My niece sent home from school for NOT wearing a hoodie

It should hardly be a surprise that people don't jump to believe a story unless they have proof of it. It doesn't matter a bit how plausible it sounds. In fact, believability is how some of the best lies are concocted.
Some might say that it would be more pitiful if the site were filled with nothing but gullible people. I'd agree.

Originally posted by reitze
Indoctrination in stead of education?
How long till we get "re-educated"?

The War On Kids (on metcafe)

Oh and per the reply to my statement:

Originally posted by habitforming
You have to get educated first. "instead" But brag about being ignorant all you like.

I have an MSEE, and offer contributions rather than an ignorant detraction from the thread theme. Perhaps you can offer something better to defend the school abuses of the children's minds?



This is what's considered "good" these dayz. Notice they even give the kids Fluoride. IMHO that's just wrong on so many levels. Imagine being stuck in a class like that forced to go along with that level of ritualized abusive crap. Silly voices? Or just down right offensive? To me that's just NAZI criminal - like the hoodie exercise.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

 

STILL don't believe your story, and you backtracking doesn't make it smell any more legit than before.

As others have said, this likely DID NOT happen, which is why there is no mention anywhere in the press about it. A local Fox affiliate would have a field day with the story of a school that told the kids to wear hoodies in support of Trayvon Martin, even without the mention about your 'niece'. To pretend that every other student in the school would go along with this, and no local news would pick up on the event is absurd. Your story is ludicrous. Your name and signature are ironic.

The phenomenon of internet users insisting the story is false is a more interesting story than the original story. lol

Does it upset you that I have so many S&Fs for a story you don't believe is true?

It doesn't upset me. But I DO think it highlights just how many people readily believe something with no evidence whatsoever. But, that's hardly anything new.

The original question concerned whether other people have had similar experiences with schools enforcing "compliance" for kids to fall into a predetermined "right" way to think and act. The hoodie part of the story was incidental to the point I was making.

Oh. So now your back to saying she was forced to wear the hoodie.

Again, I say it sure sounds like you made the whole story up. You keep altering the details, and the notion that an entire school would have no problem going along with this plan [b]except for your niece wthout one parent alaterting the media is really too much for a skeptic to swallow. Which is why I find your user name and signature so ironic, Skeptic. "Skeptical but open-minded. The people who make things up make it harder to find truth."

Do you really believe that it was impossible for this story to have occurred? That's your argument? It didn't happen because it couldn't have happened? Seriously?

I believe it didnt happen because there are too many holes. You are just engaging in either A-a form of attention-seeking, or B-an elaborate experiment to show how many naive people are on ATS>

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


So now that you have two completely different stories, is your niece proud that her Aunt is a liar? Does she take after you? Is that why you are so proud of her?
So, not only was she NOT required to wear a hoodie, she was ASKED to be taken home because she was CAUSING and incident.

MMMhhhhmmm. So we know you are a liar, she is a trouble maker. What else do we know? Can you give her the Trayvon rundown? Was she ever suspended? Does she have any men's jewelry on her? Does she get high? Is she trippin on sizzerp?

OH, yeah you do not need to answer. You would not know any of the answers. But it is fun to speculate about your trouble making niece who apparently cannot stand by and let other people wear hoodies if they choose or whatever the story is now.

reply to post by habitforming


You dont realize that Physics + calculus is the CALCULUS OF PHYSICS. Of course i barely knew it you idiot, I was taking them both the same year. Even when taking physics there are history lessons, calculus does not have a history lesson, congratulations pat yourself on the back and go lose some more braincells. Writing is english BECAUSE YOUR WRITING IN ENGLISH. You really are the cream of the crop, AHAHAHAH

Its not my job to be grammatically correct I think we all should know how to spell so dont blame if i dont care because i type quickly.

You were probably a loser, pimple faced idiot in high school and haven't changed much have you?

reply to post by IronVelvet


You both lost. She lost when she lied. You lost when you said you understood everything about Physics except for the Physics and math parts. You should really give that line up.

Originally posted by IronVelvet
reply to post by habitforming

 

You dont realize that Physics + calculus is the CALCULUS OF PHYSICS. Of course i barely knew it you idiot, I was taking them both the same year. Even when taking physics there are history lessons, calculus does not have a history lesson, congratulations pat yourself on the back and go lose some more braincells. Writing is english BECAUSE YOUR WRITING IN ENGLISH. You really are the cream of the crop, AHAHAHAH

Its not my job to be grammatically correct I think we all should know how to spell so dont blame if i dont care because i type quickly.

You were probably a loser, pimple faced idiot in high school and haven't changed much have you?

Actually, there is a history lesson in Calculus. They always discuss how it came about, the two people who "invented" it separately at the same time, all that stuff.... which makes me question whether you really took either one, let alone in the same year.
Don't try to nitpick someone else and leave holes in your own story while doing so.

Originally posted by habitforming
reply to post by IronVelvet

 

You both lost. She lost when she lied. You lost when you said you understood everything about Physics except for the Physics and math parts.

You should really give that line up.

....and just to be fair as far as the other person who is nitpicking...
She didn't lie and there aren't two stories. Everyone was demanding that she be more specific, so she was more specific and now they want to scream that she's telling two different stories and she isn't.

The school was wrong for not providing an alternative to wearing a hoodie and going to the event. They should allow for attendance without a hoodie AND for an alternative event, either academic, study hall or anything unrelated. I'm not saying there was no alternative, but they didn't make her aware of it, hence creating an escalation.
The school is the root cause of the escalation whether it be by not having an alternative, not informing her of the alternative or not handling her initial escalation correctly. She's a child and this could have been prevented very easily with a small amount of effort in planning, so they are at fault.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

Is this an aberration, or is it normal for schools these days to be run like indoctrination camps? How does this ever get fixed?

It's more than that, it's a direct violation of the student's rights, and completely irresponsible of the school to discipline a child for something not spelled out in the school rules (and I guarantee it isn't).

I'd say she has a good case for a civil rights lawsuit. As a public institution, it cannot be seen as having an "official position" on such a court case.

Personally, from all I've seen, Treyvon was a thug and a punk, and I wouldn't support him either. That said, Zimmerman is NOT protected under Stand Your Ground, because he actively pursued and confronted the kid, in direct opposition to the direction of authorities. So, Treyvon is a druggie punk, but Zimmerman trumps it by being a murderer.

reply to post by Gazrok

Personally, from all I've seen, Treyvon was a thug and a punk, and I wouldn't support him either. That said, Zimmerman is NOT protected under Stand Your Ground, because he actively pursued and confronted the kid, in direct opposition to the direction of authorities. So, Treyvon is a druggie punk, but Zimmerman trumps it by being a murderer.

I'd say that is just about right, and we all have to pay for their bad decisions.

As a result of a druggie punk and an over-zealous, trigger happy, wannabe cop, now we have a special panel reviewing the SYG laws, and we have 24/7 coverage of every SYG event in the nation, and we all get to eventually pay for the idiots that created this mess.

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1

 

Is this an aberration, or is it normal for schools these days to be run like indoctrination camps? How does this ever get fixed?

It's more than that, it's a direct violation of the student's rights, and completely irresponsible of the school to discipline a child for something not spelled out in the school rules (and I guarantee it isn't).

I'd say she has a good case for a civil rights lawsuit. As a public institution, it cannot be seen as having an "official position" on such a court case.

Personally, from all I've seen, Treyvon was a thug and a punk, and I wouldn't support him either. That said, Zimmerman is NOT protected under Stand Your Ground, because he actively pursued and confronted the kid, in direct opposition to the direction of authorities. So, Treyvon is a druggie punk, but Zimmerman trumps it by being a murderer.

As things have progressed, it seems to have come to light that it wasn't a "suspension", just a suggestion that it may be best to take her home, so it won't go on her permanent record other than being recorded as an absence. Still, the school could have prevented it by having alternatives planned for those not participating or for those not wearing a hoodie and still participating, so they dropped the ball to begin with and are responsible for whatever escalation took place... The OP never said suspended but a lot of people assumed that it was.

I'm not even getting into the Martin/Zimmerman thing, it's too charged up... the newest "OJ" trial now

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
....and just to be fair as far as the other person who is nitpicking...
She didn't lie and there aren't two stories. Everyone was demanding that she be more specific, so she was more specific and now they want to scream that she's telling two different stories and she isn't.

I am not sure what thread you are reading.
In the OP her niece was SENT home from school as punishment for not wearing a MANDATORY hoodie.

Later on, she was not required to wear a hoodie and she was asked to leave for causing a disruption.

Those are two completely different stories.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
....and just to be fair as far as the other person who is nitpicking...
She didn't lie and there aren't two stories. Everyone was demanding that she be more specific, so she was more specific and now they want to scream that she's telling two different stories and she isn't.

I am not sure what thread you are reading.
In the OP her niece was SENT home from school as punishment for not wearing a MANDATORY hoodie.

Later on, she was not required to wear a hoodie and she was asked to leave for causing a disruption.

Those are two completely different stories.

SENT home does not always equal "suspended" and it's clear that "asked to leave" may have been a better choice of words, but is not the one she chose to use at first. That's called being "more specific" , not 'lying to start with'. The story is still the same that it was in the beginning, just extrapolated on at the request of people posting here.
She wasn't giving a scientific proof, she was relaying something that happened from her viewpoint. She wasn't writing an encyclopedia article, she was posting on a message board. When you are discussing something, you need to take things in perspective and understand the thought processes taking place as well as the communication style of the person posting it. She didn't change her story, she refined it based on questions, perhaps coming closer to the root of the problem. That's how communication works.

You cannot limit yourself to only one form of communication and demand the rest of the world conform to your definition, you need to be able to communicate on many different levels and in many different ways, that's part of what makes us unique. We cannot insist that other people "open their minds" to undertand our viewpoints without opening our minds to understand theirs and that involves looking at things from other perspectives and communicating those perspectives.
The OP did not change her story, she did not lie about anything, it's still the same story with a deeper level of details and presented in a way that those who are limited in their perspective can understand but those people are having trouble spanning the different perspectives to comprehend what is being discussed.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

SENT home does not always equal "suspended" and it's clear that "asked to leave" may have been a better choice of words, but is not the one she chose to use at first. That's called being "more specific" , not 'lying to start with'. The story is still the same that it was in the beginning, just extrapolated on at the request of people posting here.

No, the story has changed considerable and no, I do not accept that "suggested she go home" is the same thing as "was sent home for not wearing a hoodie."

You really need to read the OP again.

Originally posted by habitforming

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

SENT home does not always equal "suspended" and it's clear that "asked to leave" may have been a better choice of words, but is not the one she chose to use at first. That's called being "more specific" , not 'lying to start with'. The story is still the same that it was in the beginning, just extrapolated on at the request of people posting here.

No, the story has changed considerable and no, I do not accept that "suggested she go home" is the same thing as "was sent home for not wearing a hoodie."

You really need to read the OP again.

I feel that you are nitpicking the details of what was said instead of focusing on the whole picture of what was said. The big picture is this:
There was an assembly where hoodies were supposed to be worn (not required, we don't know if it was required, they were supposed to be)
The young lady didn't have a hoodie.
They sent her to look for a "used one" which she couldn't find and became upset.
she called her parents.
Instead of addressing the issue, the principal suggested she be taken home.

This could have been prevented by better planning, so the responsibility for this incident lies with the principal. They didn't plan adequately and provide alternatives for whatever issues may arise. They didn't address a student who was visably upset in a productive way.
After it reached the point of the girl calling her parents, I see why they asked the parents to just take her home, but it shouldn't have reached that point and it is their fault that it did. They didn't plan well, then they didn't react well. They are the adults, not other children and it is their responsibility to prevent things like this from happening, not cause them to happen.

That's more of the "big picture" as opposed to nitpicking the details of the manner and language in which the original post was presented. Although from the original post, some people may infer that it had more to do with the Trayvon Martin issue, it didn't, it had to do with poor planning. As the details came out, it was more clear that it wasn't the memorial itself that was the issue, it was poor planning, exactly what I have been saying all along. The nature of the issue with Martin/Zimmerman has a way of clouding people's judgement on other issues and that seems to be the case here.

You are saying it's a different story because you originally saw it as a political issue concerning having the event at all and a student being punished due to the event. That wasn't the case then and it isn't the case now. Her story did not change, the reaction to the story changed. Since people may have formed one opinion in the beginning, they are having difficulty changing that opinion and it causes frustration that results in anger. Those people aren't "wrong" in being frustrated, but they need to step back and look at what may have caused them to react in that way instead of attacking the OP saying she changed her story. She didn't change her story, she clarified it and that changed the focus that some readers were taking. There is a difference there.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
I feel that you are nitpicking the details of what was said instead of focusing on the whole picture of what was said. The big picture is this:
There was an assembly where hoodies were supposed to be worn (not required, we don't know if it was required, they were supposed to be)

"supposed to be worn?"

According to whom?
The OP says it was required and her niece was SENT HOME FOR REFUSING TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECT ORDER.

I have no idea why you are having a hard time reading this thread. It is in the same English as other threads where you seem quite erudite. The OP flat out lied, admitted it, then backpedaled. No one was required to or supposed to wear a hoodie anywhere.

What does that even mean? How is someone "supposed to" do something but they are not required to? Then how do they get sent home for it when it is not something that is required?

The big picture is actually this.

Originally posted by UltimateSkeptic1
The next day my niece showed up to school dressed nicely, but not wearing the hoodie. She was sent to the principal's office and reprimanded, and told that she either had to wear a hoodie or go home.

None of that ever happened. You seem to not even be able to read the OP having written it.

It says very clearly that she was REPRIMANDED and told that if she would not comply she was being sent home.

What are you reading?

reply to post by habitforming


You need to go back and read all the posts without the clouded mindset. Everything I stated is perfectly clear, so I question whether you are reading it in full or just skimming through it and inserting your own emotions.

The word "reprimand" can insinuate anything from someone shaking a finger saying "that's bad" to sentencing someone to prison for life. There is a very, VERY wide range there.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by habitforming

 

You need to go back and read all the posts without the clouded mindset.

Why do I need to go and read ALL THE POSTS?
The OP said one thing in the OP that was not true and has since changed it a few times. Those are the only posts I need to read. No one else in this thread was there.

Everything I stated is perfectly clear, so I question whether you are reading it in full or just skimming through it and inserting your own emotions.

It is stated very clearly that her niece was sent home from school because she did not wear the required hoodie.
Then later it is clearly stated that none of that actually happened at all.

The word "reprimand" can insinuate anything from someone shaking a finger saying "that's bad" to sentencing someone to prison for life. There is a very, VERY wide range there.

edit on 14-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

Yup, sure is.

Notice how my last post has direct quotes from the OP refuting everything you are trying to say?
I am wondering where yours are.

reply to post by habitforming


It's clear you only want an argument and you aren't getting it here. It's been shown to you, you can accept it or not, no skin off my back

reply to post by Shrukin89


Communism is a economic system. What does it matter if he is a communist or not.