Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope your kid is never in a shooting, but what would you knowing 3 minutes before cops about a school shooting accomplish?
Thats easy: get out before the cops gets even more killed like Uvalde.
Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
211–220 of 252 posts
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#212Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never going to happen in the US, because it's antithetical to the current interpretation of the Constitution and because half the country doesn't trust the government to define "crazy" (or uses distrust as an excuse because they actually don't care / NRA). Sadly, I think statistically it would help a lot. Obviously wouldn't completely solve the problem, but you have to have something pretty wrong with you to want to…
Of note, the current interpretation of gun rights (the individual right to own) is a relatively new construct largely created by the gun lobby (roughly 1977, when there was an internal rebellion in NRA leadership) and a conservative court (Heller, 2008). https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-... And FWIW, I'm in the camp that we can't define "crazy" adequately. So, I'm all for limiting access to…
The 2nd wasn’t even incorporated until McDonald v Chicago in 2010.
I mean, Barron v Baltimore could not be more clear about this:
The third clause (of Section 9), for example, declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general; yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the government of the United States.... the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain state legislation... declares that "no state shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law.” This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on state legislation.
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have their "internet social networks" before and after class, just not during. If they still use it during, being without until a parent can pick it up is an apropriate punishment. Also, the kids are _in school_, their social networks are sitting in chairs, walking down the halls and eating in the cafeterias all around them. 45 minutes without checking instagram won't kill anyone.
> Also, the kids are _in school_, their social networks are sitting in chairs, walking down the halls and eating in the cafeterias all around them. In my experience, not really. Many young people these days are extremely online, chatting with people from all over the country & world, in addition to their local friend group. It's pretty wild. > 45 minutes without checking instagram won't kill anyone. Hey, see, we're a…
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#215There's a phrase for something that people can't stop using -- addictive substance. We (and companies) need to ditch the equivocation and be honest about what we created. ( Edit ) > Parents have been split on the issue, with many critics insisting their children need phones in case of an emergency. Is a red herring and justification for helicopter parents to normalize their micromanaging. Someone shouldn't be texting…
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
SCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years until the efforts of the NRA and gunmakers succeeded in altering this in the last 30 years.
> SCOTUS held quite a different view of the 2nd Amendment for many many years Which years specifically before the NRA lobbied for the last 30 years? Anything before 1990? Please be specific.
1875 - US v Cruikshank. Held that states have the ability to regulate firearms independent of the Federal government.
1939 - US v Miller. Held that the "obvious purpose" of the 2nd Amendment was insuring effective state militias. Specifically insisting that only those guns usable in militia service and held for the purpose of militia service were protected by the Second Amendment.
Until DC v Heller in 2008, this was all settled law.
Until 1977, the NRA was focused mostly on firearms safety education, recreational shooting/hunting, and marksmanship/sportsmanship. A group of right-wingers took over at the 1977 annual convention and by 1980 was solely focused on expanding the 2nd Amendment and more importantly, financing candidates who would oppose any gun control. Reagan was the first president ever endorsed by the organization, and within a decade the NRA had tremendous influence on the Republican Party. And they funded an incredible amount of legal "scholarship" attempting to shore up the sandy foundations of their 2nd Amendment interpretation.
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it shouldn't be but it's the America we have and it's constitutionally difficult to do anything about it with the current interpretation of our second amendment in the Supreme Court.
> constitutionally difficult to do anything about it with the current interpretation of our second amendment in the Supreme Court. Could you explain what’s “difficult” about “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?” It appears to be pretty clear cut to me. I’m not sure how anyone can conclude the opposite.
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#218Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#219I'm in favour of keeping phones away from students during school hours - Yondr pouches or storing them in a locker makes sense. It's very unlikely that there will be an emergency that warrants the immediate attention of a school student as it is. Plus, in my high school parents could call in to the school landline to speak to their kids if need be. Teachers have a difficult job as it is, not to mention that they are…
A phone contains private photos, conversations, has authorized access to email, chat and social media accounts, it's a second authentication factor, it has payment cards, saved passwords, browser history, potentially health data (for example, period tracker and medication notification app) and other data that they might not want anybody else to access, or could even cause them problems if the wrong person saw some of…
If I were a teacher I'd ask the student to power the phone down and put it on my desk face up. Of course, teachers have to do tons that have nothing to do with pure instruction - they're essentially running an org of 20-30+ kids all day.
Re: Students can’t get off their phones. Schools have had enough
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
There really isn't much to debate. Kids are developmentally unable to cope with addiction. Even adults have a hard time, with training, support, and wasted life experience with regard to online gaming. They may move past that addiction, but never really get over it. Current times are just the flashpoint where parents and schools have largely abandoned their core responsibilities.
There is a lot to debate. I don't agree with this "addiction" argument at all. My siblings (much younger, school age) don't have social media by their own volition. Apparently they're immune to this addiction - or perhaps it's not really addiction, but something different. Taking away their phones because others can't handle themselves is wrong. So yeah, a lot to debate.
You don't control it, the phone manufacturer and the app makers do. You may be shown something, it looks like fun, and then wastes hours, days, or months, on a simple dopamine 'loop' that's been designed (Octalysis Framework). You may spend a lot of money on worthless digital assets in the moment. Loot boxes for example.
When you are younger than on average 10 or 11, most children can't comprehend lying, deception, or deceit. They naturally separate people into two groups, the kids, and the adults because adults lie and can be deceptive but aside from that its not something the kids perceive clearly, and that's a biological developmental issue as well.
Its largely referred to as the age of reason, when you can start thinking critically and being able to recognize and tell lies is an important brain development. Incidentally what you are taught before and during that time is often accepted as true even if its not, and may be accepted as a true belief. Its hard work re-examining things critically that you thought were true but were actually lies (of omission or comission) designed to get you to think and behave in a certain way.
Now the ages differ individually, but for the most part there is always a period of time where you are vulnerable and have cognitive biases and blindspots, which is why it is important to have friends in different age groups, so they can point out things you don't notice. Some blind-spots never go away, and its a process of building up an association in those cases of some thing that triggers you to examine it critically.
Addiction is similar, you are mostly blind to it perceptually up until the part of the brain develops that helps moderate it, usually in your late teens, early 20s. That's strictly biology and varies to some degree but remains true.
Its still something that is very hard to do, but you are capable of doing that once the area in your brain develops.
For confirmation, you might look no further than objective observations about your and others behaviors to highly processed sugar treats. If your parents didn't stop you, would you be able to choose and have only 1-2 servings of your favorite sugar snack? or if left alone would you go through a long process of rationalizing just one more and before you know it the entire bag is gone. Even adults do this, but there's a variance in adults; there's very little variance in developmental stages.
Barring some excruciating/traumatic past experience, you would not be able to stop yourself. You would make yourself sick, because it tastes so good going down.
Also, phones are a leash. I know many parents who are perfectly fine instilling an omniscient presence via a spyware app that lets them track you everywhere you go, and punish you when they think you break a rule. My cousin got the brunt of this growing up, and would have his car taken away from him when the average speed would go above a certain threshold (and poor technical implementations in certain places bounce between several towers, so when you travel in an area your almost guaranteed to set off an alert). He got punished numerous times until he got the idea to take a drive, with them, in the car through that area (going the speed limit) to do something. They only believed him after he did that a large number of times, where the alert was setting off.
Anecdotally, fun fact, anyone with an antenna can actually do location finding like that. Its called trilateration, you learn about it when you start working with Ham Radio, and the requirements are almost nothing just need an adjustable dipole antenna ($15) and a SDR/modulator.
Some of the data might be encrypted, but IMEI number and a few other things are not and make you pretty uniquely identifiable over time. There are companies that aggregate this information regularly, and some non-companies that may use it for nefarious purposes (i.e. scam phone calling, deep fake etc). Risks are only increasing, if the experts can't keep up with the pace of trends, what hope do you have.