Ditto. I feel like I’m the only one who still listens to the radio in my car. The only thing I want my car to have that it doesn’t is cruise control. Otherwise, she’s perfect.

Yes! This is the exact approach a good teacher takes with students who struggle with behavioral norms. There is a reason they are doing what they’re doing. They are reacting to adults the way they have been trained to react by other, shittier adults.

Once they trust you as a person who actually cares, they seem to become a whole new person. They are no longer scared to be vulnerable in front of you. It’s a sacred level of respect that teachers and/or mentor adults need to take very seriously.

I used to be the person who specializes in working with students who struggle with behavioral problems, and I can 100% assure you that exposure to violence from or among adults they are around is what led them to my classrom.

Barbaric, weird, and ineffective. It doesn’t actually address what is causing the behavioral issue. It only punishes the kid for reacting normally to whatever stimuli they are experiencing. It’s especially frustrating when the fix would have been something simple like listening to the kid’s concerns or trying to have a conversation with them to address the root problem.

Ah, the same way I deal with issues in my life. Good to know that the tendency goes all the way to the bone.

I definitely agree that there aren’t enough resources given to teachers, but the expectation of using common decency to reach the goal of educating our students is not too high of an expectation. Focus on the end goal. How you get there can vary (assuming it’s appropriate), but you are still trying to reach the goal of educating the students. If your teaching style is prohibiting people from reaching that goal, why wouldn’t you change it?

It’s nice to think that as an English teacher, I only have to worry about how well they can interpret the modern applications of the lessons in Macbeth, or whatever literature we’re studying, but in reality, teachers are teaching a whole heck of a lot more than their specific subject area. We’re simultaneously modeling how to behave appropriately, teaching how to navigate complex social situations, and mentoring students on how to achieve their goals and deal with set backs. Teachers have always worn more than one hat. It’s not only an expectation for the job; it’s an absolute requirement for success.

Should they earn more money for having to do all of that? YES! That’s why we’ve been complaining about the low pay and lack of resources for at least 40 years. The effort and skills are non-negotiable. Kids shouldn’t get a crappy education just because some politicians are using their teachers’ wages as political leverage. People go into education knowing that the pay sucks, but they actually care about other people and future generations. They don’t go into just for the paycheck, and I don’t know a single educator who wouldn’t put in some extra effort to help a student succeed.

You’re basing a lot of your opinion on the assumption that kids come to school ready to learn and healthy. The reality is that parents and home lives come in a wide variety of flavors. Some parents do exactly what you said: dump on teachers with their own expectations on how students should be handled. But others don’t get involved at all. Some don’t care about their child’s life beyond how it affects them. Some are so busy working to make ends meet that they don’t have time to be much more than an absent parent. No matter what life the student has, it’s still my job to give them a quality education, so of that means giving them a granola bar or calling Joe Suzie, then that’s what it takes.

We’re basically fighting for the same thing here: better pay, better resources, and support for teachers so that students can get a better education. The difference is that I don’t think students should get the short end of the stick for something they can’t change (i.e. low pay), whereas you’d rather a teacher not do extra because they aren’t getting paid to do extra. But my method reaches the end goal of educating students well, and yours instead basically says, “Reach the goal or don’t. I don’t really care since I did my part.”

Can confirm.

A good chunk of a teacher’s job is to build appropriate relationships with your students. Students don’t want to learn from someone they dislike, and you have significantly better learning outcomes when the students feel safe, accepted, and cared about. Appropriate nicknames, like Tim for Timothy, help in that relationship building. I don’t know what your position is at that school, but Wisconsin teachers are literally taught stuff like this in college so that we know how to manage a classroom with the best learning outcomes and the fewest number of behavioral disruptions. We are taught how to keep those relationships appropriate and healthy, although much of that is just common sense.

Yes, you should separate work and home life for both your own sanity and for modeling good boundaries and work-life balance. But that doesn’t mean you have to drop your decency at the door. At the end of the day, the goal is learning, and not being a douche is one of the easiest ways to get to that goal.

Extracurricular activities are an extension of these same principles, not an exception or something with a different set of standards. I think you might be mixing up appropriate relationship building with inappropriate fraternizing, and I’m concerned that you are having difficulty finding that line.

Whelp, Walker neutered our teachers’ unions, and the conservatives pushed for being a right to work state, so here are some unexpected consequences of that. They do not have to tell him why his contract wasn’t renewed, and now he doesn’t have a union backing his position. Plus, he wasn’t even “fired,” just not renewed.

F this teacher for creating an environment of hate.

AOC wouldn’t win Harris the swing vote. I love AOC, don’t get me wrong, but with two women on the ticket, it’s too easy for conservatives to paint the duo as “crazy” or “radical.” Sexism remains alive and well here. People still believe the stereotypes and are easily influenced by dog whistles, especially here in the Midwest.

I hope that we get to the point where this isn’t a concern, but as it stands now, we have never had a woman in charge, and a lot of people are afraid of the unknown, so they wouldn’t like the idea of something new on both the presidential front as well as the VP front.

That’s on top of the fact that AOC is from NY and Harris is from CA. We are already irritated that a majority of people in office (and the country) ignore the “flyover” states even though we do a lot for the country (and have really cool cultural and fun places to visit, but this addendum is clearly biased). It really does matter a lot that Walz is one of us. He gets us in a way that people from the coast states don’t. That will influence a lot of votes, and two midwestern states are considered swing states - i.e. states that Harris absolutely NEEDS on her side.

Swing voters here don’t care as much about deploying the national guard. In fact, it’s lauded by a lot of people, including liberals/democrats. Midwesterners are okay with civil disobedience, but only if it’s not unnecessarily destructive or if there isn’t an attempt to gain simply for yourself (ex: looting). I’m not saying that that is what happened when the guard was deployed or that it’s a realistic or correct belief, but in reality, the media painted it that way, so people believe what they were told. So, very few here are holding something like that against him.

I don’t know of anyone in my region who would consider Walz to be truly controversial, and certainly, they think of him as way less controversial than AOC. They might disagree with Walz’s policies or opinions, but they don’t think he’s controversial. Here, AOC’s painted as a pot stirrer and a crazy lady. To reiterate, I don’t agree with this view of AOC, and I respect her immensely, but it would be foolish to ignore the fact that a lot of other people do agree with it. Walz, because of his race, age, cultural background, and experience, is a thousand times more electable than AOC when you’re looking at it from a national perspective.

I’ve had this book sitting on my shelf for years, but I think your comment might be what makes me read it. I always thought of it as only applicable to wars or competitions of some sort, but you’re right. I live in the rat race every day, and it definitely is a battlefield, and I would like to know my enemy and myself better.

Pentapenis

That’s fair. I have heard of the difficulty sleeping as well. The sweating and shaking threw me so much that I didn’t make an exception for the sleeping issues that that some people have when stopping use.

Wait, this is after giving up cannabis? That is not normal at all. There might be something else going on. I’ve gone from heavy smoker for years to completely sober over night and then maintained my sobriety for months without any adverse effects. I’ve probably done this 5 times in my life. I’ve literally never heard of anything similar to your withdrawal situation happening to anyone with cannabis.

I mean, they are cool as heck on the inside. I can see why they would be into them.

It’s interesting to me that I only ever hear men complaining about this issue. That might not be reality, but from what I’ve seen, men are using “protect our women” as a reason for this hateful legislation when most of the women they are “protecting” don’t really care.

Could be confirmation bias.

Wow, that is a very cool concept. I, too, would like to back this.

That’s probably true, but, at least in the US, nothing will really move forward without the populace backing it (or not knowing about it to begin with). Otherwise, those politicians will never get elected again, and whatever climate policy they created will be negated by the new politician.

So it seems like she’s trying to go the route of getting the populace backing first, and then she’ll have that strength to draw on when dealing with politicians. A bunch more people at that point would be also calling for change, so she wouldn’t have to do much convincing. The fear of losing their political standing would be the impetus for change.

In my particularly weird corner of the world, we are still trying to convince people that climate change is real. I can’t imagine how much the deniers would freak out if their elected official backed something that they think doesn’t exist.

Usually, they say it, but not directly to you. The attacking woman will tell another person in the group, and that person will usually tell the target woman what was said by the first woman just “because I thought you should know.” Very, very rarely is it said directly.

I also have seen a lot of people pull the move of talking too loud about things they hate about the target woman on purpose so that the target woman hears it, but can’t really confont the attacking woman because she “should mind her own business.”

I’m not sure what’s happening here, but I’m into it.

That was a perfect correction. I didn’t want to say anything because the joke was funny, and my thought process was pedantic, but you corrected it and kept it funny. Well done.