Now this is interesting. Word "some" is very subjective and 'all' conveniently limits the conversation to the 'crazy' ones. Would you be more willing to put it in a more defined way-- say in percentage? How much, in your estimate, is a threat?
Who are the crazy ones and, perhaps more importantly, who are the sane ones?
I don't want to put words in your mouth. I want to understand how you view the world around you.
Well, I assume that 99% of parents don't care enough to participate.
Then you have the crazy people who hate evolution/slavery is bad/vaccines/masks/wifi
And, one assumes, there's some people making valid points that don't get any media attention. Seems like it's something there'd be a record of in minutes of meetings, even if there's no statistics about it.
<<Well, I assume that 99% of parents don't care enough to participate.
I don't really agree. I am sure there are people, who cannot participate due working multiple jobs, other obligations and so on. But you did put a number on it. Based on your estimate, the crazy is less than 1% percent of parents.
<<Then you have the crazy people who hate evolution/slavery is bad/vaccines/masks/wifi
They can hate all they want, but how does that change facts? I don't think reasonable people disagree slavery was bad ( it was -- and I will sound a little flippant here -- I think disagreement is over whether everything is racist, which is a very different can of worms ).
I know that it is easy to dismiss and write them off as crazy/stupid/what have you, but if they come to those meetings, when 99% of parents don't care, isn't it more important to address those the worries of those that do? Even if they yell.. so what? Let them vent. It is de-escalation 101. I will go even further. Especially, if they are crazy, it is extra important to talk to them just in case you get through to one of them. What you do not want to do, which is what seems to a popular sport these days, is escalate to the point cops get called in.
<<And, one assumes, there's some people making valid points that don't get any media attention. Seems like it's something there'd be a record of in minutes of meetings, even if there's no statistics about it.
Here we can actually agree and as a future 1% I simply cannot wait to read previous meeting's minutes.
But if you don't agree with a conspiracy theorist they have to deny that you have a good point, because if they don't their entire worldview collapses, so they'll obviously say "we're not being listened to"
If someone who's read a whole book about something wants to criticize it, fair enough, but I'll bet money that 99% of people hating CRT can barely spell CRT
Top tip: Don't stand next to a conspiracy theorist, people will think you're a conspiracy theorist. Calm down the crazy people who agree with you so they don't steal all the attention and make you look crazy too.
<< Top tip: Don't stand next to a conspiracy theorist, people will think you're a conspiracy theorist. Calm down the crazy people who agree with you so they don't steal all the attention and make you look crazy too.
I used to think this way and I will admit that guilt by association is a very strong driver for one simple reason. It works. But it is a double edged sword. Note how well it was used to lower public support for OWS and now BLM simply by associating both groups with less than savory types the public is not willing to support.
As far the 99% claim, I don't have data to back it up so it is hard for me to opine. I only hear of CRT as part of my news feeds. I mean, it has its own wiki ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory ) and I can kinda see why it is being perceived as a threat to status quo based on that entry, but I personally see it as inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
As a side note, I want to point to something amusing, which will hopefully lighten the mood somewhat. Not that long, anyone suggesting NSA has the reach disclosed by Snowden was dismissed as a conspiracy nut.
There's something to be said for having a more crazy group you can denounce and make yourself appear to be the sane one. But it's probably not a better strategy than just being perceived as sane. Problem is the attention is gathered by the crazy soundbites, not the real complex questions behind them. When all the media bothers with are tweets anything longer than 140 characters is lost.
"Reallocate some of the police budget to fund mental health workers" is apparently too long a slogan.
As for the NSA, isn't that why people said encrypt everything though?
The main question to me was could they store/process all the data they could possibly/easily obtain? The original stories were about them being able to store and search everything, which is clearly impossible, they had to target searches to capture small parts of the entire data stream and throw away 99.99999%, and they'd not cracked encryption on any useful scale either.
Some parents are a threat to the system, the crazy ones.
Of course you individually choose private school if you can afford it, as an individual choice that's the sensible option.
Problem in USA is schools are funded by house taxes, so poor areas get poorly funded schools.