constitution.
If Disney approved the law, DeSantis wouldn’t have done anything negative to them, and you probably wouldn’t care. But since it’s the opposite, it’s okay for DeSantis to target companies that dare criticize anything he backs, under threat of financial retaliation.
Now if that’s alright, and a newspaper in Florida criticizes DeSantis, it’s also fine for him to make legislation that increases taxes for that specific business, right?
I really don’t get how you don’t comprehend the actual issue. Has nothing to do with Disney or even DeSantis. It’s a question of whether he did or did not retaliate against a business for criticizing his law he signed.
It’s a first amendment issue, and DeSantis has openly indicated that his actions against Disney was related to their criticism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
@likesgymnastics5767 no, if you’d not use mental gymnastics, you’d understand that the law prohibits something that isn’t evidently a notable issue within Florida, and the law’s ambiguous language allows for things not “intended” to be targeted for prohibition as possibly illegal.
That is why concise wording in law is important. “Age appropriateness” isn’t objective. Many people disagree on “which age is appropriate for X”.
The law also allows parents to complain about teachers or administrators violating the law merely based on their own personal opinion, rather than a very specific situation.
It also impacts people regardless of sexuality, but you can clearly see that the justification of the law is based on TikTok videos of a number of teachers on the internet, and not notable cases in Florida
But maybe you do think parents NEED to be warned about middle schoolers seeing the ShOcKiNg depiction of a 500 year old globally famous nude statue made by a historical well known artist, because kids can’t somehow see depictions of David on the internet within a minute.
The law is silly, the words are weak, the examples that supposedly necessitate legislation is few if not 0 cases referenced from Florida that even suggests it’s a problem that can’t be handled locally, without any need for legislation
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@dansands8140 lol no.
Rich people do not go through the worries and concerns of the average person, and you sound incredibly out of touch to suggest that wealthy people are just like the average Joe… they’re clearly not
lol but sure, an iPhone is like a yacht, and isn’t a computer that can be used for multiple purposes. An iPhone is just like a yacht!
Rich people can complain and have bad relationships, so they’re somehow the same as the average person, despite being completely able to never work again, and afford things most cannot.
That’s not even counting the closed circles that wealthy individuals get added to based entirely on similar wealth ranges in their area.
You sound like a rich kid trying to tell a poor kid that being rich is as stressful and common as being a poor kid.
Won’t have many rich people who’d willingly live the life of a poor person, nor a poor person who’d willingly choose to be poor, when they have the ability to never needing to work again, or can afford literally whatever they want.
One has more privilege than the other, and it’s not easy to obtain at all.
Perhaps you should actually meet rich and poor people and understand the real world differences. They aren’t just jealous online socialists complaining. There’s objectively different treatment and standards positively for wealthy people that poor people cannot enjoy.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Russian civil war II
Putin could have just invested in Russia, and wait for the US to pivot away from foreign policies.
Hope this gets Russia to agree to end the conflict and Ukraine regains its internationally recognized border.
I mean people didn’t think the socialists would topple the monarchy until they did.
I hope Russia transforms after this war, like Germany or Japan, or Korea.
This is not the 20th century, and if you disagree with the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, there’s no justification in escalating a war into a full scale invasion, attempt to take out its leader, occupy and annex territories that weren’t part of the claim that justified the invasion, and openly lies to the world about his intentions, as he prepared his troops for an invasion as the invader.
That’s not even counting Putin’s irredentist views, and his suggestion that the Ukrainian identity is some recent and made up lie, and that they’re all Russians, despite being considered three culturally distinguished “Russians” by those same people.
Guy is a wannabe Stalin and needs to go down.
Literally censors any dissent of the war with imprisonment.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1