iykyk

on one hand of the platforming debate is yeah, we don’t love giving fanatic demagogues and white nationalists a megaphone.

on the other hand, there eventually might be a trial in the hague, so…

each time, and handful of kids say things like “I have a C because I’ve been slacking.” And that’s literally not true—they just didn’t do as well on a test or quiz or something, and have time to improve. preventing students from globalizing negative feedback is extremely important.

one of the most valuable things about students writing emails home about their progress in class (thanks @heymrsbond.com):

recognizing when students are incorrectly internalizing the wrong narrative about themselves, and immediately being able to step in and say, “no, you are working hard enough.”

doing some AP test review with my Lang students & came up with a new term:

boyfriend answer (n): something that might look appealing at first glance, but ultimately turns out to be wrong

when I began teaching I started to look around and think “wow, y’all are really just making things up as you go, huh?” and it turns out that’s true for literally every single organization I’ve ever interacted with as an adult.

the way in which (many, not all) universities are capitulating to politics instead of standing on the business of academic integrity, rigor, and critical thinking make me really question their value beyond just an expensive job certification. having a mission should be existential for them.

how about “the floor will eventually find the ceiling and throw it in the guillotine”

we should be judging schools (in part) by their ability to be a strong learning organization for teachers, admin, and families. the level of student learning is often reflected in the level of adult learning

so many elected officials are still so bad at responding to this stuff. focus on the impact on real people. focus on moral clarity and uncompromising values.

this just sounds like an annoying hall monitor, and is a huge part of why dems lose elections.

what % of accounts here are bots? because it seems high

wife: what do you want for Christmas?

me: I want you to argue with me like we’re in the 2015 facebook comments

nice to see some offense for a change

Dems have completely ceded this ground because they think guns are a settled issue in favor of GOP. I think any parent who sends kids to school wants better, and I am uncompromising on this.

There are nuances, and I’m okay with gun ownership, but I’m talking about building a political project that believes it’s possible to eliminate virtually all mass casualty gun violence (and now, political assassinations). If you don’t believe that’s possible, okay. That’s what elections are for.

I’ve been having these debates since I was in middle school. My father was a state trooper, and is an independent firearms dealer. There is literally no “anti gun control” argument I haven’t heard before and think is dumb.

k

again, I’m not going to debate 2A policy with anyone on the internet. I literally want to see dems do to guns what the GOP did to abortion, except nationally. fundamentally dismantle jurisprudence, re legislate, and criminalize. all rights are negotiable through elections.

both of these are tragic outliers to otherwise empirically verified findings around the effects of effective gun legislation. I have a family member that was on campus during VA tech, btw. by your logic, since some people will die of lung cancer anyways, we shouldn’t regulate cigarettes.

k

fantastic. I encourage you to start with the belief that it’s possible in this country to cut mass casualty gun violence events by >99%. then find legislative solutions from there.

k

I’m literally a rhetoric teacher, so no it’s not a lie. I don’t really have time to engage with you on this if your goal is just to nitpick and argue. That’s not mine.

Candidates should be clear about what they would restrict, yes, but it’s not “taking away rights.” It’s ensuring the right to life.

I’d use different words, but yes you’re coming around to the point I originally tried to make. In addition to a whole host of community based preventative measures, I 100% want to use elections to restrict access to mass casualty weapons, and want to see candidates lean into that.

Again, I don’t care about the opinions of anyone (or their shallow understanding of rights & process) who doesn’t believe it’s possible to eliminate school shootings through legislation. It sounds like you don’t, and I’m not trying to persuade you. I want to win elections in these grounds.

I do own quite a few different kinds of firearms, and have grown up with them my entire life. My view is that assault weapons are too accessible, and we can do a lot more to make them inaccessible, along with high capacity mags and bump stocks.

I would much rather be publicly outspoken about the constitutionality of a FAWB, and remind anyone else who sees my posts that despite an exhausting period of congressional neglect and dereliction of duty, if the politics change then the law can change.

More importantly, the point I’m making is about changing the politics and then the law. If a somehow FAWB passed the senate, I think it would be upheld. SCOTUS isn’t a legislative body, and “gun rights” are interpretative.

The FAWB that sunset in 2004 was also constitutional, and despite it being in effect for a short amount of time, multiple studies affirm that it both prevented mass casualty events and those same events spiked immediately after it sunset.

A FAWB is required to stop school shootings.

if we can restrict people from buying tanks without infringing on gun rights, we can do more to stop school shootings is my point.