Hot take: teachers shouldn't lose their jobs for also having an onlyfans account.
our society should be ashamed that any teacher has to work a second job of any kind to survive .
Thank god one brave Hexbear is willing to call out the most vile scum: teachers who have two jobs
Don’t have 10 kids cuz you’re a Christian psycho.
Don’t expect to live in the same condo as beyonce.
Gonna drop this at my next union meeting. Should go well.
Terrible take
Socialism is not poverty, the bar isn't set at subsistence living, and other people having it worse doesn't make your problems meaningless
Teachers don’t have to work a second job to survive unless they want to live the life that it would take 500 third world workers combined could afford.
Bad take, a sizable portion of teachers (in the US where this happened, but I've heard from mates that got into the profession it's just as bad in the UK) aren't payed enough to keep up with rising rents.
They shouldn’t. But the school saw no problem with her racial facade and hired her anyway. It sucks that this had to be reason she’s fired, but she otherwise would’ve continued getting rewarded for this fraud. I’m not losing sleep
Wait is this the person who claimed she was trans racial?
I think you'd be hard pressed to find parents who don't have an issue with their kids teacher also being a pornographer
I would have a lot greater issues with my kids' teachers being reactionaries.
well I think the majority of parents closely guard their children when it comes to this issue (in a general sense), because children are very easily exploited, and this matter is one that's very easy for people to exploit others with, so they want to be fully in control or at least oversight of the teaching of this subject - the same goes for politics. Not always with great results of course, and sometimes unintentionally (or in the worst cases intentionally) harmfully, but mostly because of that protective impulse.
Generally, when parents talk about what they want their children to be, they say happy and prosperous, and something useful like a scientist or a bus driver or similar, or to follow in their own career sometimes. I've never heard a parent say they want their children to become pornographers. And again, the vast majority of parents don't want an authority figure and role model for their child to be one. I don't think this is because they don't want their children to grow up to not enjoy or engage in normal human interactions, but rather that its something that can (and often does) carry a great deal of risk and harm, and they want to wait for an appropriate time, when they're wiser, for them to experience or learn about it.
So I'm not sure your implied accusation (I hope I haven't misread you) that its reactionary to not want a pornographer teacher is true.
Theres lots of people I don't want my children around, and pornstars are nowhere near the top of that list. Fascists and reactionaries are. If you open up firing people for what they do in their free time, then I think we should focus on those that are actually harmful first.
Children are very easily exploited.
Do you think having an OnlyFans gives you a craving to make CP?? Do you think OnlyFans hosts CP?
One of the biggest groups of sexual offenders are cops, and they're placed IN SCHOOLS for some reason.No, and I'd prefer if you try to take what I say in good faith, it'll make this discussion easier and maybe even productive - those are silly questions to ask. That isn't the only issue, just the most extreme one. Its about how and when a child learns about any aspect of this topic, and their learnt perspective on it.
Again, two bad things don't make a good thing. I wouldn't want my children to have cops in schools, because I'd worry that they would influence their development & education, being authority figures and role models.
No, and I'd prefer if you try to take what I say in good faith, it'll make this discussion easier and maybe even productive - those are silly questions to ask.
I'm taking what you are saying in as good faith as possible - that is believing that you believe it. These questions are only as silly as your own premise - So incredibly silly. They serve to highlight the fault in your belief. The fact that you so readily dismiss them (combined with your previous debatebrobehaviour) shows you are not acting in good faith.
Its about how and when a child learns about any aspect of this topic, and their learnt perspective on it.
Again you are here implying that the teacher somehow presents the OF content for the children. That's sick.
Again, two bad things don't make a good thing.
Fuck I unblocked you because I thought you might just've been an idiot, goes to show how far good will gets you, I guess.
ok, well I'll assume I'm unblocked... thanks, I'm glad you don't think I'm just an idiot.
I said it wasn't in good faith, because nowhere have I explicitly or implicitly stated anything to do with the subject of your questions - I'm talking about pornography, and a pornographer teacher, being an issue. Of course it goes without saying that the worst of it (that you brought up) is an issue, and I wouldn't expect that would need to be stated or implied in this discussion, or I'd hope any other. So it looked to me like you were trying to accuse me of making a connection that I haven't. Good faith is not simply assuming your interlocutor believes what they say, its also not putting words in their mouth or arguing with something they haven't said or implied.
I'm not implying that the teacher presents their pornography for children - if that were the case I'd expect they'd be more than simply fired, but also prosecuted. Its rather that when this becomes public knowledge, it is widely known in the community, and there is a risk that children could have access to it, and/or simply be aware that their role model & authority figure is a pornographer. With children, because they are different from adults, we have to be very strict with our risk assessments and eliminate all possible and actual sources of harm. With this subject, there is a high degree of risk and potential harm.
So why should a teacher be fired from their job if their students decided to sexualize them and actively search for pornography that they might be in?
The students in this particular instance are elementary school kids. So ... if they're searching for porn at that age... what's going on with the parents?
So why should a teacher be fired from their job if their students decided to sexualize them and actively search for pornography that they might be in?
Hot take, elementary school kids shouldn't be held to the same standards of adults. They shouldn't have access to pornography and they especially shouldn't have access to pornography of people they know in real life.
This isn't a blame game, it's about who gets to be protected. The teacher being fired is not saying she did a moral wrong. It's saying I prefer for a classroom of children to avoid any chance of seeing porn of their teacher. If we could guarantee that only adults could access her onlyfans, then it would be different.
You either protect the teacher, or the classroom of children. Neither did anything wrong but you should choose to protect the children in this case.
what is more offensive about "pornography of people they know in real life"? sexworkers are all real people that deserve the same respect and dignity as anyone else, doing sexwork doesn't corrupt one's soul or make all contexts they exist in sexual. should porn performers not be allowed to walk down public sidewalks? there might be kids there!
Hot take, elementary school kids shouldn't be held to the same standards of adults. They shouldn't have access to pornography and they especially shouldn't have access to pornography of people they know in real life.
Hot take, it's not the teacher's responsibility to keep children from accessing sexually explicit material, it's the parent's. If children are accessing the OF account of someone they know in real life, then the parents need to sit down and have a frank, age-appropriate discussion with them about sex work, porn, and appropriate boundaries.
Yes, because they're the responsible adult, by virtue of their job and you'd hope their age and experience, and its their actions that allow it to become a possible risk. Children of course should be taught properly, but they're also impulsive and not wise and lack education, so we don't treat them as responsible for their actions (with caveats) in the same way we do adults.
Small children can have older siblings or friends who might show them that, and sometimes parents aren't responsible or good parents, sometimes children themselves are innapropriate because of harmful upbringing - this might be unusual or unlikely, but with children (and an institution entrusted to care for people's children) any small risk must be treated very seriously.
There is nothing bad about a person doing porn tho, it's entirely separate and irrelevant to being a teacher what are you talking about
There's also nothing bad about teachers not being allowed to be pornographers, or drug dealers. Any teacher must be fully aware that if such activities become public knowledge they will be fired - likely for breech of contract. I doubt this was a surprise to the teacher in question.
No, that is wack, get the fuck out of here
Fucking hellworld ass priorities and perspective
Teachers are only allowed to be asexual, atheist, gray blobs who are must not be allowed to exist as their own human person and must conform to the deeply fucked up values of our society
You going to say that teachers who have attended pride/ kink parades should be fired too, next?
Not to mention that the possibility of a child seeing porn of their teacher is absolutely enough of a reason to say no.
I don't blame the teacher, but I'd prefer for the children to be protected in this circumstances. If it comes to securing the rights of a child or the right of an adult, I'll make my choice. Having young children access porn is abuse enough as it is. The potential that it's going to be someone they know in real life is even beyond that.
it's absolutely reactionary, sex work is just work. and parents are far more likely to abuse children than sex workers anyways
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.
Those other commenters have accepted a premise baked into your comment that I do not. Why can't a public role model also be a model on OnlyFans? The only reason you would think that those two things are incompatible is if you think that there is something morally wrong with one of them, which I don't believe holds water. There is no form of sex work that I believe disqualifies someone from being a role model, and therefore a teacher, a parent, a counselor, or anything else.
Its not so much whether sex work is or isn't immoral, or unethical, I'd consider that a separate discussion, but rather how that practice relates to children and their education and development. Something can be ok for adults to learn about or engage in but not for children.
As an example, its usually seen as not a good thing for children to learn about being a soldier (even if it happens in practice), despite it being a very good way of making soldiers, to teach them young. But the resulting harm to those children and society makes it generally outlawed, and certainly against public opinion. This is seperate and distinct from an argument about whether its good or bad, right or wrong for an adult to learn about being a soldier. The same applies to drug use - you need to be wiser and better educated than a child to engage with it, because of the risks and harms involved.
edit; to further clarify, with the soldier analogy, you might be ok with it being taught in a structured and carefully thought out way, but not for children to be watching war footage, if you see what I mean.
The soldier analogy maybe would make sense if kids' books weren't chock full of stories of soldiers in wars. If kids' movies weren't mostly based on plots of violence involving people fighting in wars. If kids didn't "play army" consistently. If kids were never exposed to veterans through school assemblies. If military recruiters weren't given full access to schools. But unfortunately, all of these things happen, I experienced them when I was in school.
It's foolish to think war and soldiers aren't heavily, heavily romanticized in our society, and much of that romanticization is directly aimed at children. I do think this is getting less bad over time, luckily. I know the military is having a difficult time recruiting enough people, so that's good.
But fundamentally, I think sex is cool and good while war is lame and bad, so I would have zero issue with an onlyfans model teaching children and I would not want a veteran or national guard reservist teaching children.
I used the analogy because of how people (parents especially) feel about war, and because its a thing that carries great risks of harm and exploitation, being a soldier. Of course there are circumstances where a parent, out of desperation usually (sometimes out of greed) - as a matter of survival - would be ok with it. But generally speaking, people who aren't desperate don't want their children to be soldiers, they want them to be happy, prosperous, not maimed, not violent and so on, so there has to be a lot of incentive and propaganda around it to convince people - and even then it finds a lot of resistance from people.
I know that soldiers are romanticized, and so is violence, but I don't think that because that occurs, education of children should be a free for all - gambling is another example, because its something that children (and adults of course, but that's a different though related issue) are vulnerable to taking a bad lesson from exposure to, that can lead to harmful consequences for them and others.
Sex is cool, but it can also be harmful, in and of itself or as an aspect of a relationship with others. War is similar - if a soldier is defending out of necessity their people from violence or theft, that's cool, but there is a lot of scope for it not being cool. Things like this, that have a great potential for harm and risk of harm, for individuals and communities, need to be treated very carefully and cautiously when it comes to children (and really, adults of course, but especially children). Despite sex being (usually) cool, its not I don't think an issue to request that teachers of children, as role models and authority figures, should not be pornographers - just as they should not be soldiers.
I still think you're putting sex and war at the same general level of harm and I simply disagree with that moral ranking. Sex is almost always positive, war is almost always negative. These are not the same.
Sex is almost always positive
I'm sorry, but this is an absurd statement. Sex between consenting adults without coercion, in which neither party is violating an existing relationships boundaries is generally neutral to positive but that is a ton of qualifiers.
It's often positive, not almost always.
Yeah, sure, you're right of course. Sex can be super damaging in certain contexts. I do still think that fundamentally sex is a beautiful, wonderful part of the human experience while war is an occasional unpleasant necessity that it would really be better to do without if at all possible. They seem fundamentally different to me, and I'd like a world with more (and better) sex and less war. But you're right, sex with no qualifiers isn't "almost always" good. That's a very good point.
Right, and sex work often ends up being one of the situations where people get abused right? Like if someone is making money on onlyfans, more power to them, but much of the sex work being performed in the world is being done by desperate people who'd rather not do it?
Yeah, that's true. That's part of why in every reply I've made in this thread I've specifically been sure to say "onlyfans model" and not sex worker more broadly. Because there is a ton of exploitation in porn. I don't know, I'm just grumpy that sex is treated as this terrible, dirty thing that must be hidden at all costs and never talked about. It's one of my main issues with the puritanical society we live in, it's damn near impossible to have good conversations about sex, or treat it as something that can (and should be) positive.
Anyway, I'm about to
and 
, so I likely won't be responding. I hope you have a great day! (And I always love seeing you around, with your good takes and your Venture Bros references!)
how do you feel about military recruiters in highschools?
how do you feel about traumatized war criminals becoming teachers?
I don't feel good about it at all, and I think it should be banned! The presence of one bad thing doesn't make other bad things ok, though.
We are our experiences, our environments, and with children they're in a stage where learning lots is more important than learning or experiencing critically, and they don't have much wisdom or experience to be properly judgemental or to contextualise or understand what they see or hear, so we have to treat them differently. Development is also a process over time, so we need to make sure the learning content is appropriate for the age or developmental stage (including social development), and also not all taught at once but rather gradually, depending on their current capacity.
I'm unsure why you'd think its a necessary question to ask, given the comment you've responded to, but I hope you're satisfied with the answer.
just checking how thorough your
areif
The presence of one bad thing doesn't make other bad things ok, though.
is referring back to teachers with OF accounts then you need some more fumigating
could you explain why, I feel that I've explained my position in various comments (but I can reiterate if you'd like) and I'd like to know why you think it means my brain is wormy?
other people have already explained it to you.
the thing you're worried about is a bullshit moral panic and you fucking need to get over it.
Well I disagree with what they've said, and I don't think they've explained it at all, rather just accused me of being a puritan or similar. Could you try, in your own words?
I think the claims that have been made by others against me or my position that weren't simply lazy smears, I've already refuted (that what a teacher does publically is no business of the public, and that because military teachers/recruiters are allowed in schools so too should this, that there is any relation to trans people or drag queens to this issue, that teachers being fired for being pornographers means sex work is consequentially immoral). I certainly don't feel that anyone's said anything in contradiction that's caused me to even consider that my stance might be incorrect, but I'm willing to consider a reasonable and good response - I don't want to have brain worms after all.
its usually seen as not a good thing for children to learn about being a soldier
Vietnamese kindergarten children reenacting Vietnamese/American War battle.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
I think the other person is not wording their point correctly. Let me try to word it for them, at the risk of putting words in their mouth.
It is revealed to a group of 17-18 year old high school boys that their teacher does porn. These boys have access to the internet. What do you think is going to happen next? Obviously what will happen is that someone will look it up, share it, and then it causes a problem. Not because it's immoral but because you have immature horny creatures bringing something into the school that isn't appropriate. It's inappropriate because school is for learning not ridiculing or being sexist towards your teacher for doing porn.
In a purely practical sense, of teaching students with as little interruptions and interpersonal conflict as possible, it's easier to not employ the teacher doing porn. It removes a factor of friction in an already tedious and complex job.
If we lived under communism where a community of parents could take time off of their jobs and go to school with their kids, and the teacher could pause teaching, then we could ensure those kids were taught a valuable life lesson about what is and isn't appropriate, how to react to porn, and all that. But we don't live in that society, we live in the one where schools are essentially prisons that double as job training centers. Nobody has the time and we don't have the material underpinnings of an accepting culture. Thus, teachers who do porn will be fired.
For the tldr crowd...
"Its easier to fire a teacher than it is to teach teenagers that sexually harassing a teacher is wrong."
Well, I can't TLDR because everyone in this chain is hypersensitive right now and looking for any room to accuse everyone being secret reactionary sex puritan chuds. Sometimes you have to explain stuff.
But if anyone here thinks they can convince a local school board to reinstate OnlyFans teacher and give a moving West Wing speech to convince all the kids that porn is actually rizzed up with the sauce, then do it. I mean it's not like this site has any major differences in opinion on porn anyways. I'm sure we all have the correct true leftist take and can publicly broadcast that message to liberals and reactionaries in a way that actually solves the problem of sexism in Western Culture.
Why can't a public role model also be a model on OnlyFans? The only reason you would think that those two things are incompatible is if you think that there is something morally wrong with one of them
Being an OnlyFans model is not a moral wrong, but the industry of modern pornography is absolutely incompatible with a moral society.
You are an adult, at the very least you have your defined sexuality. Imagine a child's first experience with sexuality being porn of their teacher. We all know that porn dehumanizes women, but imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
No one did anything morally wrong here. But you have to prioritize the protection of the children or the teacher. I choose the children, you choose the teacher. What conclusion you get from this is up to you.
the industry of modern pornography is absolutely incompatible with a moral society
I agree, but it isn't the sex workers who are the problem with the industry of modern pornography. It's the human traffickers, the sleazy producers, the pimps and all the other rent seeking capitalists who make the industry bad.
imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
I imagine that it will humanize sex workers in the eyes of the children, whereas squirreling all of them away into the dark corners of society where they can't be seen serves to further dehumanize them.
Imagine a child's first experience with sexuality being porn of their teacher. We all know that porn dehumanizes women, but imagine how it will affect children when that person is someone they know in real life?
Okay, but the first response to that should be "sit down with your child and discuss appropriate boundaries," not "fire the teacher." Holy fuck stop being afraid to be a parent and just talk to your damn children, people.
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 OnlyFansSomething 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.
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
What people do in their free time is their own choice.
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.
If your response to hearing a teacher has an OF is "they should get fired" then you suck.
Was that what I wrote?
Boy I sure am glad I wrote more than that one sentence.
If your response is "well if you defend the teacher for having an OF then you lose the optics war!"
You will be exiled to the fringes of society by the parents themselves.
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?
What if the teacher drinks pepsi, but this is a coke town?
Oh I thought we were supposed to assume good faith
This is some real
shitWe shouldn't interact with each other the way we interact with chuds.
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.You know there will be plenty of other leftists who disagree with you on this or that, right?
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.
"I disagree with this person therefore they're a chud therefore I can be as big of an ass as I want to them"
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.
The only person I saw using "debate tricks" was you.
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.
The specific thing I disagree with the person on, and the way in which they behave, makes me consider them a chud
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 full-blown reactionary
A chud is a right-wing asshole, and that's what the user is.
disagrees with you on one point you characterize as reactionary
"One point" being viewing sex workers as morally reprehensible humans that cannot be allowed space in polite society.
and note that there is far from a consensus on that in this thread
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:
I think if they're writing books with that kind of material, then yes - I'd fire nabakov immediately for example
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.
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
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.
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.
Not anything, but certainly something about child abuse, when, and I can't emphasise this enough, you're responsible for teaching children is certainly an auto disqualification.
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.
child abuse material
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.
@SineNomineAnonymous@lemmy.ml 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:
I have no intention to glorify “H.H.” No doubt, he is horrible, he is abject, he is a shining example of moral leprosy, a mixture of ferocity and jocularity that betrays supreme misery perhaps, but is not conducive to attractiveness. He is ponderously capricious. Many of his casual opinions on the people and scenery of this country are ludicrous. A desperate honesty that throbs through his confession does not absolve him from sins of diabolical cunning. He is abnormal. He is not a gentleman. But how magically his singing violin can conjure up a tendresse, a compassion for Lolita that makes us entranced with the book while abhorring its author!
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.
I don't take fiction at face value, and I don't uncritically trust what authors write (I think that would be very naive), especially about topics they know will be subject to censorship.
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
they have to be accomodated in terms of whats allowed in the public sphere.
THEY ABSOLUTELY DO NOT HAVE TO BE ACCOMMODATED SHUT THE FUCK UP
I’d fire nabakov immediately for example (at the least)
You didn't read it, did you?
And I'm not saying it's a good book because it isn't.
They shouldn't have to be public role models though. A teacher shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any other adult. What the teacher does in their time off is their own business.
They shouldn't have to be public role models though.
As a teacher I disagree. I'm a public servant specialized in dealing with kids. I'm supposed to be held to very high standards. What those standards are is up to the community itself. Refusal to engage with the expectations of said community is just ceding ground to my political enemies, who most likely just want to destroy education as a public service in the first place.
By that standard
Teachers will always be expected to be role models for children. There will of course be conflict on what those standards should be - which is why we need to be politically competent.
There are ghouls out there. They'll say teachers shouldn't be LGBT. They'll push for all sorts of things. But if your opening salvo is that teachers don't have to be role models for children, and in fact can do whatever they want in their free time then you'll be ceding the ground to the ghouls. There's no two ways about it.
As such, if your priority is to defend my right to have an Only Fans, all I can say is 'no thank you'. I'm not american but I suspect that the issue we have in the public school I teach - kids don't have food at home and sometimes there's no food in school either - is a marginally Bigger Deal than whatever liberation you seem to think I need.
Well they should choose a different job or if they can't, accept the consequences, because that is what that job is by its nature. Just like a parent is a role model for their children - children are very impressionable, not very wise, and one fundamental, 'innate' type of learning is observational/copying. They aren't 'any other adult' they work with children and teach them.
What they do in their time off is their own business, but what they do in public is the public's business.
Well they should choose a different job or if they can't, accept the consequences, because that is what that job is by its nature.
The job, by its nature, is to teach. That is what they do. You are deciding it suddenly has to include to be some Avatar of public good - although a very strange avatar with a prudish cutoff for what is acceptable.
Of course parents will always be concerned with what kind of person a teacher is, and what they do, just as people are concerned about the same with politicians (also role models). It'd be negligent of them not to be. I'm not deciding that, its just is how things are, how society functions. If a person doesn't want to or isn't able to uphold the public good, they can't be a public authority figure or role model - or they can if they can get away with it, but it will always attract criticism.
It'd be negligent of them not to be. I'm not deciding that, its just is how things are, how society functions.
You are deciding which of the concerns are valid and should result in a firing. You are deciding things. This is you once again trying to reframe the discussion. Do better.
If a person doesn't want to or isn't able to uphold the public good, they can't be a public authority figure or role model - or they can if they can get away with it, but it will always attract criticism.
Again, a teacher is a teacher is a teacher. You're deciding to put all sorts of other stuff on top of it in order to shield the fact that you find sex work reprehensible to your puritanical morals.
Well its not me deciding, it was the employer - the school. I'm not reframing it, as I said at the beginning, I don't believe the majority of parents would be happy with a pornographer teacher.
We aren't just our jobs - we're also how we interact and what we do outside of our jobs, and you can't really separate the two. In fact, when it comes to children, its dangerous to do so. Some jobs this is especially true for - which is why there are so many (often insufficient) regulations and checks for teachers, compared to other jobs. If a person can't accept that extra responsibility, they shouldn't be a teacher.
I don't believe the majority of parents would be happy with a pornographer teacher.
I'm not sure that just accepting "majority parents" opinion and instantly firing them is the way forward here. I also feel like I know many women who have done sex work who are now in teaching or care positions who I don't think deserve to be fired for it.
Multiple people in this thread have said they'd rather not have a fascist or military teaching their kids, so it's not about whether the outside life doesn't matter. Rather, I feel like it's whether this case of outside life matters and if it's a problem with that pair of vocations or whether it is a wider problem with society. If the parents are wrong, change the parents. If the highschool boys are wrong, change the highschool boys.
But obviously the people in this thread do not have the power to change parents, all highschool boys, or reverse the firing. We're talking about a hypothetical where if we had the power to do any of these things, which should we do?
This also sidesteps some of the functional stuff and some stuff specific to the OP case. The teacher in question is an unbelievably messy person that I could wholly believe administration wanted to fire anyway. How would one go about changing the opinion of all parents about what are appropriate secondary jobs for teachers? If you could change that and the highschool boys, would that be fine or should the teacher still be fired? Does it matter if the sex work is current or not?
I know that a therapeutic relationship between a psychologist and a client could be harmed if they ran into each other at, say, a local kink event. I don't care, but I'm not every patient. But then a psychologist is relatively highly paid and often more secure than teachers are. A single patient leaving a psychologist has wildly different stakes to a teacher getting fired.
Are we assuming a sex workers are more likely to abuse the kids? Or that kids will see sex work as aspirational? Or that the lack of respect for sex workers will damage the ability of the teacher to teach? Or that upon hearing "sex worker" kids will seek out porn out of curiosity?
We joke about it, but this forum is partly about critique of society and how we would change it if we could.
Idk why I'm wading into this, my notifications aren't working
catholic, puritan, I think any denomination or any religious or philosophical or constitutional/legal framework worldwide would have a problem with it, barring niche cults and communities.
I suppose you have to ask, if most people would have an issue with it, is it that its simply that they're all wrong, or is there a reason for that kind of social teaching and practice? I think in this case there is, because of the risks involved, and because of the special status of children.
You know what else your arguments remind me of? (Also, sorry to respond to you twice in two different comment threads, I know that's kind of rude, but I already responded the other place and I have another thought from reading this comment. So, sorry.)
Your arguments remind me of people who think my sister shouldn't be teaching because she's visibly trans. She's very openly, publically trans and let me tell you, quite a few parents have an issue with that. These parents think that since my sister is a "role model" for their "very impressionable, not very wise" children whose learning style is "observational/copying", the kids will be influenced by her visible, open transness and become trans themselves.
This is, of course, nonsense, but if we simply listen to parents and remove people those parents have issues with, then we end up in a place where trans people are barred from being teachers because of their transness, and that's just bigotry, pure and simple.
I want to be very clear here, I don't have any reason to think you'd agree with the transphobic parents wanting my sister barred from teaching. But I do think your arguments for why an onlyfans model shouldn't teach are exactly the same as the arguments transphobic parents make about trans teachers. Identical.
No problem
It might well remind you of that, but being visibly trans isn't sexualised content being shown to children. I'm not surprised the arguments seem similar - its why right wingers use those lines, because it resonates with people, and if you conflate sexualised content (that people fundamentally will have an issue with for the reasons I've given elsewhere) with simply being trans, you can persuade people that being trans is an issue.
And a teacher being an onlyfans model also isn't sexualized content being shown to children. It's ok, I think we're just going to have to disagree here on whether teachers should be fired for having an onlyfans. I gotta move on with my day, I hope you have a good one!
No, but it is sexualised, actually sexual, content being advertised by somebody who works with children, and that may be accesible to those children. That isn't the case with somebody who is visibly trans and teaching, unless for some reason they decided to become a pornographer.
thanks, and likewise
being visibly trans (especially transfem) is inherently seen as sexual by wide swaths of the population. there's no conflating to be done at this stage. we've been conflated. we have to live with that, and that means not accepting the premise that teachers deserve to get fired for this shit
you keep dancing around the issue, saying "oh we need to respect parents rights and their worries," and i just fundamentally don't think that's true. it reads as cowardly reactionary garbage. just admit you think sex work is gross
9 times out of 10 "parent's rights" just means the right to abuse and control your child. fuck parents rights
i agree i shouldn't have to live with that conflation! however we play the hands we're dealt, and the hand i happen to have been dealt is that a good chunk of this country thinks i am an inherently sexual being. and being a sex worker isn't really any different. both i and the sex worker are significantly less likely to be a danger to children than the child's parent, and there's no reason to prevent either of us from being teachers. if a parent can't explain to their child what being trans is and why it isn't a big deal that's on them. it's the same with sex work
maybe most parents genuinely want what's best for children! but if we're at the point where anyone who is or ever has been a sex worker should be banned from working in education because that'll make parents feel better, we need to start analyzing what that most means, and whether parents feelings matter more than the actual real world safety of their children. and let me tell you, i do not trust that parents are reasonable people who can be persuaded that they might be wrong about how they raise their children! obviously some are, but my experience is more often exactly the opposite
i cannot see why having a sex worker employed at a school would be a risk. sex workers aren't more likely to abuse or groom children than any other group of people. and when the risk is "parents would be unhappy" then we get into the point where that exact same logic gets used against queer people, or people of color, or any other marginalized group
and i cannot stress enough: CHILDREN ARE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO PORN! A TEACHER BEING A SEX WORKER DOES NOT MAKE CHILDREN MORE LIKELY TO ACCESS SEXUAL MATERIAL! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! the healthy way to deal with this is to simply talk to children about sex like it's a part of life (which it is) and not like it's some mysterious thing they aren't allowed to know about until they turn 18! i get that we can't trust parents to talk about this with their kids, i agree. if we can't trust parents to explain this to their kids why do we trust them to decide who teaches?
you agree there isn't a safeguarding issue with a trans teacher, but where we disagree is that you do believe there's a safeguarding issue with a teacher who is a sex worker on the side. why? a teacher who is a sex worker isn't going to expose children to any more porn than they'd already see. a teacher who is a sex worker is not any more likely to be a predator. parents can deal with their feelings on their own, without firing someone who hasn't done anything wrong*
*i mean in this specific case she'd done many things wrong but having an onlyfans wasn't one of them
A teacher shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any other adult.
Yes they absolutely should. If you're going to be in close contact with children as an authority figure then you need to be held to a higher moral standard.
How about this:
A cop shouldn't be held to a different moral standard from any adult.
Yeah because Americans are stupid right wing reactionaries that think sex is something Satan gave humanity and get scared when their wee wees harden as a result.
Same logic as drag queens being "groomers" to kids when they read them stories, or trans people being a threat in schools. Just a massive moral panic caused by judeo Christian soylent. A fucking non issue.
I would have a lot greater issue with my kids going to the same school as a bunch of busybodies. As long as the teacher teaches while they're at school, then it's not my business what they do outside of school.
What people do in their free time is their own damn choice. As long as we live in a world where you have to pay money for the place you live in, people will struggle to make ends meet, and they will various solutions to this. Punishing one of these because they do not agree with your puritanical worldview is reactionary.If anything we should fire all teachers who practice MMA*. The US is way too comfortable with violence and way too uncomfortable with the human body. Kids TV can show all the violence it wants (as long as there's no blood and gore) but god forbid a nipple shows up. This is not a recipe for a healthy society. If you think a place to start with healing the American rot is with the schoolteachers, then tackle this weirdness about violence. Also let them wear net tops.*
I don't actually believe this
m not sure that's a good general principle, because otherwise we could for example forgive slavers on the basis that they're finding a way to make ends meet.
You're comparing sex workers to slaveowners.I'm not puritanical, I don't have an issue with people engaging in whatever they want to do in that regard provided it isn't harmful or exploitative.
And.
But children are a special category of person, you can't and shouldn't treat them like adults. Teachers are also a special category of person, because they work with children.
You are here contradicting yourself. You are here saying that you do mind what people do even if it isn't harmful or exploitative. You are the only person bringing children into this - the teacher isn't making porn with kids. Teaching and OnlyFans are only connected in the sense that its the same person doing both. You're acting like there's some sort of unholy corruption attached to making OnlyFans that will gradually infect the mind of the teacher and then hurt the children. This is puritanical brainworms.
Certainly I agree about violence too - but then most sports taught at schools trend toward decreasing violence for this reason. Those that don't aren't good. Two bad things don't make a good thing.
Fuck you. This entire response of yours has been you attempting to move the frame of discussion. Piece of shit behaviour. Get better. Blocking you for being a dumbass and a bad debatebro.
Its rather that once something like this comes out, the whole community will know. There's also a potential that children could access whatever pornography is being advertised. I don't think its contradictory - once its public knowledge, it becomes potentially or actually harmful.
Further, I do think that what people do has the potential to affect their mind - how they see things and behave. This is true of soldiers, or abbatoir workers, for example.
Apologies for making you angry, it wasn't intentional.
Rachel Dolezal, who now goes by Nkechi Diallo,
People point out that you're pretending to be black and you change your name to Nkechi?! Come on, bro.
Prime example of doubling down and never admitting fault. If she had ever apologized or faltered she would have had to go into hiding from the shame. But by leaning into it, she becomes impervious to criticism. Honestly impressive--it's on the level of our big wet boy
a few years ago I was listening to an interview with a psychologist or something that made a pretty strong argument that she's actually extremely delusional, just not holding onto reality
She's probably mentally ill
Apparently her adopted (Black) sister supported her after the transracialism stuff came out
Basically her parents adopted 3 Black kids, and she was abused by both her father and brother, the Black adopted kids were abused as well
I think most of this was from her own words, so it's possible it might be some weird racial version of munchausen, but I remember her sister defending her
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Honestly, why even teach? She's so public that she probably makes bank on that
I remember some Elementary School teachers getting fired for being involved in the local meth trade, this country is really turning to shit...
You can fix her comrade, follow your dreams!
I've never seen more ridiculous pearl clutching walls of text on this website ever before
I legit thought to myself not more than a week ago "wonder what that one "black" woman is up to now days". Well...
they're just trying to keep an entrepreneurial woman of color down!!!11!1!What is this picture from? I see it everywhere in here and I recognize it, but it's driving me crazy trying to figure out what it is.
God I love this picture. It's like a Renaissance painting, so much going on.
You know I was arguing a lot about the teacher/onyfans thing in another comment thread, but goddamn is it weird that this is Rachel Dolezal and that she doubled down by changing her name to an Igbo-language name.
