My kids do. They were younger than 4 years old when I explained it to them and they didn’t have any trouble understanding. Kind of makes me wonder why so many adults have so much trouble.
Little young for geometry, but you do you I guess
Quadratics are child abuse!!
Ah, the ol’ switcheroo!
Hold my hypotenuse, I’m going in!
Hello, future people!
My seven year old explained it to me the other day. Snapped at him half paying attention, thinking he was calling something gay disparagingly. Asked what that word meant to him and he said “when two of the same gender people love each other. Like two boys or two girls.” “How do you know that??” “Ms. --social worker at school name-- told me about it” “Oh… well. Great. Carry on then. Oh! Wait! You know you can love whoever you love right? And Daddy will always love you?” “Yeah of course, can you be quiet so I can watch my show please”
This morning I noticed a black trans lives matter sign on a hallway wall and felt really proud of our school. Fwiw it’s one of the lowest income and most diverse schools in our affluent city, debunking “Poors and POC are inherently bigots” bullshit from the academic left.
The academic left? Friend, your kid is well adjusted. More so than you (which is the goal, so good on you)
The academic left doesn’t exist. I don’t even know what that means, but it’s not a real group. It sounds like it came from fox “news”
You’re trying. Your kid has been raised to not see the issues we (myself included) get tangled up on. We have to get past the bigotry subtly hammered into us growing up… If you’re not pushing our baggage onto the next generation, you’re doing great as far as social issues go
No leftist wants anything except for you to be paid more fairly and for your kid’s school to be better funded. Doubly so if we’re educated enough to recognize systematic issues.
You’re on the right side of history… But whatever news programs you’ve been watching, please stop. They’re owned by billionaires actively trying to sow division for their own benefit
academic left doesn’t exist
The surveys in this Wikipedia article claim otherwise.
Some of those studies are suspect (e.g. most target social sciences, instead of a survey over all disciplines), but there does seem to be evidence that academics tend to lean left. For teachers at K-12 schools, this article cites a study about political bias, which found a smaller but still left leaning gap in political affiliation of teachers.
But the real question is whether that matters.
I grew up in a progressive state with largely progressive teachers and conservative parents. I considered myself conservative for many years (well into college, which was a private, conservative university), until several years after finishing school and I realized I really just wanted smaller, accountable government. Neither major party actually pushed for that, though both pushed for some aspect of what I wanted (Dems pushed for social policies like same sex marriage and legal marijuana, Reps pushed for lower taxes and spending caps).
Did my teachers influence my political views? Absolutely! But they didn’t turn me into a progressive, they just gave me an alternative perspective from what I got at home. My most influential teacher was in 4th grade, who pushed hard for recycling and reuse (we has a class compost bin, mild consequences for improper waste disposal, etc). I’m no tree hugger, but I’m really careful about reducing waste. My parents cared about waste a lot too, but my teacher gave the perspective I needed to understand why it was so important (we had a guest speaker talk about aquifers, ground water poisoning, etc, among other things). We rarely talked about politics, but things adjacent to politics certainly did come up.
So I don’t particularly care what my kids teachers’ political views are, I just expect them to teach facts and help students draw their own conclusions. I personally consider myself a left leaning libertarian (in favor of a solid social safety net, loose social policies, balanced budgets, and low taxes), and that’s a mix of my formal education and home life, as well as other interactions with interesting people.
Conservatives make the left-leaning academics thing into a big issue, but it’s really not. The real issue is that teachers are underpaid, so we’re not attracting a diverse enough set of teachers. My dad wanted to be a teacher (got a teaching degree and taught for a year), but the income wasn’t enough so he went back and got a degree in engineering. That’s a pretty serious problem, and it’s especially bad in my (very conservative) area since most teachers are women who have husbands who have better paying jobs, which implies that teaching isn’t a viable career for many. We’re limiting our pool to people who are okay with a crappy salary.
That said, it’s disingenuous to say that there’s no political bias in schools. The studies indicate otherwise. However, it’s a mostly unimportant detail.
It’s probably due to the inherent liberal bias of reality, if anything.
More a leftist bias, IMO, but even more than that reality has an anti-conservative bias. Conservatives reject reality with ever fiber of their being to maintain their power.
It’s true that those with higher education are more likely to slant less, and academia is made up of people with a lot of education.
That’s not the same as the existence of an “academic left”. They’re not an organized group with goals and opinions… You can divide any subset of the population however you want and label them a group, but that’s just a set of people with shared traits.
You can study them, and maybe there’s some interesting patterns in the data, but that “group” is individuals. They don’t coordinate, they don’t have meetings, they don’t have an objective… They don’t exist as a group
I broadly agree with your political goals. I also think we need to do things smaller and more locally, I think we should be as free as possible without imposing on the rights of others. But I’ve evolved more as I’ve learned more about economic systems and government - ultimately, I think size is the one true evil. Whenever we set up a way for people to collect power, it attracts the worst people and entrenches them… They then complete for more.
Also, the world economy is absurd and untenable - we print/create money through debt. That only works when you produce value with that loan, and that only works at scale when you have growth - and all available markets are approaching saturation. We can’t maintain the growth rate to keep feeding the beast, and look around… Companies are cannibalizing themselves and sacrificing their future to keep up in the short term.
We need to figure something else out very soon, and we need to realign incentive structures to align with human needs. There’s countless options and I’ve got some I prefer, but systematic change is a lot to explain in one post.
The modern Democratic party is neoliberal, it sounds like you’re more of a leftist than a liberal - liberals seek progress through maintaining the system, and I think (like me) you don’t see endless bureaucracy as a potential solution
those with higher education are more likely to slant less
And there are lots of ways to break this down. But I think it’s interesting to look at one clear point of evidence: CEOs are much more likely to be Republican than Democrat. CEOs tend to be well educated (most have masters, many have PhDs).
I’m going to make a bit of a leap here, but it seems Republicans tend to believe experience has more value than formal education, hence why they’re small business owners, CEOs, etc, whereas Democrats tend to put a lot of stock into formal education, hence why they’re professors, scientists, etc.
So your average Democrat likely believes in the traditional lifestyle track: go to school, work hard, get promoted. Whereas your average Republican likely believes you need to be independent, build a network, and fight outside the “system” to get what you want. That’s a pretty broad brush stroke, but I think it explains a lot of policy choices:
- laws based on morals instead of public opinion
- low taxes instead of more services
- strong leadership instead of strong institutions
They’re not an organized group
Sure, and the same goes for any other vaguely categorized group of people. I don’t think anyone other than a few nutjobs are arguing that there’s a big conspiracy, but when pretty much any group has a clear majority, you get problems.
ultimately, I think size is the one true evil
Absolutely.
I don’t really care about the amount of money involved, I care more about the relative complexity of services being offered. Once a system reaches a certain level of complexity, it’s easy to hide all manner of evils.
For example, I’d much rather have something like UBI/NIT than our current welfare system because the welfare system has way too many moving parts. UBI is a simple cash calculation, whereas food stamps, housing assistance, etc all have interested parties that want a carve-out. Look at all the Medicare supplement sellers that exist and tell me they don’t have an interest in changing Medicare to benefit them…
I want a few, simple, transparent services that the public easily understands and that journalists can easily audit. Complexity breeds corruption.
it sounds like you’re more of a leftist than a liberal
More of a libertarian/classical liberal (not the current US Libertarian Party, and certainly not what Republicans mean when they say “libertarian”).
I believe in maximizing individual rights, free markets, and small, focused government. I think we need some very key reforms to encourage true competition, because special interests have eroded it for short term profit. A proper free market will self correct in most cases, and a small, effective government is there if it doesn’t. This video is about traffic, but I think it can apply here too. Big government is like building a massive highway, where everyone gets the same, crappy experience, whereas a free market is like lots of competing streets that are highly optimized for their target market. People say they want the bigger roads (when all you have is a hammer…), but really the plethora of alternative (parallel) options is ultimately better for everyone.
I also very much believe in a strong social safety net. You can’t truly improve yourself if you have to work two jobs just to keep a roof over your head.
So I’m not sure if that qualifies me as a leftist or not, I honestly don’t know that people really mean when the say “leftist” or “far right.” I believe in smaller governments, with more focus on local government. I’m excited about my city rolling out municipal fiber, but I’d vote against my state doing the same thing, because there’s so much more risk of corruption at the state level.
More so than me? You’ve got me really open to hearing you out the gate with the ad hominen. Cool. You missed the part where I’m the one raising him to be this person. But kids are no reflection on those who raise them I suppose.
“The academic left” are out of touch progressives that speak like everything is academic and about philosophical principle, while alienating the actual minority groups they claim to speak for. (E G. I got on board with LatinX and every single Latino/Hispanic friend “outside the movement” fucking hates it.)
You don’t know me. You don’t know that I’ve alienated myself and lost friendships over participating in being the elitist sociology major in the office.
You don’t know I’ve been an activist for almost 30 years. In real life. With a bullhorn in my real hand. Talking to real people. Not on the Internet. Save the lecture for someone who needs it please. This is the problem with self proclaimed leftists. You always fuck with your comrades and push them away, while bitching that average Dems should be spending time persuading Trumpers to switch sides instead of working together on practical solutions to stopping fascism and solidifying democracy so we can actually work on things like universal healthcare, minimum living wage, ending citizens united, repairing the supreme court, reminding cops they’re the 99% and breaking up the gestapo, stopping mortgage derivatives from coming back worse than '09, regulation off big business, anti trust, codifying Roe etc etc etc etc bc Genocide Joe.
Edit: actually, you suck. I tried to hold back that and put down my anger over that first comment. But I just reread my original upvoted by the community comment… and you suck. I’m out here talking about supporting trans kids of color and teaching it to five year olds in public school, and debunking stereotypes about bigotry and bias in minority communities. You picked me of all people on this site to lecture with that shit? I’m sorry man, you kinda suck. A lot.
I’m sorry you took that so personally…I don’t think you heard what I was trying to say.
What I’m saying is you’re projecting goals and opinions on a group of very different people based on traits they loosely have in common.
You can criticize academia all you like, but what you did isn’t that.
You’re framing “them” as an enemy declaring “poors and POC are inherently bigots”. That group doesn’t exist.
Are there elitist assholes and people with a savior complex? Sure. I’m sure plenty of people have said similar statements, there’s a lot of really dumb individuals
But anyone who makes the statement you accused “them” of making would be torn apart both in academia and from any even slightly progressive group (not only is it not a true statement, it’s extremely bigoted)
What is true is that bigotry is more common in lower socio-economic regions for inherent reasons - but that’s reasons inherent to the group, such as less opportunities for travel, higher education, or relocation. There’s plenty of sociology studies that explore that with nuance and statistics to back it up.
Somehow, you’ve reframed that (or more likely had it presented to you) as a group of “them” with goals that are in opposition to you. As an accusation against you and your community.
The group you speak of doesn’t exist, someone made it the fuck up. It’s a harmful idea that you’ve internalized.
Your comment veered right off a cliff with the last sentence there. Where did you get that jumble of words?
Geometry is a gateway drug to Topology and its lesser known brethren, Bottomology
But have you heard of Versology?
When they say that kids don’t understand gay people, what they mean is “kids don’t understand why gays are bad and disgusting”.
It is too late mother I have seen everything, I now identify as non-Euclidean.
I would love to see this in the “jimmy noooo” comic format
I had gay couples explained to me as a kid over twenty years ago and understood it no problem.
Geometry on the other hand, I still struggle with…
Maybe you just never approached it from the right angle. I bet if you tried a new approach the subject matter wouldn’t be quite as obtuse
That’s acute way of putting it
Sometimes it helps to look at it from a different angle :)
E: oof I just realized Nova already made this pun lmao
what if the shapes were kissing on tv?
“If your child gets turned gay by watching a lil Nas x video just show them the WAP video to turn them straight again. Y’know cause that’s how it supposedly works”
I know I butchered the quote but the point is still there
Help they’re bisexual now
Straight people - “That means you’re gay”
Gay people - “That means you’re straight”
Horny people - “That means you like sex”
No, they’re asexual.
Straight <=> being only attracted to people of “opposite” gender
Gay <=> being only attracted to people of same gender
{People of same gender as them} ∩ {People of “opposite”/different gender as them} = ∅
=> They are only attracted to the people in the empty set i.e. nobody.
Kids don’t even understand straight couples.
They really should stop being so obtuse.
Thats a cute pun.
When I was little, I got to know some of my mother’s gay friends.
she just said smth like “they are a couple”, and i got it. It’s not difficult to teach the existence of gay couples. Unless you teach that couples are specifically man and woman.
I have gay family, and I didn’t need that explained to me. Even growing up in a very christian household, and being in a church that was conservative for most of my time there. I have never seen anyone argue this in good faith, and I don’t think it’s possible to argue this in good faith.
I don’t really understand gay couples either, I don’t even understand gay people singularly. I think I understood them better as a child to be honest, like oh look two men are in a relationship that’s nice for them. Now I see a lot more detail and it starts getting confusing, like when you see two handsome guys just hanging out in a coffee bar holding hands. Where did they meet? It sure as fuck wasn’t on Grindr! And how can they just walk around being hot and sexy all day! Why aren’t they exhausted by the pure pressure of existence?!
But yeah you don’t need to understand, no one understands anything anyway it’s far harder to understand why two men shouldn’t be allowed to love each other. Can anyone ever actually explain that without evoking a whole big fantasy about a powerful wizard that said it’s naughty?
I think that’s what they actually mean, it’s really hard to convince a kid that two guys shouldn’t be allowed to be happy together especially when you can just look over and see two perfectly happy guys in nice clothes who look like they’ve stopped for lunch before going and bring really good at some racket based sport after which they’re going to a movie and sitting with their arms around each other… Strong arms from the racket sport, a slight hint of perspiration even after their shower together…
They taught me how to find the area of a trapezoid and I’ve been broken ever since. Maybe sucking dick will fix me.
Maybe they wouldn’t have trouble understanding it if they weren’t constantly told all their life that men need to love women and women need to love men 🤣
What makes it confusing is when it contradicts everything they’ve been taught their whole life. Don’t fill their heads with that shit and they will handle it perfectly fine.
If you have a hard time understanding gay couples, then you must be overthinking straight couples.
Unless your gonna talk about babies there is no difference and if they can understand babies, then they sure as heck understand gay couples.
They’re both a sin.
Acutely witty.
