Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "Teacher knocks parents as 'bigots' in Dr. Seuss-style poem at school board meeting" video.

A lot of these "teachers" seem like immature, triggered kooks. They have no business anywhere near captive students forced by law to listen to them. This is depraved.
19
@keyfield8967 Any "group" that has standards has rules for deciding who meets the standards. "Credentialed" doesn't mean anything other than formally approved by the esoteric group that issues certificates of such. It has the same meaning as "certified election". Basically, it means nothing in any objective sense. It means the group has vetted you. The next question is do we trust the group making the claim? What does "expert academic" mean, for example? How good are Jill Biden's credentials?
8
@keyfield8967 Their credentials are worthless.
5
Ralph Anderson Her theoretical tax payments don't take away from our taxpayer and parenting rights in any way, shape or form.
3
@ThomasSDavis-mc9of They're triggered lunatics.
2
She's not mentally competent to teach.
2
@Warrior4Him Exactly.
1
Mary Martin Who is paying the "activists"?
1
Mary Martin Half of the Koch brothers are dead. Who cares of TPUSA is "paying activists". Your meme implies that there's some "profit motive" or nefarious "Special Interest Group" that you don't like behind all of this. I already know who profits from Critical Theory lunacy. Who do you allege is profiting from debunking your little academic religion?
1
Mary Martin LOL. I'm closed minded because I expose your rhetoric as demagogic? You didn't actually explain why you're against paid activists, the remaining "Koch brother" and so forth. Perhaps you're so closed minded and indoctrinated that it's not even possible to have open ended conversations...with you! Which "both views" are you against? This fallacious dichotomy is your invention, not mine. The problem with Critical Theory is that it is an academic religion. What that means ,inn short, is that it relies on dogmas that can't be discussed. To upack and challenge these dogmas is ___(fill in the stupid smear). I don't think you can even follow the criticism. Please explain which "two views" you claim to be against.
1
Mary Martin By the way, "right wing" is an invention of "left wing" kooks. Left wing is also their invention. It goes back to the French Revolution and was further "explained" with newly minted dogmas by Karl Marx as a "class war" between "capital" and "wage slaves" and then there are stories to line up all of humanity within that imaginary class war. The French divided this originally in to 3 "estates" that boiled down to the first two being "establishment oppressor" classes and the Third Estate are "the oppressed". This corresponds to today's Third World/Three World paradigm. There was never any "right wing" that organized as a class against "the oppressed" AKA "disenfranchised". A right wing plot would have to be one that involves restoration of a monarchy and rolls back actual rights of the citizens and denizens under this polity. But under Marxist pseudoscience anyone that opposes this BS is a "reactionary" and therefore "right wing activist" as determined by your feelings and this dumb set of religious beliefs that I just outlined for you. The "class war" analysis is a paradigm. It does not reflect something that can be tested scientifically as universally "true." It's like saying there's a Clash of Civilizations and then you argue for and against whether you agree or even what such a thing would look like. The "class war" between "capitalists and the oppressed wage slaves" is validated every time you find a wage slave in a polity that has property rights that allow business to profit when hiring people. Got any "certified wage slaves" to show me? I don't know how anyone can get through college and not understand what I just explained. And yet we have millions of nutjobs spreading this crap as "the truth".
1
@tomstory8502 Name the treaty that outlaws it.
1
@Real Aiglon If she pays taxes it's only taken as a portion of taxpayer-funded salary and resources that she benefits from. Paying taxes gives her the right to vote and speak like anyone else. Not to abuse her taxpayer-funded sinecure.
1
Ralph Anderson If someone has duties due to their taxpayer-funded job paying taxes on that income doesn't give special rights to abuse that position.
1
@hanshansen3885 Likewise, teachers do not "own" anything that they represent in class. Their "democratic rights" are not superior to those of the parents. What trumps "teachers' rights" is the parent's "parental rights". In the end, they win. If they have actionable grievances (as opposed to poorly articulated or otherwise illegitimate) their individual grievances outweigh those of the teachers and any other public school official. That's how it works in a Constitutional republic. Where that ends is that a parenting minority group can't force their views on a majority. What they can do is sue and withdraw their own children. They can also lobby for a voucher system and so forth. There are actually lots of remedies that taxpayers have and parents particularly do have superior rights to teachers when it comes to discussing what happens in class.
1
@hanshansen3885 You mentioned "rights" implicitly when you invoked your "own(ership of the) government" nonsense. You don't even understand your own rhetoric. That's pretty remarkable as you pontificate to others. I laid it out for you and you don't seem too appreciative. Ownership always refers to property rights. The other thing is that there is no undivided "government" in the USA but that's another topic altogether that I see not too many folks are ready for.
1
@hanshansen3885 "True enough though minorities are usually listened to." I'm not sure you know what minority means. It means a group that organizes their grievances and presents it but don't have enough (aka majority) "votes" to win in a legislative session. That's what it means. Minorities are listened to, usually, when the rules call for it. But that's the past. Now we have PC definitions for everything that you don't understand.
1
@hanshansen3885 "I fail to see that connection. Also I have not invoked any "own(ership of the) government". Do you then agree that parents or taxpayers do not own the government?" Where did you learn to speak or type in English? "I would not use your example because the word "minority" isnt necessarily connected to votes or grievances." LOL. Reading in context is so very difficult, isn't it. What I suggest you do is reread the original comment of yours that I first replied to. Try to make sure you're properly explaining what you think is going on. Your rhetoric is illogical because you have a stubborn view that you think the people you're talking to must be even more confused than you are. You've explained nothing and your questions don't lead to edification. They just go in tiny circles of logic that only display your own confusion. You really don't even know what the controversies are. You can't explain the controversies in ordinary English. It's not difficult to learn but all of your follow up rhetoric is designed to defend your own image or yourself or something along those lines. Try to fix your own work first and then maybe you can reread what I already wrote to you. At that stage you can try to develop some questions or intelligent follow up comments. Critical Theory isn't the only problem we have with schools in the USA, obviously.
1
@hanshansen3885 Again, the source of your problems is you. I responded very clearly to your original comment. If you just want to do nothing but defend yourself that's your problem.
1