|
|
Post by nightmare75 on Mar 10, 2011 23:25:00 GMT -5
it should to me. the truth cannot be offensive, it's the truth. if you're a fat, lazy asshole, you are. don't be offended when someoen says so. if the kids are lazy, crude pricks, they are. no one should be offended when that is said. What is a "prick?" Is there a formal definition for it somewhere? How can you quantify what a prick is? I've never heard or seen the word "prick" used in a formally descriptive manner. You can quantify or provide examples of being lazy or crude, but not being a prick. If you can't tell me what a prick is and how I identify them, then you can't necessarily claim that calling someone a prick is the truth. That's the line here. Calling students lazy is a criticism. Calling students pricks is offensive. If you're resorting to slang or pejorative to describe something, you are being offensive, whether it's truth or not. You can always describe something without slang. It's clear here that she should have. I don't think she was fired because of the issue she brought to light, she was fired for the way she did it. And your example is a much different situation than this one. Your boss doesn't represent a taxpayer funded public institution meant to educate and improve the pupils in attendance. He's a supervisor calling you out for making a mistake. If you don't like the way he does it, I'm sure you're perfectly free to tell him about it. Or quit. Whichever suits you. He's paying you to be there to do a job and he's there to supervise you (among other duties, I presume) in your execution of that job. A student is required to attend school, and depending on where they live, they may have no other reasonable options for attending a different school. If the teacher is calling students "fucking dipshits," it doesn't matter how true it is, they can't get away with that. Many, many employers, especially those in the public sector, have standards of conduct policies that employees must abide by or risk termination. If you agree to such a standard at the beginning of your employment and you violate it (by say, insulting your students), they have grounds to terminate your ass. I think that's a fair point. I think we're both in agreement that she's right in any case and I think we both wouldn't have had to think hard to come to the same conclusion without this situation bringing it to our attention. The debate we're having is whether she should keep her job, which isn't really salient to the point she was making in any case. |
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 11, 2011 19:54:02 GMT -5
I see all of your points quite clearly.
and I can quantify a prick. urban dictionary ftw.
gleenign through some definitions, I would quantify a "prick" as a generally unlikable and jerk-ish person. someone who conducts themselves in a less than courtly manner. they piss people off for the sake of it.
not perfect, but a pretty alright definition. Formal? negative. Formal of Prick would probably be along the lines of "unpleasent".
however, I certainly see your point on slang being derogatory. hadn't thoguht of it that way before.
and the bit on my boss, I concede that. i was, as I figured, twisting it a bit. my situation is that I'm an apprentice, he's a journeyman, so he's my teacher, and that was the common ground.
but it was weak ground if anything. so i can concede it.
as for finding the point that she's right whether this was brought to national news or not, well, we might be able to, but it'd seem that this is a revelation for most people, as it DID make national news, and DID spark a ton of debate, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare75 on Mar 11, 2011 23:21:20 GMT -5
We could never have a civil discussion like this elsewhere. That's quite refreshing. Good on you.
I'm trying to think of something that might make an entire generation appreciate what it has. Society is so based on instant gratification now. So much is easily available to anyone who has even moderate means. It's an interesting problem to ponder, but I'm having problems coming up with a coherent point. I think this generation's parents are to blame somewhat, but I also think it has to do with the fact that their parents were the first that were really able to provide things for their kids and as such our parents never had the same work ethic or appreciation instilled in them as their parents did. Maybe it's because our parents never had a war. Idk. I'm digressing all over the place.
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 12, 2011 22:10:05 GMT -5
hmmm.....
I can really say that I believe your bit about the parents being able to provide more is the issue here.
our grandparents were most cane switch raised, and dirt broke poor. it was common. So when (if) they became successful, they didn't dote on their children. they instilled values in our parental generation. work hard, dont spend beyond your means, etc.
for the most part, i think that was true.
However, our parents then hit the first wave of "easy time". things became easier, people became lazier. when they had kids (read: us) they wanted things to be easier than it was for them growing up. they didn't wanna be the strict parents (again, generalization). essentially, they got soft.
Now, with our generation, we've largely had things handed to us. most of us haven't had to help out ouir parents a ton. our parents have been successful. our parents have juggled debts in excess of 5 times their income, and made it work, so we think it's OK to do that. doesn't work out well.
technology has made us lazy, and our own will to make everyone "accepted" and "politcally correct" has made us soft, for lack of a better term. there aren't failing grades, there are "challenged students", for example.
and to me anyway, it's bullshit. I don't think a kid should really have a vehicle given to them, for instance. or a cell phone. i think that making the kid work for what they want instills values, it instills pride in what they do, and makes good people out of them.
best way to teach this generation what it has?
a good, solid depression. our generation is akin to the stock market speculators of the 20s. we just assume that we can buy/do/get this or that, and don't really think of the consequences. just like they did. I'd actually say that it's the best comparison i can think of. we feel entitled to what we want, and just want it.
instant gratification.
a good old fashioned bloody war, or depression would probably help it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare75 on Mar 12, 2011 23:03:23 GMT -5
The thing about wars and depression is that they suck terribly. We were actually pretty close to a depression with the banking collapse followed by the near-death of GM and Chrysler. It would have taken us years to recover from that. It'd be nice if there was a solution that didn't involve that, but I'm not sure there is. It's still possible to raise kids with a strong work ethic, but you have to expect things from them, not try to be their friends, and be OK with them being mad at you. Not every set of parents is capable of that.
I do disagree with you somewhat about giving your kids things like cell phones and cars. Cell phones are something of a safety issue. If your kid is somewhere shady or went out with the wrong people and needs a ride home, it would be good if they had a way to call you. Cell phones are especially useful if the kid doesn't have a car and needs a ride. I'm not saying parents should buy their kids an iPhone, but prepaid phones are cheap and you completely control how much your kids can use them. You can disable texting altogether, which is the biggest issue IMO. Giving your kid a cell phone allows you to check in on them whenever you want, which is important, IMO.
As far as a car goes, I find it hard to make a blanket statement on whether that's good or not. In my situation, I could not have gotten a job without first having a car just due to where we live and the fact that my parents both commuted to work at the time and weren't available to give me rides when I needed them. Riding a bike in winter is impractical at best, but it's actually pretty dangerous where I live due to icy and hilly roads. My parents did give me a car though and I was able to get a job, which allowed me to put away money for college. My parents haven't helped me out significantly with college (though I will have some student loan debt), which is partly due to the fact that I had some savings before I entered college. If your kid *can't* go out and earn their car without having one, I see no problem with giving them one, contingent on them getting a job and paying for the gas or insurance.
Certainly, there are kids that are in a position where they can get a job without having a car, and in that case, I see no problem with making them earn their wheels.
I agree with you that there is a certain amount of pride for a kid that earns something by working hard. My first computer was the first big thing I ever bought with my own money and it felt really good. I kinda just sat and looked at it for the first week I owned it, unable to grasp that it was all *mine*, no sharing involved. Kids shouldn't be deprived of that, but I think there's a fine line between making your kid earning everything they have and giving them some things that they'll make good, constructive use of. Maybe your kid gets the family computer when you get a new one, or you buy him a musical instrument. There's no reason why giving your kids some things that they couldn't afford has to be a universally bad thing.
I think there needs to be balance in raising a child. You can't give them everything they want, but they do need the tools to succeed. The hard part is recognizing where the line between the two is. There are a lot of theories about parenting, but most of them suck. I think all you can do is assume you're a good person and raise your children to be like you. They're going to be emulating you from a young age anyway.
I think setting goals for your kid and rewarding them when they meet them is an effective way to instill a work ethic. My parents never expected anything less than A's in grade school from either me or my sister. If we got B's, we had to explain why. That expectation kept me working on homework, even while I was trying to sink as many hours as possible into Oblivion or GT4. I think you get from your kids what you expect from them if you're supportive, but firm.
IDK. Maybe my views are skewed because both of my parents are hard-working people and because I work my ass off at school. Maybe I'm utterly wrong. It's impossible to know some of this stuff for sure because it isn't really quantifiable.
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 12, 2011 23:38:26 GMT -5
no, you have a much better grasp than i do.
to prove it?
my mum read your post, and agrees with you. and she's about the best parent ever. anyone who can raise 3 kids on 12 grand a year and have the kdis turn out good with careers ahead of em is a good parent.
you have all valid points in that post as well. i tended to make blanket statements for ease of posting, but that doesn't work. bottom line, the real point that sticks out is the bit about being OK with them being mad at you as a parent. way too many parents these days wanna be their kids best friend.
that's just not right, IMHO. parents are not there to be your friend (necessarily) they are there to raise you, and make you a competent, functioning adult who can handle life.
there have been so many times when i wanted to rip my mums head off. she has been pretty fine with that. "You'll see it my way eventually" was a common statement (i was the badmouthing misbehaviour child of the family, to be honest). My parents understand that parenting comes first. and that means pissing the kid off, on many occasions.
as for the issue of finding a way without a depression or war, well, I have theories, but none that really work, even in my head.
still workin on it, honestly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spartan on Mar 14, 2011 19:28:52 GMT -5
While it has not much to do with the discussion going on here, I just thought I'd like to say that this lady is officially off the rocker, as she recently went and said bad things about mentally-handicapped people. Her hope to become any type of national teacher-rebellion leader has now faded.
Other than that, i've got nothing to add at this time...
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 15, 2011 0:39:58 GMT -5
well that's wonderful.
i've been defending a woman who hates retarded people.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeltaMustang65 on Mar 15, 2011 20:07:26 GMT -5
It's ok, I hate DRZ_PERSON and whatever that Spak Vee guy's name is, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 15, 2011 20:45:10 GMT -5
that'd be Thug.
lets not forget Z-Racer, also known as Shin Chrisean.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare75 on Mar 15, 2011 21:35:22 GMT -5
It always makes me laugh that he really uses that Z RACER handle with a straight face. It's like something a 10 year old (or an anime) would use.
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 16, 2011 21:43:21 GMT -5
i honestly can't understand how he can do it. it's beyond my ability of comprehension of idiocy.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeltaMustang65 on Mar 19, 2011 14:39:23 GMT -5
Wouldn't A Racer be better? You know, from a grading perspective, Z is way down there. Like, "this guy is an A+ racer. It must be none other than A Racer".
...Nah, even that sounds silly. Would make a funny B-Spec Bob name, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by ½ A Gram on Mar 19, 2011 19:01:50 GMT -5
aaaahahahaha! he posted about wanting to get a C5 vette! oh my waffles have been roffled.
|
|
|
|
Post by nightmare75 on Mar 19, 2011 21:19:44 GMT -5
I had to laugh pretty hard at that. After all that Nissan nut sucking he's done, he's going for a C5 Vette? That's hilarious.
|
|
