I Think My School District Just Turned Me Into A Trump Voter

[DigitalDrifter]

Who?

Is it in Norwegian?

At the first press conference in the White House, Trump personally invited Lars Larson to be there. It's the first time a radio show host was Skyped in to a White House press conference.

Never heard of him....or is it her?

Him. And he is a pretty large name in radio political shows. Been around for a LONG time.

Ok...still never heard of him.

You should think about expanding your horizons.

 

[pismoe]

I don't know...10th grade seems a bit old to be making bang-bang hand gestures. I know it was harmless, but I can see it being really awkward for the other students at that age.

Imagine seeing adults make those gestures at each other. It would be weird. Harmless I'm sure, but weird.

Imagine seeing a few 5-year-old make those gestures. It would be cute. Just kids being kids. Not weird at all.

I think 10th grade is a bit past that "kids being kids" stage and it starts looking weird to their fellow classmates. I think the social structure at that age is all about fitting in, acting cool, being popular, talking to pretty girls, etc. I think bang-bang hand gestures can easily seem out of place at that age. The administrators obviously waaaayyyyy over-reacted about this, but I think there's a life lesson here. Somewhere.

My $0.02.

----------------------------------------------- yeah , that's why the USA and big cities have millions of drivers giving the finger to each other . Kids doing 'bang bang' to each other is simply Free Expression and is polite and harmless Expo .

 

[XponentialChaos]

I don't know...10th grade seems a bit old to be making bang-bang hand gestures. I know it was harmless, but I can see it being really awkward for the other students at that age.

Imagine seeing adults make those gestures at each other. It would be weird. Harmless I'm sure, but weird.

Imagine seeing a few 5-year-old make those gestures. It would be cute. Just kids being kids. Not weird at all.

I think 10th grade is a bit past that "kids being kids" stage and it starts looking weird to their fellow classmates. I think the social structure at that age is all about fitting in, acting cool, being popular, talking to pretty girls, etc. I think bang-bang hand gestures can easily seem out of place at that age. The administrators obviously waaaayyyyy over-reacted about this, but I think there's a life lesson here. Somewhere.

My $0.02.

----------------------------------------------- yeah , that's why the USA and big cities have millions of drivers giving the finger to each other . Kids doing 'bang bang' to each other is simply Free Expression and is polite and harmless Expo .

That has nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Pogo]

I feel for G's son. Taking a sophomore kid's business to Limbaugh or Carr to make political war is just plain over the line.

I have a lot of respect for G, but this is a mistake.

Why?

Why is making this a political war over the line? What was over the line was the political BS that caused this to happen.

You and pogo are simply against him hitting back politically because it is the side you agree with this time.

Because it isn't a political issue, that's why.

Unless you can explain to the class wtf a school's operation, reasonable or unreasonable, has to do with Rump, or with any kind of "politics" at all.

Clearly the school's (over)reaction here is based on a concern about gun violence in schools. While this or that politician may choose to take a side related to that, "gun violence in schools" is not itself a political issue but a social one. Politics and politicians have no authority or influence over social values. What is Donald Rump supposed to do, issue an executive order saying a kid can make a finger gun?

I might add, we had no indication from the OP if this suspension was entirely from the incident described, or if it comes from a cumulative history. That's all stuff we don't know, but that's not political either.

I don't know what OL stated but I advised that g5000 should not allow the talking heads to frame the issue as political. And I explained then, that they would do that in order to spike their ratings, because tribalist conflict is a boon for ratings --- but it also completely obscures what's going on and reduces it to yet another pawn in that bullshit tribal "everything is politics" song and dance. As long as that keeps happening, nothing gets addressed.

As Ray is about to do in exactly two posts...

Where do you think those policies come from? It comes from the political parties using these events as kick balls to advance their agenda. This new hyper sensitive bullshit is a political issue all over the nation. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge that is not really my problem pogo and I don't think that people should be quietly taking this crap without taking on the issue to its source.

No I don't accept that creation premise at all that social pressures and guidelines take their cues from politicians. Not even close. It's the exact opposite.

You have a wide-ranging social crisis, in this case school gun violence (or gun violence in general), but it could be any crisis. Consensus of opinion coalesces in the general public regarding what to do about it. In the case of a cultural divide on that crisis we get multiple and conflicting consensuses --- competing or opposing "camps". ONLY once those camps are established will politicians declare themselves to be "in" this one or that one. Politicians absolutely DO NOT lead sociocultural changes --- they follow them. According to whichever "camp" will serve their own ambitions.


I'll again point to my ready go-to example: smoking tobacco. If you're of a certain age you know it used to be a very common practice. Doctors smoked. Restaurants. Freaking planes. There was no such thing as a no-smoking section. You either smoked, or you put up with it. Every movie actor and TV scenario... watch Mike Wallace at the intro here between 0:15 and 0:25. He even casually tosses his match on the floor.

​

Nothing remotely like that would happen today. Nor would you likely see a screen actor, even the villain, smoking. And of course smoking on a plane is right out. That's a cultural shift. Politicians didn't do that. What happened is that the general public collectively decided it wasn't going to put up with smoking. And so you get (first) reserved no-smoking sections in restaurants and (eventually) no smoking at all in them. You may cherrypick a random politician jumping on the bandwagon passing a local ordinance about smoking in bars but again that's a reaction to where the public is already leading them. The old adage "if the people lead eventually the leaders will follow" sometimes actually works.

With you so far.

Moreover the way that smoking got started in the first place and sustained itself and grew to such a degree, was via advertising --- not politics. And that's far more influential. The bottom line to this analogy is not a lot of people smoke any more and politicians didn't do that --- WE did.

And what really took out smoking was also advertising - almost exclusively by government but okay. You are assuming that I accept these two instances are even remotely related. They are not.

The government doesn't advertise, nor is it even possible (for any entity) to advertise NOT buying something. At this point we must needs define terms. "Advertising" means the persuasion of masses of people to buy something they don't need (because if they DO need it, advertising is unnecessary).

You may be thinking of PSAs the American Cancer Society ran on TV and radio. And you may also recall that cigarette advertising used to appear on television, radio, magazines and newspapers, and then disappeared. What some people don't know is that was a voluntary disappearance engaged by the tobacco companies themselves. Such advertising was not banned; they, the tobacco industry, pulled it.

This is a small point but it directly relates to the example of a cultural value shift that was effected without politics. There is for example no ban on cigarette advertising in magazines, and it probably still exists in some pockets. But publishers in general evolved to finding such ads distasteful for their readership. All this sea change is the result of cultural value shift, and it's got nothing to do with politics.

Or take the (false) association of religion with politics. In wayback-then, the same time all that smoking was going on, there was no imaginary "correlation" between what your religion was and what your politics were. They went together like fish and bicycles. Along comes the Jerry Falwell ilk (again, enter advertising) and suddenly we've got "camps" with fake political party "associations" . Politicians didn't do that -- they followed the Falwells. And only did so when they thought it would sell.

Back to the instant case, this school district, and others nationwide, cannot ignore the crisis of gun violence in schools and are literally the battlefield for it. So they necessarily come up with policies, which again will vary in cultural values between different parties, including in this case the OP and his son's school. Politicians didn't create that policy --- the school did. It has a direct and intimate investment in its own welfare which given the stark consequences of failing to do that can and does result in hypervigilance. What they come up with may be reasonable or extreme but it's THEIR environment and it's up to them to control it day-to-day. The fact that politician A over here may support that policy while politician B over there opposes it, simply does not make them the originators of that policy. It makes them followers of what they think is the appropriate social trend for them.

Yes it is their environment BUT you ignoring that the policies we are railing against here do not need to originate from a specific politician does not mean they are not intrinsically integrated within a specific political base. It is the mentality on the left that has led to this hysteria and IT IS NOT LOCAL. This happens all over the place to tons of people that are unwilling to stand up because that is a pain in the ass.

It absolutely IS local, and to underscore this point I refer you to the previous tangenst upthread about the idea of kids bringing guns to school. Several posters here claim they, or people they knew, would regularly tote firearms to their high school, one even referring to a gun rack. Where I grew up the only time that happened (that we know of), the kid who came armed got found out, surrounded and suspended (or possibly expelled). It was a near riot.

Whelp, if we accept the word of these other posters that they brought their guns to school --- can't imagine why one would do that but if we take their word ---- then the only explanation for this discrepancy is that my high school was in the northeastern suburbs and theirs was in Dodge City nor Montana or wherever. And that means a variance in, wait for it --- LOCAL cultural standards.

I might add that when my high school firearms incident occurred, it just seemed bizarre once we found out what all the screaming was about. This was the 1960s, way before mass school shootings became a thing, and both the idea of bringing firearms to school and the dramatic reaction of the school officials.because both ideas were unknown to us. If we go by the claims of other posters in the thread, such an act would have been not at all bizarre in other places (again: LOCAL), but there is no way the school officials' reaction had anything to do with "politics" Clearly it was a simple concern for the public safety of the student body, in the same way that an airline pilot and crew act in the interest of passenger safety. "Politics" has zero to do with that.

Further, this policy WAS passed by politicians - that is what a school board is. The anti-gun movement is spearheaded by political groups and politicians - not a general grass roots movement.

Again, as pointed out before, elections for low-level offices like school boards, and in fact most municipalities, are non-partisan. Just because there's an election doesn't mean the position is "political". Scan your local ballot for judges up for election --- where's the "politics" there? 'Round here all I see is "how much experience I have for this position" along with mindless fluff like "I have three children". As I often point out, the sheriff in my town runs variously as a "Democrat" or as a "Republican" depending on what he thinks will carry him that year (and how much support he gets from the local party) --- either way it's the same guy doing the same job in the same way. There ain't nothing "political" about sheriffing any more than there is about running a city or a school system. So NO, these school boarders are not "politicians" unless they later leave the school position and go run for an actual political office. They're simply administrative wonks who fancy themselves competent to run an educational institution.

And I take direct issue with your claim that an "anti-gun movement" is "spearheaded by" anything, or even exists. An anti-mass-slaughter of random innocents movement surely does but it's abjectly insulting to suggest it's some kind of astroturfed puppet. All it takes is an aversion to rampant gun violence. You seem to be trying to compare this with an advertised product, and that's absurd.

In the same way, to refer back to previous analogy, there was no anti-smoking "movement spearheaded by" a group or politicians or any entity. We the People simply got fed up with it, and demanded change, and that's what happens when we speak. So I absolutely reject this idea that there is an "anti-gun movement spearheaded by" anything. Whatever rhetoric, whatever ideas, whatever proposals bubble up out of concern for rampant gun violence was spearheaded by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Dylann Roof and Adam Lanza and James Holmes and Jared Loughner (etc etc etc etc etc) --- THERE is your catalyst. Your suggestion that the general public would have never thought of addressing gun violence if not led to it by an advertiser is in a word ridiculous. It's a simple matter of people preferring to feel safe versus living in a war zone. Ain't exactly rocket surgery and it damn sure doesn't take a "politician" to figure that out.

I'm certainly not a part of any "political group" or "politician"; my thoughts are my own and self-generated. If that were not the case I'd be parroting somebody else's lines --- think about it.

This is the same thing I've been preaching the entire time I've been on this site about gun violence in general, the hot issue when I joined USMB, that it's not a question of throwing laws at it but rather a question of cultural values. And I mention that because you personally, I recall, were one of the few who took the effort to understood what I was saying.

So that's why this is not a political issue. Politicians don't start these 'camps'. They may, and they surely do, jump into those camps and in so doing deepen the divide for no good purpose, but make no mistake, they didn't create those camps. WE did. So this idea that goes around that believes "we have a problem and therefore politicians have to fix it" (which then means "my" politicians have to overcome "your" politicians to do so), just sounds like a giant cop-out. That's a giant dead end.

And I still agree - it is a cultural problem. This is an example of not addressing the cultural issues and, instead, using massive overreaction and policy to 'solve' the problem.

Yep. That's what I've been saying since Day One here, that you don't address a cultural disease by throwing laws at it, which is, at best, treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. If we want to change the culture, we have to change the culture.

As we did with smoking. That's why that analogy is up there.
Massive overreaction (this case) it may be, but that doesn't make it "political".

 

[Pogo]

So my son, a high school sophomore, is sitting in class and the teacher leaves the room for some reason.

The kids start goofing off and my son and his best friend start aiming their fingers at each other and going bang-bang. They play a lot of PUBG. They're kids. This is what kids do.

Some other fucking candyass motherfucking pussy soap bubble of a punk in the class tells the teacher when she comes back that my son was pretending to shoot a gun at HER (the teacher). The teacher wasn't even in the room!

My son is taken to security and interrogated, and several "witnesses" are interrogated.

The assistant principal calls my wife (because the bitch is terrified of me) and tells my wife my son is suspended, and he cannot return until he sees a fucking shrink.

I shit you not.

This insanity is right out of Kafka.


If there is anyone on Trump's staff, or Rush Limbaugh's show, or Fox News reading this, please PM me. I would like to make these fucking retards into a national embarrassment.

Thank you.

That would be a stupid reaction, letting a stupid school ruling make you into a trump supporter. Teachers are terrified of school shooters with good reason. It is sad that the ease of obtaining guns has led to cracking down on normal teen horse play.

I never did see any explanation of how he made that leap.

Well I saw AN explanation but it was a word salad of bullshit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you may also recall that cigarette advertising used to appear on television, radio, magazines and newspapers, and then disappeared. What some people don't know is that was a voluntary disappearance engaged by the tobacco companies themselves. Such advertising was not banned; they, the tobacco industry, pulled it.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in...slation-banning-cigarette-ads-on-tv-and-radio

 

[Ravi]

I am so glad my kids are out of school. There is no way in hell I would let them attend now. You might as well let them play Russian roulette. Learn your school district's tolerance level and make sure your kid knows it. Otherwise it IS YOUR FAULT G500 if your kid goes down for a felony. What the fuck do you think the outcome of kissing the NRA's ass was going to be? I feel sorry for your kid but you are making him a victim by calling the teacher a bitch and blaming it on her. And don't get me started on your other misogynistic comments.

 

[Ravi]

I am currently living in a very conservative county in Floriduh. And their reaction to school shootings is to blame the kids. Not themselves for lax gun laws.

You FAILED YOUR KID g5000. Yeah you, bitch.

 

[pismoe]

thanks Ray , I thought it was lefty BS that USA Government had nothing to do with anti tobacco and cigarette advertising . Same for taking guns to school on school buses , cars and on foot as we kids took guns to school when we wanted to . Thanks for providing a good link to government control to their anti tobacco and cigarette advertising Ray .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am so glad my kids are out of school. There is no way in hell I would let them attend now. You might as well let them play Russian roulette. Learn your school district's tolerance level and make sure your kid knows it. Otherwise it IS YOUR FAULT G500 if your kid goes down for a felony. What the fuck do you think the outcome of kissing the NRA's ass was going to be? I feel sorry for your kid but you are making him a victim by calling the teacher a bitch and blaming it on her. And don't get me started on your other misogynistic comments.

A felony? For a kid using his finger and going Bang Bang?

The odds of your child dying in a school shooting are less than him or her getting hit by lightning.

 

[pismoe]

thanks for your post and way of thinking on this issue and good that you got your concerns out on the air to Alert others G5000 .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

thanks Ray , I thought it was lefty BS that USA Government had nothing to do with anti tobacco and cigarette advertising . Same for taking guns to school on school buses , cars and on foot as we kids took guns to school when we wanted to . Thanks for providing a good link to government control to their anti tobacco and cigarette advertising Ray .

Well.......there are very few advantages in getting older. One of them is being there when shit happened. I remember most people being outraged when Nixon signed that. Back then, many people smoked cigarettes. You could smoke just about anyplace including airplanes and hospitals. At some places, you can't even smoke outside today.

 

[Ravi]

I am so glad my kids are out of school. There is no way in hell I would let them attend now. You might as well let them play Russian roulette. Learn your school district's tolerance level and make sure your kid knows it. Otherwise it IS YOUR FAULT G500 if your kid goes down for a felony. What the fuck do you think the outcome of kissing the NRA's ass was going to be? I feel sorry for your kid but you are making him a victim by calling the teacher a bitch and blaming it on her. And don't get me started on your other misogynistic comments.

A felony? For a kid using his finger and going Bang Bang?

The odds of your child dying in a school shooting are less than him or her getting hit by lightning.

Yeah, in Floriduh it is. Read your school districts policy.

 

[pismoe]

thanks Ray , I thought it was lefty BS that USA Government had nothing to do with anti tobacco and cigarette advertising . Same for taking guns to school on school buses , cars and on foot as we kids took guns to school when we wanted to . Thanks for providing a good link to government control to their anti tobacco and cigarette advertising Ray .

Well.......there are very few advantages in getting older. One of them is being there when shit happens. I remember most people being outraged when Nixon signed that. Back then, many people smoked cigarettes. You could smoke just about anyplace including airplanes and hospitals. At some places, you can't even smoke outside today.

------------------------ just a story but it was 1992 , I spent a month and a week in a hospital . A week in burn care and a month in a semi private room . I didn't smoke in burn care but I tried to but Wife wouldn't co operate . Spent the month in room smoking like a chimney and boy , were the nurses pizzed . Big huge modern hospital and they finally managed to fix my leg after many operations and leg rebreakings that was originally broken in 1989 . --------------- just a story . Just conversation Ray .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I am so glad my kids are out of school. There is no way in hell I would let them attend now. You might as well let them play Russian roulette. Learn your school district's tolerance level and make sure your kid knows it. Otherwise it IS YOUR FAULT G500 if your kid goes down for a felony. What the fuck do you think the outcome of kissing the NRA's ass was going to be? I feel sorry for your kid but you are making him a victim by calling the teacher a bitch and blaming it on her. And don't get me started on your other misogynistic comments.

A felony? For a kid using his finger and going Bang Bang?

The odds of your child dying in a school shooting are less than him or her getting hit by lightning.

Yeah, in Floriduh it is. Read your school districts policy.

School districts don't make law, governments do. I never heard of anyplace where you get charged with a felony for pointing your finger and sticking your thumb up.

 

[pismoe]

well , I was there , just don't remember . And remembering is a concern of mine because I also remember things and I fear that young people remember just about nothing , course , they weren't there and they aren't taught .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

thanks Ray , I thought it was lefty BS that USA Government had nothing to do with anti tobacco and cigarette advertising . Same for taking guns to school on school buses , cars and on foot as we kids took guns to school when we wanted to . Thanks for providing a good link to government control to their anti tobacco and cigarette advertising Ray .

Well.......there are very few advantages in getting older. One of them is being there when shit happens. I remember most people being outraged when Nixon signed that. Back then, many people smoked cigarettes. You could smoke just about anyplace including airplanes and hospitals. At some places, you can't even smoke outside today.

------------------------ just a story but it was 1992 , I spent a month and a week in a hospital . A week in burn care and a month in a semi private room . I didn't smoke in burn care but I tried to but Wife wouldn't co operate . Spent the month in room smoking like a chimney and boy , were the nurses pizzed . Big huge modern hospital and they finally managed to fix my leg after many operations and leg rebreakings that was originally broken in 1989 . --------------- just a story . Just conversation Ray .

Over here they stopped that in the 80's. While they couldn't make it law, a medical facility had to "accredited" by the government for them to stay open. It was a round about way of them making legislation without a politician signing their name to it.,

 

[FA_Q2]

Why?

Why is making this a political war over the line? What was over the line was the political BS that caused this to happen.

You and pogo are simply against him hitting back politically because it is the side you agree with this time.

Because it isn't a political issue, that's why.

Unless you can explain to the class wtf a school's operation, reasonable or unreasonable, has to do with Rump, or with any kind of "politics" at all.

Clearly the school's (over)reaction here is based on a concern about gun violence in schools. While this or that politician may choose to take a side related to that, "gun violence in schools" is not itself a political issue but a social one. Politics and politicians have no authority or influence over social values. What is Donald Rump supposed to do, issue an executive order saying a kid can make a finger gun?

I might add, we had no indication from the OP if this suspension was entirely from the incident described, or if it comes from a cumulative history. That's all stuff we don't know, but that's not political either.

I don't know what OL stated but I advised that g5000 should not allow the talking heads to frame the issue as political. And I explained then, that they would do that in order to spike their ratings, because tribalist conflict is a boon for ratings --- but it also completely obscures what's going on and reduces it to yet another pawn in that bullshit tribal "everything is politics" song and dance. As long as that keeps happening, nothing gets addressed.

As Ray is about to do in exactly two posts...

Where do you think those policies come from? It comes from the political parties using these events as kick balls to advance their agenda. This new hyper sensitive bullshit is a political issue all over the nation. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge that is not really my problem pogo and I don't think that people should be quietly taking this crap without taking on the issue to its source.

No I don't accept that creation premise at all that social pressures and guidelines take their cues from politicians. Not even close. It's the exact opposite.

You have a wide-ranging social crisis, in this case school gun violence (or gun violence in general), but it could be any crisis. Consensus of opinion coalesces in the general public regarding what to do about it. In the case of a cultural divide on that crisis we get multiple and conflicting consensuses --- competing or opposing "camps". ONLY once those camps are established will politicians declare themselves to be "in" this one or that one. Politicians absolutely DO NOT lead sociocultural changes --- they follow them. According to whichever "camp" will serve their own ambitions.


I'll again point to my ready go-to example: smoking tobacco. If you're of a certain age you know it used to be a very common practice. Doctors smoked. Restaurants. Freaking planes. There was no such thing as a no-smoking section. You either smoked, or you put up with it. Every movie actor and TV scenario... watch Mike Wallace at the intro here between 0:15 and 0:25. He even casually tosses his match on the floor.

​

Nothing remotely like that would happen today. Nor would you likely see a screen actor, even the villain, smoking. And of course smoking on a plane is right out. That's a cultural shift. Politicians didn't do that. What happened is that the general public collectively decided it wasn't going to put up with smoking. And so you get (first) reserved no-smoking sections in restaurants and (eventually) no smoking at all in them. You may cherrypick a random politician jumping on the bandwagon passing a local ordinance about smoking in bars but again that's a reaction to where the public is already leading them. The old adage "if the people lead eventually the leaders will follow" sometimes actually works.

With you so far.

Moreover the way that smoking got started in the first place and sustained itself and grew to such a degree, was via advertising --- not politics. And that's far more influential. The bottom line to this analogy is not a lot of people smoke any more and politicians didn't do that --- WE did.

And what really took out smoking was also advertising - almost exclusively by government but okay. You are assuming that I accept these two instances are even remotely related. They are not.

The government doesn't advertise, nor is it even possible (for any entity) to advertise NOT buying something. At this point we must needs define terms. "Advertising" means the persuasion of masses of people to buy something they don't need (because if they DO need it, advertising is unnecessary).

You may be thinking of PSAs the American Cancer Society ran on TV and radio. And you may also recall that cigarette advertising used to appear on television, radio, magazines and newspapers, and then disappeared. What some people don't know is that was a voluntary disappearance engaged by the tobacco companies themselves. Such advertising was not banned; they, the tobacco industry, pulled it.

This is a small point but it directly relates to the example of a cultural value shift that was effected without politics. There is for example no ban on cigarette advertising in magazines, and it probably still exists in some pockets. But publishers in general evolved to finding such ads distasteful for their readership. All this sea change is the result of cultural value shift, and it's got nothing to do with politics.

Or take the (false) association of religion with politics. In wayback-then, the same time all that smoking was going on, there was no imaginary "correlation" between what your religion was and what your politics were. They went together like fish and bicycles. Along comes the Jerry Falwell ilk (again, enter advertising) and suddenly we've got "camps" with fake political party "associations" . Politicians didn't do that -- they followed the Falwells. And only did so when they thought it would sell.

Back to the instant case, this school district, and others nationwide, cannot ignore the crisis of gun violence in schools and are literally the battlefield for it. So they necessarily come up with policies, which again will vary in cultural values between different parties, including in this case the OP and his son's school. Politicians didn't create that policy --- the school did. It has a direct and intimate investment in its own welfare which given the stark consequences of failing to do that can and does result in hypervigilance. What they come up with may be reasonable or extreme but it's THEIR environment and it's up to them to control it day-to-day. The fact that politician A over here may support that policy while politician B over there opposes it, simply does not make them the originators of that policy. It makes them followers of what they think is the appropriate social trend for them.

Yes it is their environment BUT you ignoring that the policies we are railing against here do not need to originate from a specific politician does not mean they are not intrinsically integrated within a specific political base. It is the mentality on the left that has led to this hysteria and IT IS NOT LOCAL. This happens all over the place to tons of people that are unwilling to stand up because that is a pain in the ass.

It absolutely IS local, and to underscore this point I refer you to the previous tangenst upthread about the idea of kids bringing guns to school. Several posters here claim they, or people they knew, would regularly tote firearms to their high school, one even referring to a gun rack. Where I grew up the only time that happened (that we know of), the kid who came armed got found out, surrounded and suspended (or possibly expelled). It was a near riot.

Whelp, if we accept the word of these other posters that they brought their guns to school --- can't imagine why one would do that but if we take their word ---- then the only explanation for this discrepancy is that my high school was in the northeastern suburbs and theirs was in Dodge City nor Montana or wherever. And that means a variance in, wait for it --- LOCAL cultural standards.

I might add that when my high school firearms incident occurred, it just seemed bizarre once we found out what all the screaming was about. This was the 1960s, way before mass school shootings became a thing, and both the idea of bringing firearms to school and the dramatic reaction of the school officials.because both ideas were unknown to us. If we go by the claims of other posters in the thread, such an act would have been not at all bizarre in other places (again: LOCAL), but there is no way the school officials' reaction had anything to do with "politics" Clearly it was a simple concern for the public safety of the student body, in the same way that an airline pilot and crew act in the interest of passenger safety. "Politics" has zero to do with that.

Further, this policy WAS passed by politicians - that is what a school board is. The anti-gun movement is spearheaded by political groups and politicians - not a general grass roots movement.

Again, as pointed out before, elections for low-level offices like school boards, and in fact most municipalities, are non-partisan. Just because there's an election doesn't mean the position is "political". Scan your local ballot for judges up for election --- where's the "politics" there? 'Round here all I see is "how much experience I have for this position" along with mindless fluff like "I have three children". As I often point out, the sheriff in my town runs variously as a "Democrat" or as a "Republican" depending on what he thinks will carry him that year (and how much support he gets from the local party) --- either way it's the same guy doing the same job in the same way. There ain't nothing "political" about sheriffing any more than there is about running a city or a school system. So NO, these school boarders are not "politicians" unless they later leave the school position and go run for an actual political office. They're simply administrative wonks who fancy themselves competent to run an educational institution.

And I take direct issue with your claim that an "anti-gun movement" is "spearheaded by" anything, or even exists. An anti-mass-slaughter of random innocents movement surely does but it's abjectly insulting to suggest it's some kind of astroturfed puppet. All it takes is an aversion to rampant gun violence. You seem to be trying to compare this with an advertised product, and that's absurd.

In the same way, to refer back to previous analogy, there was no anti-smoking "movement spearheaded by" a group or politicians or any entity. We the People simply got fed up with it, and demanded change, and that's what happens when we speak. So I absolutely reject this idea that there is an "anti-gun movement spearheaded by" anything. Whatever rhetoric, whatever ideas, whatever proposals bubble up out of concern for rampant gun violence was spearheaded by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Dylann Roof and Adam Lanza and James Holmes and Jared Loughner (etc etc etc etc etc) --- THERE is your catalyst. Your suggestion that the general public would have never thought of addressing gun violence if not led to it by an advertiser is in a word ridiculous. It's a simple matter of people preferring to feel safe versus living in a war zone. Ain't exactly rocket surgery and it damn sure doesn't take a "politician" to figure that out.

I'm certainly not a part of any "political group" or "politician"; my thoughts are my own and self-generated. If that were not the case I'd be parroting somebody else's lines --- think about it.

This is the same thing I've been preaching the entire time I've been on this site about gun violence in general, the hot issue when I joined USMB, that it's not a question of throwing laws at it but rather a question of cultural values. And I mention that because you personally, I recall, were one of the few who took the effort to understood what I was saying.

So that's why this is not a political issue. Politicians don't start these 'camps'. They may, and they surely do, jump into those camps and in so doing deepen the divide for no good purpose, but make no mistake, they didn't create those camps. WE did. So this idea that goes around that believes "we have a problem and therefore politicians have to fix it" (which then means "my" politicians have to overcome "your" politicians to do so), just sounds like a giant cop-out. That's a giant dead end.

And I still agree - it is a cultural problem. This is an example of not addressing the cultural issues and, instead, using massive overreaction and policy to 'solve' the problem.

Yep. That's what I've been saying since Day One here, that you don't address a cultural disease by throwing laws at it, which is, at best, treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. If we want to change the culture, we have to change the culture.

As we did with smoking. That's why that analogy is up there.
Massive overreaction (this case) it may be, but that doesn't make it "political".

Pogo, clearly you are going to force me to THINK a lot more to properly address this post.

Don't have the time but I will get back you you. I don't want to insult the thought you clearly put into this so I will not respond until I can reciprocate.

 

[Pogo]

Because it isn't a political issue, that's why.

Unless you can explain to the class wtf a school's operation, reasonable or unreasonable, has to do with Rump, or with any kind of "politics" at all.

Clearly the school's (over)reaction here is based on a concern about gun violence in schools. While this or that politician may choose to take a side related to that, "gun violence in schools" is not itself a political issue but a social one. Politics and politicians have no authority or influence over social values. What is Donald Rump supposed to do, issue an executive order saying a kid can make a finger gun?

I might add, we had no indication from the OP if this suspension was entirely from the incident described, or if it comes from a cumulative history. That's all stuff we don't know, but that's not political either.

I don't know what OL stated but I advised that g5000 should not allow the talking heads to frame the issue as political. And I explained then, that they would do that in order to spike their ratings, because tribalist conflict is a boon for ratings --- but it also completely obscures what's going on and reduces it to yet another pawn in that bullshit tribal "everything is politics" song and dance. As long as that keeps happening, nothing gets addressed.

As Ray is about to do in exactly two posts...

Where do you think those policies come from? It comes from the political parties using these events as kick balls to advance their agenda. This new hyper sensitive bullshit is a political issue all over the nation. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge that is not really my problem pogo and I don't think that people should be quietly taking this crap without taking on the issue to its source.

No I don't accept that creation premise at all that social pressures and guidelines take their cues from politicians. Not even close. It's the exact opposite.

You have a wide-ranging social crisis, in this case school gun violence (or gun violence in general), but it could be any crisis. Consensus of opinion coalesces in the general public regarding what to do about it. In the case of a cultural divide on that crisis we get multiple and conflicting consensuses --- competing or opposing "camps". ONLY once those camps are established will politicians declare themselves to be "in" this one or that one. Politicians absolutely DO NOT lead sociocultural changes --- they follow them. According to whichever "camp" will serve their own ambitions.


I'll again point to my ready go-to example: smoking tobacco. If you're of a certain age you know it used to be a very common practice. Doctors smoked. Restaurants. Freaking planes. There was no such thing as a no-smoking section. You either smoked, or you put up with it. Every movie actor and TV scenario... watch Mike Wallace at the intro here between 0:15 and 0:25. He even casually tosses his match on the floor.

​

Nothing remotely like that would happen today. Nor would you likely see a screen actor, even the villain, smoking. And of course smoking on a plane is right out. That's a cultural shift. Politicians didn't do that. What happened is that the general public collectively decided it wasn't going to put up with smoking. And so you get (first) reserved no-smoking sections in restaurants and (eventually) no smoking at all in them. You may cherrypick a random politician jumping on the bandwagon passing a local ordinance about smoking in bars but again that's a reaction to where the public is already leading them. The old adage "if the people lead eventually the leaders will follow" sometimes actually works.

With you so far.

Moreover the way that smoking got started in the first place and sustained itself and grew to such a degree, was via advertising --- not politics. And that's far more influential. The bottom line to this analogy is not a lot of people smoke any more and politicians didn't do that --- WE did.

And what really took out smoking was also advertising - almost exclusively by government but okay. You are assuming that I accept these two instances are even remotely related. They are not.

The government doesn't advertise, nor is it even possible (for any entity) to advertise NOT buying something. At this point we must needs define terms. "Advertising" means the persuasion of masses of people to buy something they don't need (because if they DO need it, advertising is unnecessary).

You may be thinking of PSAs the American Cancer Society ran on TV and radio. And you may also recall that cigarette advertising used to appear on television, radio, magazines and newspapers, and then disappeared. What some people don't know is that was a voluntary disappearance engaged by the tobacco companies themselves. Such advertising was not banned; they, the tobacco industry, pulled it.

This is a small point but it directly relates to the example of a cultural value shift that was effected without politics. There is for example no ban on cigarette advertising in magazines, and it probably still exists in some pockets. But publishers in general evolved to finding such ads distasteful for their readership. All this sea change is the result of cultural value shift, and it's got nothing to do with politics.

Or take the (false) association of religion with politics. In wayback-then, the same time all that smoking was going on, there was no imaginary "correlation" between what your religion was and what your politics were. They went together like fish and bicycles. Along comes the Jerry Falwell ilk (again, enter advertising) and suddenly we've got "camps" with fake political party "associations" . Politicians didn't do that -- they followed the Falwells. And only did so when they thought it would sell.

Back to the instant case, this school district, and others nationwide, cannot ignore the crisis of gun violence in schools and are literally the battlefield for it. So they necessarily come up with policies, which again will vary in cultural values between different parties, including in this case the OP and his son's school. Politicians didn't create that policy --- the school did. It has a direct and intimate investment in its own welfare which given the stark consequences of failing to do that can and does result in hypervigilance. What they come up with may be reasonable or extreme but it's THEIR environment and it's up to them to control it day-to-day. The fact that politician A over here may support that policy while politician B over there opposes it, simply does not make them the originators of that policy. It makes them followers of what they think is the appropriate social trend for them.

Yes it is their environment BUT you ignoring that the policies we are railing against here do not need to originate from a specific politician does not mean they are not intrinsically integrated within a specific political base. It is the mentality on the left that has led to this hysteria and IT IS NOT LOCAL. This happens all over the place to tons of people that are unwilling to stand up because that is a pain in the ass.

It absolutely IS local, and to underscore this point I refer you to the previous tangenst upthread about the idea of kids bringing guns to school. Several posters here claim they, or people they knew, would regularly tote firearms to their high school, one even referring to a gun rack. Where I grew up the only time that happened (that we know of), the kid who came armed got found out, surrounded and suspended (or possibly expelled). It was a near riot.

Whelp, if we accept the word of these other posters that they brought their guns to school --- can't imagine why one would do that but if we take their word ---- then the only explanation for this discrepancy is that my high school was in the northeastern suburbs and theirs was in Dodge City nor Montana or wherever. And that means a variance in, wait for it --- LOCAL cultural standards.

I might add that when my high school firearms incident occurred, it just seemed bizarre once we found out what all the screaming was about. This was the 1960s, way before mass school shootings became a thing, and both the idea of bringing firearms to school and the dramatic reaction of the school officials.because both ideas were unknown to us. If we go by the claims of other posters in the thread, such an act would have been not at all bizarre in other places (again: LOCAL), but there is no way the school officials' reaction had anything to do with "politics" Clearly it was a simple concern for the public safety of the student body, in the same way that an airline pilot and crew act in the interest of passenger safety. "Politics" has zero to do with that.

Further, this policy WAS passed by politicians - that is what a school board is. The anti-gun movement is spearheaded by political groups and politicians - not a general grass roots movement.

Again, as pointed out before, elections for low-level offices like school boards, and in fact most municipalities, are non-partisan. Just because there's an election doesn't mean the position is "political". Scan your local ballot for judges up for election --- where's the "politics" there? 'Round here all I see is "how much experience I have for this position" along with mindless fluff like "I have three children". As I often point out, the sheriff in my town runs variously as a "Democrat" or as a "Republican" depending on what he thinks will carry him that year (and how much support he gets from the local party) --- either way it's the same guy doing the same job in the same way. There ain't nothing "political" about sheriffing any more than there is about running a city or a school system. So NO, these school boarders are not "politicians" unless they later leave the school position and go run for an actual political office. They're simply administrative wonks who fancy themselves competent to run an educational institution.

And I take direct issue with your claim that an "anti-gun movement" is "spearheaded by" anything, or even exists. An anti-mass-slaughter of random innocents movement surely does but it's abjectly insulting to suggest it's some kind of astroturfed puppet. All it takes is an aversion to rampant gun violence. You seem to be trying to compare this with an advertised product, and that's absurd.

In the same way, to refer back to previous analogy, there was no anti-smoking "movement spearheaded by" a group or politicians or any entity. We the People simply got fed up with it, and demanded change, and that's what happens when we speak. So I absolutely reject this idea that there is an "anti-gun movement spearheaded by" anything. Whatever rhetoric, whatever ideas, whatever proposals bubble up out of concern for rampant gun violence was spearheaded by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold and Dylann Roof and Adam Lanza and James Holmes and Jared Loughner (etc etc etc etc etc) --- THERE is your catalyst. Your suggestion that the general public would have never thought of addressing gun violence if not led to it by an advertiser is in a word ridiculous. It's a simple matter of people preferring to feel safe versus living in a war zone. Ain't exactly rocket surgery and it damn sure doesn't take a "politician" to figure that out.

I'm certainly not a part of any "political group" or "politician"; my thoughts are my own and self-generated. If that were not the case I'd be parroting somebody else's lines --- think about it.

This is the same thing I've been preaching the entire time I've been on this site about gun violence in general, the hot issue when I joined USMB, that it's not a question of throwing laws at it but rather a question of cultural values. And I mention that because you personally, I recall, were one of the few who took the effort to understood what I was saying.

So that's why this is not a political issue. Politicians don't start these 'camps'. They may, and they surely do, jump into those camps and in so doing deepen the divide for no good purpose, but make no mistake, they didn't create those camps. WE did. So this idea that goes around that believes "we have a problem and therefore politicians have to fix it" (which then means "my" politicians have to overcome "your" politicians to do so), just sounds like a giant cop-out. That's a giant dead end.

And I still agree - it is a cultural problem. This is an example of not addressing the cultural issues and, instead, using massive overreaction and policy to 'solve' the problem.

Yep. That's what I've been saying since Day One here, that you don't address a cultural disease by throwing laws at it, which is, at best, treating the symptom while ignoring the disease. If we want to change the culture, we have to change the culture.

As we did with smoking. That's why that analogy is up there.
Massive overreaction (this case) it may be, but that doesn't make it "political".

Pogo, clearly you are going to force me to THINK a lot more to properly address this post.

Don't have the time but I will get back you you. I don't want to insult the thought you clearly put into this so I will not respond until I can reciprocate.

Appreciate that. I do buck the trend of parroting talking points here and I've never been known for brevity

Worthwhile thought is always worth the investment of time. No hurry.

 

[grainbely]

First off, I knew from day one Trump was not the answer. I also knew Clinton was a big part of the problem. I couldn’t vote for either but I understood why you would vote for him. Clinton represented more government control and meddling that would not allow hard working Americans to get ahead. Trump was hope and change and an unknown that people were ready to roll the dice on.

Me, I saw two really bad choices and went to third party.

That's at least the honest alternative. Unfortunately the WTA system ensures that that vote goes straight to the trash can.

I've done that too, it's an empty feeling. We make a "statement" that only we can see.

Trump won. And everyone can see that.

All those FUCK YOU votes add up.

Ah but what do they add up TO. Aye, there's the rub.

They add up to everyone getting fucked.

Then the Republicans and Democrats need to get some good candidates instead of the crap we have had over the last few decades.

Uh trump was supposed to be that i thought. The outsider who could break the cycle.