JaesopPop

JaesopPop t1_j1njsfi wrote

>I haven’t looked at this sub’s rules, but I know a lot of these woke subs

The nonsense words betray that you’re a bot

>I won’t report you, don’t worry. I don’t need The Man to police mean words for me.

I mean you basically just declared that you do lol. “You can’t call me a bot, it’s against the RULES 😭😭😭😭”

1

JaesopPop t1_iwu8081 wrote

> It’s what taxpayer/parents get for all of tax dollars... nothing. Nothing is ‘better’.

>We pay a fortune in taxes for our schools, and the kids are no better by any metric, nor is there any safety. Where were the teachers/coaches/staff to monitor the locker room? (I remember our gym teacher would come in every 3-5 mins or so, give a time check ‘10-more minutes!’ Leave.)

>Why are students permitted to have phones (cameras) in a locker room while others are changing? Nobody thinks that’s a problem—18yo with cameras with minors changing clothes? Smart people think ahead of the curve to prevent an ‘appearance of evil’, instead of cleaning up messes and saying ‘boys will be boys’.

>If these kids think this was ‘fun’ to sit on someone’s face and twerk, and others cheer or nobody helps— they are damaged. That is not normal, nor should it be normalized. End the season. These kids are the fruit of Haverhills’ labour, and no amount of money can fix a mental instability.

It’s like you lost track of what you were responding to a sentence and a half in. Unless your argument is that teachers are paid too much because of one specific incident?

Even then, I’d be interested in your thoughts on how you’d routinely temporarily confiscate kids phones every gym class. Also, if you think this would be a decision made by teachers.

Further, which teacher should have been checking on these students? The football teacher? You even mention the coach - you know this is a football practice, not a class, why would a teacher be there?

2

JaesopPop t1_ivhagdh wrote

Nixon had some pretty decent ideas. He also needlessly perpetuated the war in Vietnam, and gave a blank check to Kissinger to commit war crimes. He also was paranoid and a criminal, and had some really fucked up domestic choices.

7

JaesopPop t1_iu0y5x2 wrote

> Cameras are there, sure, but is there someone going through all the hours of footage to ensure that no car that shouldn’t pass made it through?

Every one? No. Some? Yes. Is there enough of a chance of getting caught that it's worth risking your significant investment into being able to do inspections for a $20?

>but I think to just expect that the camera actually prevents cars from being passed when they shouldn’t is naive.

What do you think the cameras are intended for?

4

JaesopPop t1_iu0tz6o wrote

It doesn’t need to be specific and measurable. Once someone passes someone who clearly has lights too bright that’s going to be enough to end up with them in trouble.

Inspection stations aren’t risking their business and the five figures they’ve invested into being able to do them for your $20.

3