well I think the majority of parents closely guard their children when it comes to this issue (in a general sense), because children are very easily exploited, and this matter is one that's very easy for people to exploit others with, so they want to be fully in control or at least oversight of the teaching of this subject - the same goes for politics. Not always with great results of course, and sometimes unintentionally (or in the worst cases intentionally) harmfully, but mostly because of that protective impulse.

Generally, when parents talk about what they want their children to be, they say happy and prosperous, and something useful like a scientist or a bus driver or similar, or to follow in their own career sometimes. I've never heard a parent say they want their children to become pornographers. And again, the vast majority of parents don't want an authority figure and role model for their child to be one. I don't think this is because they don't want their children to grow up to not enjoy or engage in normal human interactions, but rather that its something that can (and often does) carry a great deal of risk and harm, and they want to wait for an appropriate time, when they're wiser, for them to experience or learn about it.

So I'm not sure your implied accusation (I hope I haven't misread you) that its reactionary to not want a pornographer teacher is true.

sure, but once its found out, it is their business since it becomes public knowledge. No doubt many teachers get up to the usual range of activities of various kinds that are seen as illicit or taboo in secret, but they're public role models for children in their profession, so.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find parents who don't have an issue with their kids teacher also being a pornographer

If she has degrees in communication & acting, that is to say (no judgement implied ofc) that she is a trained liar, and you really shouldn't believe anything she says.

This is in fact her jobs pitch, because she wants to work in the media, she did not in fact hand out resumes to minimum wage jobs and has no intention of working one, probably everything in the article is false these kind of 'experience/perspective' pieces usually are.

edit: perhaps 'storyteller' is a more polite way of saying it. But aside from that ("I'm a story teller & have always wanted to be one, in fact I studied how to tell storys and give performences, now let me tell you a true story about my experience - I even cry") the fact its reported in Business Insider, Fortune dot com, Daily Mail, should really tell you its wholesale fabrication.

Newspapers don't generally run pieces featuring anyone below the kind of 'minor gentry' class in a sympathetic light like this. They do run pieces (often fabricated) from people of their own class who are supposed to create a relatable crafted narrative for the lower orders.

I think Vijay Prashad wrote something about Russia like its viewed in the West as either the Vatican or hell... not hell, he uses a different word, its a much better phrase than I'm able to remember. But the point being that dichotomy between the source of moral authority, or the opposite (I guess alluding to Moscow as the fourth Rome).

On this particular topic, my own view is that Russia is restricting the rights/priviledges of what they term the 'international' LGBTQ movement, because I think the west uses wealthy urbanite associations of that kind in Russia (particularly St Petersberg/Moscow) for spying activities. At the same time, Putin has said (though ofc its necessary to examine what is done, not just what is said) that the LGBTQ community is part of Russian society, and shouldn't be attacked or victimised - this is probably because as a legalist ruler he wants to be in compliance with various legal obligations, and also doesn't want internal conflict. I think he isn't particularly opposed to the restrictions, because of the support it wins from the Orthodox church.

I wonder also with this particular topic, how much of the impetus for these kind of anti-progressive movements is to do with political kompromat. Certainly I don't think most of the elite, like aristos or capitalists for example, really care about sexual preferences, but rather its a useful political tool if the masses (are persuaded to) consider it immoral. Like with the 'Lavender Scare' in the US, but then I've also seen a CIA testimony saying that they (I paraphrase) 'like homosexuals because they're useful' referring I think to the usefulness of having something over someone. I suppose I mean, I wonder how much (alongside other factors) the passage of anti or pro LGBTQ laws is to do with wanting a political weapon, or alternatively as a kind of disarmemant treaty among the ruling classes.

its just far easier & also encouraged to punch down rather than up

people jealously guard their own welfare (tax credits, subsidies, tariffs, art grants, copyrights, pensions, etc etc) and complain bitterly about other's priviledges. But really every state ever to exist has had some form of welfare or another, the alternative is much more expensive for the state, as the UK discovered its easier and cheaper to pay vagabonds off than any alternative, hence the Poor Laws.

but generally try to ignore the social pressure/shaming, most people don't care (most people aren't wealthy so can empathise more), just the loudest yap a lot and are encouraged by the state in order to keep the payments as low as possible.

its a Usian thing I think, you've got a peculiar and unresolved relationship with so-called 'race' - your government still subscribes to racial theory in its administrative definitions. The arguments tend to be different (more pertinent to the issues) in other countries, and in 'non-white' US.

of course, color is an aesthetic argument, and it isn't an intrinsic property of a thing or person (and 'white' is indisputably a type of color). And aesthetic arguments, like the debates about 'taste' when it comes to media or consumption, are somewhat pointless. I think people argue about aesthetics when they've got no other pressing concerns, which isn't a bad thing per se, just unrelatable to people who do have those pressing concerns.

obviously, this is a US website (like most websites) so its to be expected that you have these kind of discussions, and hyperbole is a natural aspect of that. But really, it might be good to remember to be somewhat internationalist, and be aware that attitudes/understandings toward terminology, and also to so-called 'race' aren't universal. These kind of discussions, on this topic, are very insular.

I don't mean to criticise, I can see where the sides are coming from and why the arguments happen like they do here. But really, it makes no sense to say 'white people', referring to a kind of construct, outside of the US (and probably inside parts of the US). People will just read it as the skin color, or a proxy for or reference to 'racial theory'.

It would be better, and more accurate I think, to refer to yourselves (the 'white people' of the US) as European settler-colonists, since that's what you are. 400 years isn't that long at all - line 5-10 people up in space, and its not much at all, line them up in time/generations and you get 400 years.

Really, in the sense of a paradigm of understanding the world around us, leftism is a religion, albeit a generally atheistic/untheistic one like some east Asian 'religions'/philosophies (you can see its origins and similarities in other religious movements like the Hussites for example or the Zaydi Islam). So its to be expected that self-flagellation occurs. But self-flagellation is just self-indulgence - maybe useful for some, but not for the many.

I think I just caught Ramaphosa speaking and emphasising 'all parties to' or similar. My expectation (i'm not an international lawyer obviously) is that no Hamas is not obliged (any actions would be prosecuted under Israeli law, it being the occupying power, I assume), that 'all sides' refers to the states in dispute, i.e. SA.

edit; The State of Palestine is an observer to the UN and signatory, actually I'm not sure, because Fatah & Hamas are in dispute... but I think its Fatah that are recognised as the government internationally, so I guess they would be responsible in that sense, not Hamas, unless Hamas were recognised as the legit government.

Some initial conclusions from today's ruling;

Israel and its international supporters have been found guilty of committing genocide in occupied Palestine, on the basis of the 'no smoke without fire' precedent. Or, is plausibly suspected of, being pedantic.

Ansarallah & Hezbollah are both non state actors doing their respective countries proud by upholding committments they are only ethically, not actual signatories to, being non-state actors.

The US and UK are attacking Ansarallah without any legal justification, as China has said, and actually impeding their efforts to uphold the genocide convention.

of relevance to the UK, the leader of the Labour party has publically incited genocidal acts. And the Unions, by not supporting Hamas as requested, are also complicit. The Isreali ambassador needs to be sent home for her disgusting comments. Time to start filing lawsuits with the ICC i guess

South Africa (and co-signers) is now the vanguard of moral authority in the world, if it wasn't already, and should be listened to hereafter on matters of international ethics.

it seems like its kind of giving both sides what they want (usually what courts do when ruling between powerful interests as far as is possible)

israel & US & Europeans can keep attacking, but also there's a suspicion of genocide, it makes a bombing campaign and demolitions, not to mention the attempt to provoke the West Bank very difficult.

I guess a case of giving Israel enough rope to hang itself, but also not telling the US to stop its foriegn policy?

This is true of course, but then on a more fundamental level, the ICJ does uphold an international legal system agreed on by fewer countries (and is founded on even fewer, per the League of Nations) than exist today, that is based in British and to a degree French legal systems, so it still to some degree upholds 'western' hegemony in that sense, like foundationally.

but then, the hegemony really tied their own laces together with the Serbian & Myanmar rulings here, I guess the law is a double edged sword

I guess it makes sense, public (specified in the statement) incitement is just going to harm their own legal defence going forward (whether they can actually get politicians to stop doing it is another issue). They already claim they're meeting the humanitarian conditions thing, and its easier for them to split hairs over ('hamas stole it all' etc), plus other countries will pay for it.