this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
106 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13198 readers
375 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If they're not doing it in front of the kids or the parents then it's not the kids or the parents' business.
sure, but once its found out, it is their business since it becomes public knowledge. No doubt many teachers get up to the usual range of activities of various kinds that are seen as illicit or taboo in secret, but they're public role models for children in their profession, so.
Here's the neat part: No it isn't. It's not something the teacher does at school or during school hours, so it's not public business.
What if the teacher wrote 90's gangster rap songs? What if the teacher was a gun nut? What if the teacher wrote the next big group of gritty fantasy novels like ASoIaF? Lots of SA in those books... Should the teacher be fired then? What if the teacher lands a gig on Law & Order SVU as some sort of sexual offender? What if the teacher likes to jog in bootyshorts? That's kinda scandalous. What if the teacher drinks pepsi, but this is a coke town?
All of those reasons are precisely as valid as your "concern" for a teacher with OnlyFans
Something that a teacher advertises publicly is the public's business.
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least). With the 90s gangster rap, it depends on the content. With the guns, it depends on what kind of related material they were publically releasing.
Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.
Lmao are you Helen Lovejoy?
WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?
What people do in their free time is their own choice. You judge teachers on what they do at school, because that's where they're teachers.
Oh I thought we were supposed to assume good faith in order to have a productive discussion? My examples show that there is no cutoff for your moral panic, it's completely arbitrary. You of course won't engage with this because you're a shithead who thinks "debating" is something to be proud of
Let me put this in the simplest way possible. The second you focus your energies on defending teachers' rights to do online porn, you have ceded the entirety of discourse surrounding the Education System to the conservative right at best, and the fascist right at worst. You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
Sometimes it's not about Libertad, Carajo.
Let me put this even simpler: If your response to hearing a teacher has an OF is "they should get fired" then you suck. If your response is "well if you defend the teacher for having an OF then you lose the optics war!" then you suck and you're stupid. For one we're on a niche internet forum, nothing here matters. Behaving like this in any way constitutes as the public discourse with weight to change anything is silly. For the other it's not a good thing that teachers have OF platforms, but blaming them for it and going along with that puritanical moral panic is giving away territory in your so precious discourse.
Libertad? This isn't some libertarianism thing.
Also all the people that are arguing "well what if my kids find porn of their teacher?" Should probably implement some sort of parental control, if they're so worried of their children finding porn.
Was that what I wrote?
Boy I sure am glad I wrote more than that one sentence
Picking your battles is important. A teacher doing OnlyFans is a great example of something that's defensible but very much not a hill to die on.
This is a niche shitposting leftist forum. There are no hills here. Nothing matters. It's all valleys, which makes it all into mountains and molehills as well.
Well we should think of the children, its important socially.
You've said elsewhere that you'd be concerned if a teacher were a facist - would you not mind if they were teaching to the cirriculum at school, but in their time off work publically promoting fascist material? I don't mean to conflate the two subjects (fascism and pornography), but just point out that we don't (and shouldn't) judge teachers just on what they do at school. Of course, then it becomes a question of what is and isn't acceptable for a teacher to be doing in public outside of work, and I don't think its moral panic to say that pornography is not acceptable - sex education and teaching about relationships is very sensitive as a subject for people because as I've said there's a great potential for harm and exploitation.
We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise of course. You don't think your pepsi coke thing was silly?
This is some real
shit
What goes around comes around
We shouldn't interact with each other the way we interact with chuds.
I consider them a chud because of their behaviour and opinion
How do you expect to get anything done if you call other people on your small leftist forum chuds because you disagree on one thing despite agreeing on 99 others? You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
I think they're a chud because they have a puritanical worldview and they use typical chud debatebro tactics.
I don't expect to get anything done thru a website and I sincerely hope you don't either. This isn't a place for organizing it's a safe space for leftist shitposting and it sincerely saddens me to see people be so blindly supportive of obvious puritanical moral panic BS.
IRL I've had this conversation while I worked at a school and one of the temps that worked there turned out to have an onlyfans. The only person who got fired was the guy who made a big stink about it. This was because we worked with children and people found it weird how obsessed he was with porn.
I've done plenty of IRL organizing and you'd be surprised the kinda things you can talk out with regular normal people. I don't have to agree with them on everything, but being weird judgemental prudes using debate tricks learned by 3rd graders don't make them into someone where one can have a fruitful cooperative effort.
"I disagree with this person therefore they're a chud therefore I can be as big of an ass as I want to them" is a shitty way to interact with people here. "It's just a website" is a bad excuse because it makes interactions on that website shittier and how we act online bleeds through to the real world.
The only person I saw using "debate tricks" was you, and you can't say on one hand this is a website so you can be an ass to whoever you want, then on the other hand complain about stuff like that.
No. The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud and thus I don't feel like I have to be particularly kind to them.
Then you are either blind or willfully obtuse. By the way the thing you did before of reducing my disagreement was a "debate trick" in case you missed it.
A chud is a full-blown reactionary, not another leftist who agrees with you on 99 things and disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary (and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread).
if they think sex workers are a danger to children they are a reactionary
A chud is a right-wing asshole, and that's what the user is.
"One point" being viewing sex workers as morally reprehensible humans that cannot be allowed space in polite society.
Okay and so what? I hold the opinion that the user is a chud, I hold the opinion that their puritanical views are reactionairy. What are you even trying to argue here? It's all subjective.
But go thru and see how they've behaved themselves since you stepped up to defend the smol bean. I'm done with your weird attempt at tone policing.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
If you think Lolita was condoning its subject matter then you completely misunderstood the entire message of the book. This is why we need media literacy.
Fans of that book, or the literati, always say that, and yet its very popular with child abusers. No doubt there are those who read it and were disgusted. Most people however don't need an elaborate fantasy novel to tell them that kind of thing is very very bad.
If I've misunderstood the message, and others have too (it isn't generally well liked, except in certain circles, usually called at least 'controversial'), then we can be sure that anyone writing such material shouldn't be a teacher, and certainly children shouldn't be exposed to it - and the way communities work, children at such a teacher's school would be well aware of any controversial publications they might have made. Personally, I think it is a literary trick (like the 'poverty porn' genre) to justify the promotion of dodgy material to a certain class for titilation, so I'd do a lot more than sack such an author.
Um, what? This logic could be applied to critical race theory about as easily as you've applied it here to Lolita. Way to prove that you really are a puritan.
sure, if critical race theory were child abuse, and if the author were a Russian aristo who fled to the US when the commies won. I suppose any logic can be applied to anything if we ignore what's actually being discussed.
It really isn't puritan to dislike Lolita and I think if you think that connection you've made through you'll see why.
So, writing anything that multiple people misunderstand and find offensive, especially if it can be called 'controversial,' is an automatic disqualification from teaching, got it. Makes perfect sense, and I'm not at all deeply disappointed to see multiple hexbears upvote this horrifically bad take.
I am absolutely fucking disgusted with this shit
So if someone says "child abuse is bad" they should be banned from teaching, because they said something about child abuse, do I have this right?
Once again, Lolita is not a fantasy about child abuse. Please read the book.
'Fantasy' implies it was written as an erotic novel, rather than a critique of child abuse. The narrative makes it very clear that the protagonist is a monster and that everything he did was horrible. For the last time please read the book and educate yourself about it before passing judgement, because banning a book you haven't read but you think is pornographic despite everyone telling you otherwise makes you indistinguishable from the GOP freaks who are banning every book from school libraries that so much as acknowledges the existence of LGBTQ+ people.
First of all, I didn't say Lolita is indistinguishable from novels with LGBTQ+ themes, I said that you are indistinguishable from GOP book banners.
Oh my god shut the fuck up already. You have been told multiple times, in no uncertain terms, that Lolita is not a pornographic novel. Until you read the book, nothing you say matters, because you have made it perfectly clear you are profoundly ignorant on the subject matter, and despite every attempt by other people in this thread who have tried to politely correct you on this misunderstanding, you continue to repeat the same ignorant takes on this novel over and over again. You are, again, indistinguishable from a reactionary who makes up their mind on something and refuses to budge despite all overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@[email protected] told you in another part of this thread that "the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms" so I'll even share that passage with you:
Shut the fuck up and read the fucking book. Seriously, I don't want to read another comment from you about this book until you have read it, because you have made it entirely clear you have zero clue what the actual novel is about.
Regardless, I'm done with this conversation. Best of luck, hope you learn something today.
No no, of course not you would never do that! Instead you just don't read the things you complain about while making assumptions and refusing to shut the fuck up and check to see if you were even right first!
Get the fuck off our website
The only people who understand the book in that way are:
people who the book is about
people who haven't read it but have read redditors talk about the book in the way those people would.
The only thing I can tell about Lolita is that there is a whole lot of people out there who definitely haven't read but talk about it as if they had.
And if the writer was a teacher, I really wouldn't care. Teachers write or say so much more fucked up stuff. Many are conservatives for instance. A whole lot.
Sorry but what. You can't be held responsible for people not understanding what you've written due to cultural tropes that have developed from random idiots who didn't get it in the first place.
I'm sorry, but understanding that Lolita is NOT pro-pedo is the easiest thing in the world. You can't even say "subtext". I genuinely can't think how a semi-functional adult could possibly misunderstand the text in that way. I know it does happen, but it's really hard to conceive. The whole thing is pretty clear about it. The fact that the protagonist is a horrible monster who shouldn't be trusted is literally in the opening. In no uncertain terms.
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMMODATED SHUT THE FUCK UP
You didn't read it, did you?
And I'm not saying it's a good book because it isn't.