this post was submitted on 15 Aug 2023
103 points (70.0% liked)
Technology
59287 readers
4330 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Obviously they will figure out how to get a kid to their parents are not going to kidnap a child. I’m also aware that there are reasons other than being poor to not have a cellphone. Again, you are thinking logically and not like a school administration. It is my experience that school administrators can be quite illogical. If you don’t want to use a phone, you are 100% going to end up fighting with school staff. They’re not going to like exceptions to their processes for any reason. They will fight you to get you to conform. It’s a school after all.
To be fair, I'd say that's a fight worth fighting
You seem to be under the impression that school administration are an exception and not the rule.
Stripping out the somewhat bizarre manipulative language, yes, of course any organization is going to want you to use their systems to streamline their processes; it's far more efficient to have everyone using the same the system than for it to be a hodgepodge of different methods to achieve the same goal. Does that really strike you as odd?
No it is not odd. I’m not even sure why you are disagreeing with me at this point. I made an off the cuff comment you felt compelled to “correct.” I picked one population potentially impacted by a stupid policy. I did not say it was the only population potentially impacted by a policy. I’m simply speaking colloquially more than anything. Why you feel compelled to read so much into that, I do not know.
This is the part of your comment I should have quoted, sorry. This gives the impression that school administrators are somehow set apart from the general population's propensity to being illogical.
Again, saying that a subset of the population is illogical does not preclude the larger population from being illogical. You inferred incorrectly.
At this point you’re just looking for quotes to try to “correct” and grabbing the wrong quotes. Weird way to spend your time trying to disagree with someone when there is no disagreement.
I didn't grab the "wrong" quote-- I neglected to grab a quote at all. Oh no, did I do something wrong again by correcting you? haha
Bro, are you on drugs?
The text below is your entire comment before your updated quote comment. It contains a section where you quoted me. So it’s not that you neglected to quote. At this point I don’t even know what you are talking about. You’re all over the place.
This should have been my comment, bro (lol):
Keep digging that hole haha.
Who is digging in a hole? I just disproved your statement outright and that’s only a single thread I could pull on at this point.
A little summary of the situation: You said you grabbed the wrong quote. I agreed with implicitly on that and noted how all over the place you were just trying to find any reason to disagree with me. So you shifted to claiming that you didn’t use wrong quotes, that you never quoted me at all. I show you that you did quote me. Then you shift back to saying you did have the wrong argument/quote to begin with. Somehow you think this makes me look as though I am digging? Ok.
Nothing I stated indicated I am under this impression. Again, speaking to a subset of the population (school administrators) in context of conversation about that population does not necessitate it is an exception of the superset. I can draw you pictures on why this inference you made is flawed, but I see no point in that.