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
[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (41 children)

but once its found out, it is their business since it becomes public knowledge.

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

[–] [email protected] 13 points 9 months ago (40 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (19 children)

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.

Some of your other examples are too petulant and silly to respond to.

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 debate-me-debate-me

[–] [email protected] 11 points 9 months ago

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?

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)
load more comments (38 replies)