Supporters rallied behind the teacher as conservative influencers sought to make their gender identity a scandal.

  • RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 hours ago

    This headline makes no fucking sense. Did you want to clarify at some point here, or just expect everyone to know the inner workings of TikTok?

  • qevlarr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    10 hours ago

    She’s so stupid. Watch that interview by Taylor Lorenz if you don’t believe she’s dumb as bricks

    • UselessAsshole@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Note to confused readers: pictured is former real estate agent Chaya Raichik that looks exactly like a former real estate agent and operates conservative shithole “libs of Tik tok”, sending bomb threats and hate and serving no purpose but evil itself.

  • Ashenlux@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Oh my god, she is still around? I haven’t heard about her in a while. Looks like they are trying to drum up more trans hate again. She is just a propaganda pusher.

  • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Elementary-aged children are now asking questions about sex, gender identity and pronouns and gender presentation,” said Aaron Driver, whose child attends the school, in comments shared by the Libs of TikTok account. “That creates an educational issue, and therefore a parental rights issue”

    Aaron driver is a shitty parent

    • Custard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      I guarantee you those kids would be asking anyway. Do Americans not have sex ed in elementary school?

      • nickiwest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Sex Ed varies by state and sometimes by school district. In elementary school, it’s frequently limited to “good touch, bad touch”-type lessons.

        It’s not uncommon for parents to need to “opt in” for their kids to be included in the lessons at all ages. Basically, they have to approve of letting their kids learn about sexual health.

      • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Doesn’t really happen until middle school here. I had a Health class in 5th grade that was basically like “your body is going to change, please take showers every day, and use this stuff called deodorant.”

        Actual sex-ed wasn’t until 7th grade, and even then, it was basically “Boys, here is all the horrible stuff that will happen to your dick if you get an STD. Girls, the urge to have sex will turn you into worthless husks, also, here’s some horrible shit that can happen to your pussy.”

        • MonkeMischief@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          “Also draw and diagram these things.”

          Lol the only time I was ever given an A for drawing a dick on a paper. 😂

    • hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Considering how these folks tend to end up: has anyone checked Aaron’s PC for any “hidden” folders full of pictures?

      • hume_lemmy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        They view children as property. So teaching their “property” things like “rights” and “tolerance” is just like… installing Linux on their PCs. It makes it completely unusable to them, especially because they don’t like learning.

      • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        12 hours ago

        There is no such thing as parental rights.

        There are only parental responsibilities.

        Those who think they have rights over other human beings(including children) are akin to slave owners.

  • alekwithak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    What a confusing headline. I don’t think most reasonable people would know or assume that ‘Libs of Tiktok’ is a conservative hate group.

  • Blibly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 day ago

    I guess stochastic terrorism just isn’t a crime? She’s been doing this targeted harassment for years. Our country is failing partly because the law just isn’t enforced on anyone like this. The fuck is going on?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I guess stochastic terrorism just isn’t a crime?

      It’s only terrorism when it comes from the terrorist region of Afghanistan.

      When a Zionist does it, it’s Sparkling Free Speech.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Because the law recognises a difference between direct and indirect causes.

      If it recognised indirect causes then Lemmy would fucking implode due to the amount of people wishing death to various individuals.

      • zqps@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Wishing death isn’t an indirect cause of anything, though inciting others to do harm could be.

        • FishFace@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I suspect enough people wishing death to members of the same group increases the risk to that group, don’t you?

          • zqps@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            If they don’t act on it nor incite others to do so, then no. That’s exactly the difference between harassment and stochastic terrorism.

  • Trump Rapes Kids@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    I don’t get it.

    It seems like a lot of Conservatives are angry and confused because they don’t know whether or not it’s gay to put their penis inside this person? But the people freaking out in confusion are probably never going to see them in real life anyway.

    Seems like a huge waste of time and energy to stress out about because some asshat posted their picture online. Even if you’re someone who’d not like to put their peen in someone whom it would be considered gay to inpeen, seems like something there’s no point worrying about unless it has an actual chance of happening.

    • Headofthebored @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      23 hours ago

      That shit was hilarious. Popular platform owned by China who didn’t censor anything but presumably anti-China topics, but the US couldn’t censor or suppress any of what they wanted, because they didn’t control it, and they were big mad about it. It was fun while it lasted.