I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
Here's the thing - I don't think distrust of authority on its own is a bad thing. I think it's healthy for kids to have a degree of distrust for authority, and in turn for individuals in positions of authority to need to justify that authority through their conduct. That's accountability, and it's healthy. A lot of these bad policies tend to be the product of people trying to assert authority without actually trying to justify it (often because they know there is no justification.)
I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
Honestly, if it's their first day of kindergarten, I might want to wait until you have some inkling it's relevant. While you don't want your kid to get beat on because of the school's dumbfuck policy, you also don't want them to go into school thinking it's a place where people might hurt them.
I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
Here's the thing - I don't think distrust of authority on its own is a bad thing. I think it's healthy for kids to have a degree of distrust for authority, and in turn for individuals in positions of authority to need to justify that authority through their conduct. That's accountability, and it's healthy. A lot of these bad policies tend to be the product of people trying to assert authority without actually trying to justify it (often because they know there is no justification.)
Completely agreed on healthy distrust of authority. But the teachers of my youth were academics, intellectuals, who tend to be quite anti-authoritarian. It was like a conspiracy of us kids and the teachers. We against the world, against ignorance, corruption, and for a better future.
Of course now I realize that this was an experience designed to make us grow. To an extent, the teachers played a trick on us. But only to an extent. Because some of them were friends of my dad, who was a teacher at a different school, and when I heard them talk as an adult; I now know that it was real too.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
It absolutely fucking is, and these policies teach kids that you're not allowed to fight back to protect yourself, which has long term deleterious consequences. Furthermore, these policies are often put in place because schools turn a blind eye to abuse. It's a shitshow, to put it mildly, and I'm glad my parents made sure to let me know that defending myself would always be acceptable in their eyes.
When I was in school, and for some years afterwards until they finally started rewriting things, the local schools' zero-tolerance policies explicitly prohibited any kind of self-defense up to and including trying to block incoming blows, and would punish completely-passive victims. They didn't recognize assault as a thing, merely "it takes two to fight," and considered someone's face coming into contact with someone else's fist to be participation enough to punish.
Bafflingly enough, a couple of schools managed to take things to an even dumber level than that a couple of years after I graduated, which led to mass walkouts and some administrators being forced to seek other lines of work.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
That policy reads like it was written by a bully. No matter what you do, you are probably taking a suspension. Bully can start a fight and get you in just as much trouble.
Utter bullshit.
Steam - Synthetic Violence | XBOX Live - Cannonfuse | PSN - CastleBravo | Twitch - SoggybiscuitPA
+8
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
It absolutely fucking is, and these policies teach kids that you're not allowed to fight back to protect yourself, which has long term deleterious consequences. Furthermore, these policies are often put in place because schools turn a blind eye to abuse. It's a shitshow, to put it mildly, and I'm glad my parents made sure to let me know that defending myself would always be acceptable in their eyes.
When I was in school, and for some years afterwards until they finally started rewriting things, the local schools' zero-tolerance policies explicitly prohibited any kind of self-defense up to and including trying to block incoming blows, and would punish completely-passive victims. They didn't recognize assault as a thing, merely "it takes two to fight," and considered someone's face coming into contact with someone else's fist to be participation enough to punish.
Bafflingly enough, a couple of schools managed to take things to an even dumber level than that a couple of years after I graduated, which led to mass walkouts and some administrators being forced to seek other lines of work.
It was weird at my school. Like you’d get suspended for fighting. And they didn’t recognize anything other than kids fighting, because it’s really tough to find fault if 2 kids are finding, it’s easier to punish all combatants.
But while we’d get suspended for a day or 3 days. After you got back, the teachers would let you turn in the homework you missed. So suspensions weren’t that big of a deal.
I think you got 5 suspensions before risking expulsion.
OK, break it down for me: what is the appropriate way to react for a student if being attacked? I have to tell my children that their physical safety comes first, right? I wish I could ask that question at the meet and greet with the principal. But I am concerned it would immediately brand me as a problem parent and/or student. When really, this is me lacking the necessary cultural background.
EDIT: I wasn't able to find anything in the elementary school parent handbook. But I did find a policy in the district-wide handbook. Should have known there was another handbook! This is in the serious misconduct (level II) section.
RESPONSE TO A PHYSICAL ATTACK-Any action of responding to a physical attack in a combative response that is not defined as self-defense. Self-defense is described as an action to block an attack by another person or to shield yourself from being hit by another person. If the retaliation meets this definition, then there will be no consequence. Retaliating by hitting a person back is not self-defense and consequences outlined in the Code should be followed.
I gotta say, this doesn't sit well with me. If you are attacked you are supposed to "block" and "shield". Sounds like a recipe for being essentially a defenseless victim.
That policy reads like it was written by a bully. No matter what you do, you are probably taking a suspension. Bully can start a fight and get you in just as much trouble.
Utter bullshit.
It's more akin to the people who MLK told off in Letter from a Birmingham Jail - they're more interested in a negative peace than a positive one, because a positive peace means establishing the presence of justice, not just the absence of tension.
Zero Tolerance Policies are absolutely useless. And the reality is that every person involved in a fight on school grounds will be suspended. It's mandatory. There is no exception for self defense. Now, notations can be put on files to clarify the situation, but it is what it is. Every single zero tolerance policy is that asinine. Like we're talking getting detention for having mentholated cough drops or sharing ibuprofen levels of asinine. Personally, the problem is that foundationally, Anerican culture is rooted in punativity, and until we can let that go a bit, we'll keep doubling down on policies like this since you probably can't spank the kid anymore. I lump the litigious nature of our culture right up into that punativity label. anyway.
Zero Tolerance Policies are absolutely useless. And the reality is that every person involved in a fight on school grounds will be suspended. It's mandatory. There is no exception for self defense. Now, notations can be put on files to clarify the situation, but it is what it is. Every single zero tolerance policy is that asinine. Like we're talking getting detention for having mentholated cough drops or sharing ibuprofen levels of asinine. Personally, the problem is that foundationally, Anerican culture is rooted in punativity, and until we can let that go a bit, we'll keep doubling down on policies like this since you probably can't spank the kid anymore. I lump the litigious nature of our culture right up into that punativity label. anyway.
Did you know in 17 states it’s still legal for teachers in public school to use corporal punishment?
I hate the idea of telling my child that their teacher or school policy is wrong. I want my children to be able to trust their teachers as they would trust me. I had total confidence in my German primary and secondary teachers that they would do the right thing to the best of their judgment in any situation, policy or rules being a distant secondary concern.
Honestly, if it's their first day of kindergarten, I might want to wait until you have some inkling it's relevant. While you don't want your kid to get beat on because of the school's dumbfuck policy, you also don't want them to go into school thinking it's a place where people might hurt them.
Absolutely. I’ll go in with the assumption that everything is working as it should. Good faith.
Only if there is a systemic problem will I need to have a conversation that she has a human right to defend herself; and that nobody gets to tell her otherwise.
The other problem with Zero Tolerance Policies is that teachers and administrators are reluctant to address minor physical contact short of full blown fights like shoving because the degree of contact is often irrelevant in the degree of punishment. You dont want a kid to get suspended for days because they bumped once or twice and quit.
Which leads to low grade bullying being ignored and undisciplined until it escalates to violence that can't be ignored.
But yeah Zero Tolerance Policies are a bad solution to problems like inequal punishment and administration discretion that just happens to be harsher and more frequent against minorities.
Fwiw we gave the "don't start a fight but you will never be in trouble with us for defending yourself" parenting advice.
I got jumped by three people I didn't even know in high school, one of them on his first day back from juvie, in...2004ish? Didn't even get to fight back, because three people and a heavy bag and also my shoe came off.
Got a handcuffed ride to jail to spend like 8 hours in a cell waiting for my parents, got suspended, and got to go to court to defend myself against some sort of public disturbance charge.
It's a bit weird to hear from my mom that every school she's taught at recently is on the other end of the spectrum, basically full Lord of the Flies, where admin even wants assaults swept under the rug.
Kamar on
+3
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
Zero Tolerance should be banned by Federal law. Bullies and assholes don't give a shit about getting caught and Zero Tolerance gives them just another tool to torment their victims with because it doesn't matter how justified the reaction they provoke is, Zero Tolerance will fuck up the life of their victims.
The other problem with Zero Tolerance Policies is that teachers and administrators are reluctant to address minor physical contact short of full blown fights like shoving because the degree of contact is often irrelevant in the degree of punishment. You dont want a kid to get suspended for days because they bumped once or twice and quit.
Which leads to low grade bullying being ignored and undisciplined until it escalates to violence that can't be ignored.
But yeah Zero Tolerance Policies are a bad solution to problems like inequal punishment and administration discretion that just happens to be harsher and more frequent against minorities.
Fwiw we gave the "don't start a fight but you will never be in trouble with us for defending yourself" parenting advice.
When I alluded to some local schools taking ZT in even dumber directions and causing the students to crack a few posts up? It was when a few schools went down this road, decided they wanted to think about things even less than the baseline policy required them to, and simply declared any physical contact, regardless of context, to be violence.
There were dozens of completely idiotic suspensions thrown around over it, something like a tenth of the student body in total over a semester, maybe more but I don't recall exactly. The one that finally got the students to crack was when one slipped on some ice, another helped them get up, and they were both kicked out of school for a week for "fighting."
Like ... multiple nominally-sapient human beings got together in a room at some point and said to one another, "this is a good idea! This will improve things!"
Not for nothing the US is not a signatory to the declaration of the rights of children.
I used to chalk it up to the US' general "fuck international rules in general and the UN in particular" attitude, but I have come to conclude that it is because, as a polity, the US neither believes that children have rights nor wants them to have rights.
[Expletive deleted] on
Sic transit gloria mundi.
+10
Options
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Not for nothing the US is not a signatory to the declaration of the rights of children.
I used to chalk it up to the US' general "fuck international rules in general and the UN in particular" attitude, but I have come to conclude that it is because, as a polity, the US neither believes that children have rights nor wants them to have rights.
If you look at us in practice we don’t believe kids have rights and treat them as such.
+12
Options
ButtersA glass of some milksRegistered Userregular
There is a movement among the conservative wings of the US to consider children the property of their parents, but of course that idea is contingent on being conservative culture warrior parents and not supporting queer kids' right to exist.
Not for nothing the US is not a signatory to the declaration of the rights of children.
I used to chalk it up to the US' general "fuck international rules in general and the UN in particular" attitude, but I have come to conclude that it is because, as a polity, the US neither believes that children have rights nor wants them to have rights.
If you look at us in practice we don’t believe kids have rights and treat them as such.
The USA pays lip service to a lot of stuff.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Not for nothing the US is not a signatory to the declaration of the rights of children.
I used to chalk it up to the US' general "fuck international rules in general and the UN in particular" attitude, but I have come to conclude that it is because, as a polity, the US neither believes that children have rights nor wants them to have rights.
Last I checked the US is in fact the only non-signatory of the UNCRC.
Sounds like we're about to lose our superintendent because for five weeks nobody told the parents of an autistic boy that he had been repeatedly struck by a bus aide. From the staff side of things, good riddance if so.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There is a movement among the conservative wings of the US to consider children the property of their parents, but of course that idea is contingent on being conservative culture warrior parents and not supporting queer kids' right to exist.
I don't think it's a particularly new phenomenon or contingent on the culture war becoming largely focused on queer kids.
Families have always been, first and foremost, the property of the patriarch in these circles.
Zero Tolerance Policies are absolutely useless. And the reality is that every person involved in a fight on school grounds will be suspended. It's mandatory. There is no exception for self defense. Now, notations can be put on files to clarify the situation, but it is what it is. Every single zero tolerance policy is that asinine. Like we're talking getting detention for having mentholated cough drops or sharing ibuprofen levels of asinine. Personally, the problem is that foundationally, Anerican culture is rooted in punativity, and until we can let that go a bit, we'll keep doubling down on policies like this since you probably can't spank the kid anymore. I lump the litigious nature of our culture right up into that punativity label. anyway.
Did you know in 17 states it’s still legal for teachers in public school to use corporal punishment?
Oh I'm in one of them. Parents have to opt out if a district decides to incorporate it in its discipline plan. It's...fun time. Boomer voice: and of course the students who need to be spanked are the ones who are opted out. *eye roll*
Zero Tolerance Policies are absolutely useless. And the reality is that every person involved in a fight on school grounds will be suspended. It's mandatory. There is no exception for self defense. Now, notations can be put on files to clarify the situation, but it is what it is. Every single zero tolerance policy is that asinine. Like we're talking getting detention for having mentholated cough drops or sharing ibuprofen levels of asinine. Personally, the problem is that foundationally, Anerican culture is rooted in punativity, and until we can let that go a bit, we'll keep doubling down on policies like this since you probably can't spank the kid anymore. I lump the litigious nature of our culture right up into that punativity label. anyway.
Did you know in 17 states it’s still legal for teachers in public school to use corporal punishment?
Oh I'm in one of them. Parents have to opt out if a district decides to incorporate it in its discipline plan. It's...fun time. Boomer voice: and of course the students who need to be spanked are the ones who are opted out. *eye roll*
Oh shit, I thought it was all opt in. I mean, it's bad anyway, but you bet your ass I'd be in there ending someone if my wife came home after that abuse.
It's not even a double entendre. It's whatever the opposite is, where the secret dirty meaning is more obvious than the obvious meaning. Double intendre?
This is why I refuse to take modern literary criticism seriously. You call this novel a modern classic? Where's the dick jokes? Where's the fight scenes? The Bard would be ashamed of this.
This is why I refuse to take modern literary criticism seriously. You call this novel a modern classic? Where's the dick jokes? Where's the fight scenes? The Bard would be ashamed of this.
The reason so many Shakespeare plays are based on historical events are that he realized that reality was written by hacks 500 years ago, and just copied them.
This is why I refuse to take modern literary criticism seriously. You call this novel a modern classic? Where's the dick jokes? Where's the fight scenes? The Bard would be ashamed of this.
The reason so many Shakespeare plays are based on historical events are that he realized that reality was written by hacks 500 years ago, and just copied them.
Most of the modern sense of style and criticism can be traced back to 19th century audiences. The rising middle class in Germany, Austria, and Prussia didn't know that the aristocrats and poor treated the theater in mostly the same way. A nice place to fuck while good music was being played. Thus, the idea that you needed certain manners at these events became something of a vogue and later got entrenched thanks to go old classism. There was a return to this with vaudeville style striptease acts but again, that's not something we put into our history books.
It's funny how a lot of American history glosses over, at best, and outright ignores, at worst, large section of human history where sex and sexuality is largely present.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
This is why I refuse to take modern literary criticism seriously. You call this novel a modern classic? Where's the dick jokes? Where's the fight scenes? The Bard would be ashamed of this.
The reason so many Shakespeare plays are based on historical events are that he realized that reality was written by hacks 500 years ago, and just copied them.
Most of the modern sense of style and criticism can be traced back to 19th century audiences. The rising middle class in Germany, Austria, and Prussia didn't know that the aristocrats and poor treated the theater in mostly the same way. A nice place to fuck while good music was being played. Thus, the idea that you needed certain manners at these events became something of a vogue and later got entrenched thanks to go old classism. There was a return to this with vaudeville style striptease acts but again, that's not something we put into our history books.
It's funny how a lot of American history glosses over, at best, and outright ignores, at worst, large section of human history where sex and sexuality is largely present.
Sounds like we're about to lose our superintendent because for five weeks nobody told the parents of an autistic boy that he had been repeatedly struck by a bus aide. From the staff side of things, good riddance if so.
The kid was seven, there's video and the school knew about it the next day. And they kept the aid on the bus for*weeks* after. The kid became terrified of the bus, and his mom didn't know the extent of what happened. Mom had enrolled him in a special program, and the kids in the bus were all in this program, so keeping that aid on the bus was awful.
And so many involved just covered it up for as long as they could.
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Posts
Here's the thing - I don't think distrust of authority on its own is a bad thing. I think it's healthy for kids to have a degree of distrust for authority, and in turn for individuals in positions of authority to need to justify that authority through their conduct. That's accountability, and it's healthy. A lot of these bad policies tend to be the product of people trying to assert authority without actually trying to justify it (often because they know there is no justification.)
Honestly, if it's their first day of kindergarten, I might want to wait until you have some inkling it's relevant. While you don't want your kid to get beat on because of the school's dumbfuck policy, you also don't want them to go into school thinking it's a place where people might hurt them.
Completely agreed on healthy distrust of authority. But the teachers of my youth were academics, intellectuals, who tend to be quite anti-authoritarian. It was like a conspiracy of us kids and the teachers. We against the world, against ignorance, corruption, and for a better future.
Of course now I realize that this was an experience designed to make us grow. To an extent, the teachers played a trick on us. But only to an extent. Because some of them were friends of my dad, who was a teacher at a different school, and when I heard them talk as an adult; I now know that it was real too.
When I was in school, and for some years afterwards until they finally started rewriting things, the local schools' zero-tolerance policies explicitly prohibited any kind of self-defense up to and including trying to block incoming blows, and would punish completely-passive victims. They didn't recognize assault as a thing, merely "it takes two to fight," and considered someone's face coming into contact with someone else's fist to be participation enough to punish.
Bafflingly enough, a couple of schools managed to take things to an even dumber level than that a couple of years after I graduated, which led to mass walkouts and some administrators being forced to seek other lines of work.
There's a reason a lot of us do not have fond memories of primary and secondary education.
That policy reads like it was written by a bully. No matter what you do, you are probably taking a suspension. Bully can start a fight and get you in just as much trouble.
Utter bullshit.
But while we’d get suspended for a day or 3 days. After you got back, the teachers would let you turn in the homework you missed. So suspensions weren’t that big of a deal.
I think you got 5 suspensions before risking expulsion.
It's more akin to the people who MLK told off in Letter from a Birmingham Jail - they're more interested in a negative peace than a positive one, because a positive peace means establishing the presence of justice, not just the absence of tension.
Which, frankly, is worse than just bullying.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Did you know in 17 states it’s still legal for teachers in public school to use corporal punishment?
Absolutely. I’ll go in with the assumption that everything is working as it should. Good faith.
Only if there is a systemic problem will I need to have a conversation that she has a human right to defend herself; and that nobody gets to tell her otherwise.
Which leads to low grade bullying being ignored and undisciplined until it escalates to violence that can't be ignored.
But yeah Zero Tolerance Policies are a bad solution to problems like inequal punishment and administration discretion that just happens to be harsher and more frequent against minorities.
Fwiw we gave the "don't start a fight but you will never be in trouble with us for defending yourself" parenting advice.
Got a handcuffed ride to jail to spend like 8 hours in a cell waiting for my parents, got suspended, and got to go to court to defend myself against some sort of public disturbance charge.
It's a bit weird to hear from my mom that every school she's taught at recently is on the other end of the spectrum, basically full Lord of the Flies, where admin even wants assaults swept under the rug.
When I alluded to some local schools taking ZT in even dumber directions and causing the students to crack a few posts up? It was when a few schools went down this road, decided they wanted to think about things even less than the baseline policy required them to, and simply declared any physical contact, regardless of context, to be violence.
There were dozens of completely idiotic suspensions thrown around over it, something like a tenth of the student body in total over a semester, maybe more but I don't recall exactly. The one that finally got the students to crack was when one slipped on some ice, another helped them get up, and they were both kicked out of school for a week for "fighting."
Like ... multiple nominally-sapient human beings got together in a room at some point and said to one another, "this is a good idea! This will improve things!"
I used to chalk it up to the US' general "fuck international rules in general and the UN in particular" attitude, but I have come to conclude that it is because, as a polity, the US neither believes that children have rights nor wants them to have rights.
The USA pays lip service to a lot of stuff.
Last I checked the US is in fact the only non-signatory of the UNCRC.
I don't think it's a particularly new phenomenon or contingent on the culture war becoming largely focused on queer kids.
Families have always been, first and foremost, the property of the patriarch in these circles.
Oh I'm in one of them. Parents have to opt out if a district decides to incorporate it in its discipline plan. It's...fun time. Boomer voice: and of course the students who need to be spanked are the ones who are opted out. *eye roll*
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
"My sword, ho!"
Also to try to disguise the intent, you need parental permission for ANY nickname. Fuck you Ron, you're Ronald now.
Oh shit, I thought it was all opt in. I mean, it's bad anyway, but you bet your ass I'd be in there ending someone if my wife came home after that abuse.
Just, fuckin All of 12th Night
"Oh happy dagger, this is thy sheath!"
It's not even a double entendre. It's whatever the opposite is, where the secret dirty meaning is more obvious than the obvious meaning. Double intendre?
Probably more in olde english there are a lot more saucy rymes/meanings that are not seen when in modern english.
I GET IT.
But next assignment it needs to be in iambic pentameter.
the lines spill forth! yet nought but three in five
are sense; the rest is pompous dickery
This is why I refuse to take modern literary criticism seriously. You call this novel a modern classic? Where's the dick jokes? Where's the fight scenes? The Bard would be ashamed of this.
The reason so many Shakespeare plays are based on historical events are that he realized that reality was written by hacks 500 years ago, and just copied them.
Nah, it's 40% dick jokes, 40% fart jokes, and 20% poetry.
Most of the modern sense of style and criticism can be traced back to 19th century audiences. The rising middle class in Germany, Austria, and Prussia didn't know that the aristocrats and poor treated the theater in mostly the same way. A nice place to fuck while good music was being played. Thus, the idea that you needed certain manners at these events became something of a vogue and later got entrenched thanks to go old classism. There was a return to this with vaudeville style striptease acts but again, that's not something we put into our history books.
It's funny how a lot of American history glosses over, at best, and outright ignores, at worst, large section of human history where sex and sexuality is largely present.
Puritanism, like meth, is a hell of a drug.
The kid was seven, there's video and the school knew about it the next day. And they kept the aid on the bus for*weeks* after. The kid became terrified of the bus, and his mom didn't know the extent of what happened. Mom had enrolled him in a special program, and the kids in the bus were all in this program, so keeping that aid on the bus was awful.
And so many involved just covered it up for as long as they could.