‘God, you’re hot’ Tennessee school board member says to student during board meeting
https://www.wsmv.com/2026/04/06/god-youre-hot-tennessee-school-board-member-says-student-during-board-meeting/Open linkView original on lemy.lol868
Comments288https://www.wsmv.com/2026/04/06/god-youre-hot-tennessee-school-board-member-says-student-during-board-meeting/Open linkView original on lemy.lol
“God, you’re hot. Do you know that? Where do you go to school at?”
How do you possible make this worse? Ask them where they wll be later.
Not calling for violence but how does this not get you tarred and feather in the parking lot?
Haven't you noticed? pedophiles are in fashion now… they can even be presidents
Heard, one use to be a prince....
yeap… green prince instead of blue
If my kid was speaking in front of the school board and subjected to that kind of harassment I’d be in jail right now.
🔫always have been
Here's why:
"Boys will be boys."
"He's not wrong, she is hot."
"Little slut deserves it for dressing like that."
"Why didn't I think of this? I wonder if he has any videos."
"Note to self: accept his 4th of July pool party invitation this year."
There is more effective ways of dealing with it, outside of violence. I do like tar and feather though, just the right amount of violence
Just so we are clear, tarring and feathering is an extremely violent act. I’m not arguing against it, but covering someone in molten tar is not non-violent in the slightest. I’m personally all for it.
What are those more effective ways?
All the ones I can think of that don't involve violence don't seem to be working.
Thats because too many people sit on their ass waiting for other people to take care of it for them.
Coincidentally a lot of them are the same ones who call for violent action (and not all of them lean right).
These actions only work if a majority of citizens actually take them, not sit back and complain about how they dont work because things dont magically get fixed the instant a minority of people do it once.
Bingo.
my biggest complaint about the liberal/left is they will do anything but take charge. they seem to love sitting around and quarter backing and demanding someone else do something in their name... and a lot of them don't even vote, because 'what is the point'.
Is chemical castration, violence? I suppose it is. I would imagine the tech isn't available to the general public anyway.
It's also proved to be ineffective. Chemically castrated rapists rape again, they just use other stuff.
He's a symptom. Violence against the idiots who can't help but say the quiet part out loud on camera won't stop the millions that do manage to keep the most blatant statements contained to men's spaces.
What we need is a culture of nuanced introspection and personal growth, where people like him can admit that they're pigs without it destroying their lives or moral standing, instead being a first step towards rehabilitation. Women and girls deserve to be kept safe from him and boys deserve better teachers, so he wouldn't be able to work in education until he has done a lot of personal growth, but violence is just scapegoating.
Of course if the state threatens violence unless you pay taxes that pay for people like him to endanger women, then you can engage in organized mutual self-defense. Hard to get to that culture of personal growth otherwise.
In the mean time, people are entitled to organised mutual self-defense against him, which might also include violence but probably won't.
That wouldn't be scapegoating? He did actually commit the offense. It's punishment.
Scapegoating does not require the scapegoat to be innocent of the thing they are rendered a scapegoat of. When a bunch of kids smash decorative plates and they all say afterward that only one of them did it, that one kid is a scapegoat even if that kid did smash some plates, or even the most plates.
And yes, punishment usually is scapegoating. "The offense" is some narrow, visible, and clearly defined thing that makes someone the convenient target to pin all the blame on, regardless of who was responsible for everything leading up to it.
Pedophiles are praise worthy unless you are trying to make it big on the Internet, then you beat up random people who cant fight back and pretend they are this guy.
Everyone is willingly living a hypocritical lie these days.
Priorities, we got'em!
The only response to that is, "what the f*ck is the matter with you?"
Sir....I need to see your search history.
Hey, I'm not disagreeing with you or anything like that, but read what you type... possibly* will* (or they'll), and also end that with a question mark. There's absolutely no reason to have errors like that, you had all the time needed to read your own text and all the time after to fix it. No need to make yourself look incapable of using basic words, which I believe you definitely are (capable that is).
I'll hire an editor
anyone else in that room who did not immediately stand up and drag this douche out by the ear is complicit.
Didnt hear them laughing at it and the one older lady going "ohhh you" as if he does this all the time to children?
Cause they are accpeting of it. It comes from being bigger than the allegations.
It wasn't just "a child", it was a fellow board member. Guy has zero respect for the office, the students, or women generally speaking.
Yeah, I am just using the word cause the article doesnt bother with it.
I honestly don't get how that makes it worse. Like, doing this to a board member is worse??? I don't get this stance at all.
Doing this to some random student is gross.
Doing this to another board member is also gross. But it signifies a kind of structural disrespect that undermines the office as well as the individual. It's symptomatic of a general institutional disgust for student involvement in school affairs.
Like Bush Jr doing the creepy shoulder rub on Angela Merkel or - in a more extreme example - UN staffers who were "approached, accosted and raped" by fellow officials and dignitaries. It isn't merely a personal transgression. It undermines the entire function of the representative body.
I think they meant the "oh you" comment was from a board member. The article says he said it to a student.
The student was a member of the board. That's why they were up there next to the creep.
Students are not members of the school board. It's an elected position that adults hold.
Read the article.
People also laugh when they are uncomfortable and don’t know what else to do. Obviously we’d rather see objections than nervous tittering, but I wouldn’t always take laughter as active complicity / celebration.
I was being over the top with the complicity mostly out if anger at the situation. I understand that people respond poorly in stressful situations but we need to start getting better at it.
This was a time I think it mattered to speak up.
Yeah I agree with all of that. Part of what was in my mind is that I would perceive a man laughing as very different than a woman laughing. I assume that all women live under potential sexual threat from men at all times, and laughing at an advance is a way to defuse it without getting confrontational. “Haha surely you jest” is actually a deflection, even if it isn’t a head on confrontation. I’m a man and I don’t fear direct confrontations, but I understand women don’t have the same privilege as I do in this regard.
Wow, that's... that's pretty cut-and-dry. Like honestly what the fuck? How the hell did literally no one stop that meeting right then and there?
He only wrapped his arm around her and asked where a
hotchild could be found later...She was in no immediate danger. Didnt you hear the school board's statement?
Adult: ‘What school do you go to?’ -child answers adult- Adult: ‘Allllriiiiiiiiiiiiiight!!!’
The lean in…gross. All of it, disgusting and completely unacceptable. I feel sorry for that child, and can’t believe not a single board member stood up and called it for what it was and immediately stopped the proceedings. That was my first instinct imagining myself there. Full fucking stop, protect that child and bring that nasty man to account.
Are people in such a true state of psychosis these days that we just ‘heh heh this is fine’ fucking everything now?
We only interact with things that make us happy or joy.
I wouldnt feel joy calling out his behavior so I don't.
Tennessee not exactly known for being civilized and Trump won Washington County by 39 points over Harris in 2024. These people are exactly who'd you expect in Appalachia.
White House chief of staff: “Mr president.. we’ve found your new Secretary of Education sir”
Might end up attorney general. Have they been on TV before?
But think of the children!
These are the same people who push things like age verification, and banning porn. The really worse part about this, despite his hand-waving “I didn’t mean to offend anyone” bullshit, is that this apparently has become so normalized that this has become something that is taking a large amount of effort and time to resolve (if it ever gets resolved).
In any normal timeline, this a) would have never happened so publicly, and 2) he would’ve been immediately removed and stepped down in shame.
But here we are: the Dark Ages pt. 2. Their masks are off, and they are leaving their shame behind. This is our new normal.
Oh, he's thinking of the children alright.
Now is the time of monstrous acts
As Antonio Gramsci would put from his prison cell while wondering why Italy became Fascist without people putting up a fight.
We fell to the same thing, we let the wealthy define our culture. Our culture is now that of being cruel and taking. And people wish to be popular and wealthy more than moral or right. So we shift towards their world and act like them, till we have the cruelty in our own hearts.
Well alas we've seen it all before
Knights in armor, days of yore
The same old fears and the same old crimes
We haven't changed since ancient times
Abusers isolate their victims to make it harder to leave
Watch the far right rally around this.
I'm sure you are correct, but is there a non-far right anymore?
Neoliberals?
Gotta test that purity. What else would I have to do if I didn't!?
I'm confused. Calling neolibs centre-right is leftist gatekeeping?
Purity testing is a good thing, quality control is as important for political movements as it is for food
In the US? That’d be the Democrats.
Democrats are right-wing in the rest of the sane world, try again.
Try what again? That’s exactly what I said!
Thank you for identifying yourself
Huh?
I'm sure it's theoretically possible to not want to pay your fair share of taxes, while not dunking on any particular minority.
It's rare though.
Generally not believing in human rights comes as a package deal.
It's surprising how quickly they come as well.
I've seen perfectly normal people go from "I felt a bit ill after that COVID vaccination, I'll look it up online" to spreading fake stories about immigrants and having opinions about Hunter Biden. Within months. They're not even American.
This shit's a fucking virus, and social media is the vector.
It's always just selfishness with conservatives. It's not complicated, they're just selfish assholes through and through. If you wanna know what a conservative will do, just imagine the most selfish move and voila.
Children starving or an extra $50 in property taxes, guess what the conservative picks every single time!
Yeah, they are the ones doing the “No Kings” thoughts & prayers parades
I don't know how you people don't get tired of the same boring ass gotchas every day. We get it. You hate everyone who doesn't have your exact political beliefs.
Anyone who gives a shit that you despise anyone to the right of you is not someone whose opinion I give a flying fuck about.
You care so little that you can’t help but announce it, even
Yes I respond to every 75th message so clearly you GOT ME again. What a genius.
👍 cool. Enjoy continuing to be part of the problem.
You're helping so much by going around trolling people and doing jackshit else. Thanks a lot FrObOzX.
the majority of people are not far right.
the issue is that people who are far right, are far more likely to run for office than moderate candidates are. and run better campaigns, and win more votes.
If they're voting for the far right candidates then they are far right.
I would say they're heavily misled. What may seem obvious here is invisible on their Twitter feeds, on TV, in their communities, and even Google due to "search customisation".
Yeah, they are being lied to but part of the problem is they like the lies.
And I would say that's bullshit.
I find this to be an altruistic if naive mindset.
I think they were asking if there was a non-far "right," not if there was a non-"far right."
I don't know. I ask because I cannot explain anyone even tolerating Trump's actions in any way unless they are far right. I still know people defending his actions... Anyone opposing him in any way, the rest of America thinks is "far left". So it's a weird time...
You are captured by the false media narrative that you are one thing or the other.
The vast majority of voters are neither far right or far left. They are moderate. However, moderate people dont' get any airtime because the extremists here, and everywhere else, paint everyone as either FOR or AGAIN things.
Moderate voters went for Trump because he offered them a better platform to vote for, especially economically. And Trump's tanking now that his policies are showing to be horrible. But he has 2.5 more years in office.
They're not moderate, they're the people who will say "they just need to drop a bomb on that neighborhood" talking about the black neighborhood of course. They love acting moderate in public but they really want genocide against brown people and they want poor people without healthcare to be left in the street to die. Trump is doing exactly what they've been saying in private for decades.
You're talking about the far right, not the moderates. You're just proving the other commenters point.
Im really not, that's the average US voter. Idk yeah you can call them far right but then half the country is far right. And his point was that it's a false media narrative. Completely backwards, it's literally the mainstream media that works extremely hard to sell these "far right" positions as moderate.
I'm literally citing personal experience.
Ah, so they get elected through divine intervention, then. Logical.
Why?
Because they can lie with impunity while the rest of us have a conscience.
The people you disagree with are far right... or far left, depending upon your political orientation.
No. I disagree with you, and you're just an idiot.
What do you disagree with?
You said one thing. Put on your thinking cap, I'm sure even you can figure that one out.
I don't get the hostility. It seemed like a pretty uncontroversial observation to me. Nobody complains about "the left", they complain about "the far left"; nobody complains about "the right", they complain about "the far right". Anybody with two brain cells to rub together can observe this.
I have no idea why this would upset anybody, but it seems like I've triggered some people. Unless you're just bots, in which case: deuces.
Disinformation actors and tankies complain about the left all the time
If you want a genuine answer, people are upset because you're expressing a centrist opinion. Centrism more or less advocates for maintaining the status quo. The status quo sucks for most people.
You're also equating the far left with the far right. To understand why this is upsetting, we can look at some basic definitions. If someone is on the Left, they are generally in favor of more equality, while those on the right want more hierarchy. Equality and hierarchy are opposites. You can see this in a more concrete way by comparing the goals of far-left organizations to the goals of far-right ones.
I think a lot of the confusion comes from the Cold War. Countries like the USSR and China would claim to have far-left intentions while acting in right-wing ways. You cannot achieve left-wing goals through right-wing action.
Even the term "Communist country" is an oxymoron, because Communism advocates for a stateless society, and governments never voluntarily give up power.
"He tells it like it is! "
Uh huh, we just misunderstood (slightly paraphrased) "god you're hot, what school do you go to?"
There are SO many ways to interpret this, you don't know what he meant, except for that all those ways are all fucked up in the head
The reply from the petitioner is great. We can't know his intent, obly he can, so we can only judge his words and actions. Nips that excuse right in the bud.
Maybe he just checked her temperature? And noticed she had a fever? And knew about potential contamination risks, and wanted to know which schuto quarantine?
/s
Oh god, turns out he was an actual doctor who diagnosed her with Ebola by just looking at her boobs!
The petition may be found here:
https://www.change.org/p/fire-jerry-boyd-and-keith-ervin-from-washington-county-board-of-education
Let's do our part, dear friends. And see you on the streets on Mayday at the next protest!
They also have a phone number you can call about the fact there is a school board member, Keith Ervin, who already was not allowed into schools unsupervised because of his sexual comments towards children before this event.
423-753-1100
W.T.F?
Ppl responsible for his appointment should/need to suffer consequences too.
Is it illegal to call for revolution?
Many such cases, tale as old as time, etc.
Them "good ole boy" s have infested the government at every level. May not be rid of them til they age out.
I've been hoping for that for a long time, but for every one that has the grace to age out and die, at least one more ages in.
This is the problem. I'm in my mid-40s and I have seen new "good ol' boys" move into the system as their predecessors die or retire.
The system is self-perpetuating.
No, this is giving up and letting them have their way with the system until they're done. Which they'll never be - they don't age out because they keep bringing in new good ol' boys.
They need to be replaced. One by one, step by step, the same way they got in.
And he is sitting next to her and grabs her when he says it... Ewww.
Definitely investigate this guy, i bet he has a BAD history. May be some criminal charges in the future.
He is already not allowed on school grounds unsupervised because of his sexual comments to children from before this incident.
So agreed on the bad history.
WTF? Why is he still part of the school board what the fuck
Because in the US pedocracy that kind of behaviour awards you positions of power.
Is the girl in question the one blurred out? And is he not touching her? How is that appropriate? It's not JUST the inappropriate sexual comment, but also TOUCHING of a minor, during a public meeting.
Yup, blurred out cause under the age of 18.
Well... that tells us all we need to know then
Off to the dungeons with him
EDIT: Aaaaaand I'm now finding out they didn't even stop the meeting. Come the fuck on
Since when is that a thing? Or they didn't want to be on the news.
Protecting the identity and privacy of victimised children is the default stance for journalists here in the UK. I just assumed that was true in most of the western world... Does Canada identify child victims in news articles then?
The reason this girls been anonymised in this case is likely because she's already been objectified, and would be subject to further trolling/ harassment from people outraged with the situations outcome and looking for a target to blame.
Just look at what happened to Virginia Guiffre, after publicly coming forward with her allegations she was subject to consistent death threats and harassment. Sparing anyone that situation seems merciful in my eyes.
They'd have to blur her because otherwise she'd be doxxed, and have incels claiming she's ugly and should be grateful that a man noticed her, and worse. As it is, her name is probably readily available and she is probably getting worse attention than the asshole who harrassed her.
"TSSSSSSSS. GOD, YOU'RE HOT. YOU KNOW THAT?"
🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮 🤮
They.. just... laughed?
The member would never have said it in the first place, if the school board culture was not already like that.
Everyone in that room is older
?
He probably could have grabbed her by the pussy.
They laughed at the "alriiiigggght" to her going to whatever school.
Although that only makes sense if they ignored the "for you're hot" as just normal or joking around or whatever bullshit.
Launch him into the sun.
“God, it’s so hot…”
As a reminder, escape velocity of the sun is far less energy taxing than reducing velocity to zero to launch them into the sun.
Why waste the fuel on a waste of space? Solar sails and the ultimate banishment
Or make him president.
Thats what you get when you choose your leaders by popularity contest. That wouldn't be appropriate even if she was an adult.
how else are you suppose to select school board members? should they be appointed by the town/county or something?
In a sane world, by ability and competence
How do you assess that exactly? What are the qualifications or objective measurements of competence as a school board member?
And furthermore, according to whom? your personal assessment in particular?
There isn't a single right answer to that and I'm not going to suggest there is.
How any organisation operates, be that public or private, is down to the culture of the organisation, and culture comes from people, process, motivation, legislation, and a whole bunch of factors.
If an organisation has a clear mission, is held organisationally accountable in appropriate ways to that mission and makes people feel professionally enriched and valuable, it will attract competent people. And importantly, an organisation full of competent and principled individuals will attract other competent individuals.
On the flip side, if an organisation is subject to decades of mismanagement, has very poor oversight, doesn't reward people for being good at their jobs and in fact rewards the wrong behaviours then exactly the opposite will happen. People who are competent at what they do will either leave or be crushed down, while those who know how to play the bootlicking game will be raised up, and this type of organisation again becomes self-perpetuating.
None of this happens overnight, in either direction. Failure can take years or decades, and so can the reverse.
The issue is that it's self-referential. The org itself gets to define what is good management or bad. Outsides parties, have no say.
And that's how local school boars work. They are local politics and they have very little external oversight, if any at all. Sort of criminal acts, like a board member embezzling school funds, that violate state law, there isn't really much criteria over which they can be held accountable, other than winning votes from their local voters.
I live in Boston. I can harp all I want about a local school board in TN, but the only power I have is over my own local school board here, where I can vote. And man the candidates we have... are usually a mix of nutbags and slightly less nutbags. School board elections tend to attract weirdos more than sensible people, IME.
Better that people vote for metrics than candidates I would suggest, and measure against those. If we gotta vote for questions too, so be it.
As defined by our able and competent political leaders? Ha ha ha.
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called "tests" to assess an individual's knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.
You know, they could give those to other people too I'll bet! In fact, I'll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!
Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn't do that to them. I don't know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.
Absolutely! It's just a complete coincidence that the people who the school system is failing are barred from fixing it because in order to pass the test you have to have done well in school. It makes perfect sense.
It's not like the US has a history of refusing to educate people, and then refusing to let them participate in civic matters by gating that access behind tests. The US certainly has never, say, made passing a test a requirement to vote to disenfranchise people.
And we all know that, of course, that any test would be super effective at preventing the abuse the above article is about. You just put the question "are you sexually attracted to children," on the test. That way you'd keep out creeps. And no one would ever lie on a test. That'd be ridiculous.
I don't know why people are disagreeing. It's a perfect system!
How about a polygraph test/examination. I understand they are known to be inaccurate sometimes. I doubt someone could suppress their deeply held lifelong urges enough to fool one with a question about their sexual desires.
Setting aside the fact that polygraphs are pseudoscience mumbo jumbo that don't work in any meaningful capacity, and the results of which are really just the vibes of the person running it (with all of their bigotry/biases on full display.)
The bigger issue is that there are over thirteen thousand school districts in the US. If each school board is four people on average, that's over fifty thousand people you'd have to do polygraphs for. And that's if all you wanted to do was school boards.
Trying to get all of those people polygraphs would be an absolute logistical nightmare. There aren't that many polygraphers out there.
And we shouldn't be legitimizing polygraphs anyway. They have time and time again been shown to be absolute bunk, and to discriminate against people with issues like anxiety (or really, anyone who gets agitated when you accuse them of something). The only people who can reliably pass polygraphs are sociopaths, which feels like the opposite of what you want to be selecting for here.
@AoxoMoxoA Polygraph is hooey. There is no scientific evidence to back it up.
Shhhh, don't overload them with reason, it's rare to see this kind of naivete in it's natural form.
edit: some salty salty lurkers around today, come on in, the waters fine, i'm sure you have coherent arguments to add.
Oh come on, but it's fun!
Yes, but you have to go slowly or it'll overwhelm them.
there is no test to run for, or be on a school board.
what would this test be, exactly? are you saying school board members should have to pass a civil service type of test before they can run, or after they are elected?
Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?
it can't be judged without well-defined criteria, no.
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I'd like to know.
because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none. anyone can run for school board.
You should ask people in a professional setting that work with schools this instead of demanding the answers from the black box of the internet.
No u!
Seriously, do you even vote in your local school board elections? I do. If so, what criteria do you use? I vote according to the educational platform they propose.
None of that has anything to do with merit of qualifications that are hypothetically being raised as criteria for evaluating a school board member's performance or competency.
It's not demanding answers, it's pointing out the typical lemmy/reddit hypocracy of sitting on a illusory high horse, getting outraged, and refusing to actually deal with the problem on your local level where you do have the ability to make a difference.
or if you want to be really extreme, you could move to this district in TN and run for school board yourself.
That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.
I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.
That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.
So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?
Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.
Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.
It's not an argument. It's a fact.
My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That's literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.
In typical fediverse fashion, the users responding to you have no answer so they get stuck on semantics and counter arguing your question rather than the intent.
I genuinely would like a well thought out response to this too. Would merit be someone with many years of teaching experience? Maybe school administration?
Do those things make that person capable of performing board responsibilities? Do those things preclude them from making creepy remarks (I highly suspect they don't)
For the record, the dude here has been on the board for 12 years, which should be more than enough time to learn the necessary skill set to do the job. Doesn't make him less creepy though.
Perhaps the argument that it isn't possible to assess merit for a job position is so far outside the realms of reason that asking for clarification is the only way to formulate an answer.
But if you want a simple, quotable answer for the obvious question as it is written, here you go:
It's tremendously disappointing to see people act like assessing fitness for a role isn't a thing that has been going on since the dawn of civilisation.
Get a grip.
Now, if you want argue that this isn't how things are currently done ? I’m right there with you.
The system is a shambolic remnant of what it should be ? couldn't agree more.
A lot of it is probably by design ? sure, i'm down for that perspective.
But "It isn't possible to assess merit for a job role", is a troll at best or extreme ignorance at worst.
If people weren't asking "are you sure that this is what you meant?" i'd be worried for the state of basic reasoning.
Since you went generic instead of specific to the circumstance: this man has 12 years experience as a board member. Would he not have the qualifications to perform the job?
It's not like he did this in his first year, or even first few years... At least not that we know of.
The answer is generic ....which means it can be applied to the specific circumstance.
Here is an example, as the answer to your question :
Going by the example evaluation steps i provided, he would have the qualifications to perform the job , if:
If you want to know if he's the most qualified for the job you also need to:
and he would need to be at the top of the rankings.
If you're going to ask who does these evaluations in the specific example being talked about, it would be the voters, perhaps a final approval board as well, if one exists in these scenarios.
Outside of that example, it can vary.
I shouldn't have to but I’m going to point out that i said this is a simple quotable answer, not that it was the only answer, or even the best answer.
My argument has always been that evaluation of fitness for a role isn't impossible. Not that there is a perfect method, nor that these methods are being used competently or at all. Just that they do exist.
As for personal opinion, this guy sounds like an asshole, i personally know lots of incompetent people in positions they neither earned nor are qualified for, I’m not saying the current state of things is good, because i don't think it is.
Do you know what a bad faith argument is?
Yes, and it's not this. I'm not making an argument either. I'm asking you a clear and obvious question.
Pretending you don’t know what merit is is a bad faith argument
So your general point is a concern. Who can you trust to make the judgement. But that doesn't mean you should just toss up your hands either. As was pointed out, tests of various sorts could be done and the results presented to the voters so that they have more to go on than the number of lawn signd they have seen for a person. The write ups in the guides are nearly pointless. They can say anything they want in there. For a person running for reelection, their voting record would be nice to give voters easy access to. There are lots of ways to present the voters with objective information so that they can choose based on thier preferences. But none of that happens today.
it's a democratically elected position.
the judgement is the judgement voters of that district.
do you vote in your own local school board elections? I do, and yeah you vote based on the person's policy stated positions. however, just because I do that, doesn't mean lots of candidates I don't vote for, don't get elected and push policies I don't agree with... because they get more votes than the candidates I vote for did.
Also, why do you assume that the voters in this school district, don't want this guy? He may very well be who they think is best for the job. If you don't live in this district... you don't get to vote for the school board there.
As a voter, I have found that there is a significant lacking of useful information to make a decision on. I put in a fair bit of effort and often feel like I have nowhere near enough. And that is how the politicians want it. That way the majority of voters to have very little information of substance to go on. That way they can win on charisma. And they don't have to do anything positive for the voters to move up. They just have to please the political powers in the area to get endorsements, campaign help, and straight up donations so they can move to the next level. But when it comes to school boards. Most won't move to the next level. But they take advantage of the way the system is set up to get elected. They probably even believe that their opinions are the will of the voter, when the voter barely knows anything about their real opinions.
Later, he would be heard to scoff in indignation at the response to his comment saying "what it was a compliment!"
He went on to tell the female reporter to smile more.
Later he would be heard giving talks about how LGBTQ is detrimental to psychology of minors.
By the way, he asked her what school she goes to.... As if he doesnt already know.
(☞ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)☞
Thankfully, if that hard-to-get little vixen of a teenager lied about what school she goes to, he likely has the resources to look up her school and home address!
I was gonna make a joke back about him bringing her some homework but i think the ick factor dropped it being funny to me again.
Cause i mean... He could. He could look up her address and likely her parents and know when to abuse his position to go to her house or pull her out of class. Its not funny to pretend to not be upset about this is where i am at.
Not "likely", definitely.
And, the "resources" is an email to the school administration. They wouldn't even ask why. They'd just send over her entire file--address, family, friends, grades, classes, teachers, school schedule, after school activities--everything.
What’s wild is they don’t get what’s wrong about this. “It was meant to be complimentary” “was in no immediate danger”. Fucking what?
1: that phrasing directed at an underage student your responsible for 2: the follow up with “what school do you go to?” As if he’s gonna look her up later
In america, if you are in any sort of position of power you're not really 'cool' unless you travel with the trump/epstein crowd.
I remember trying to be cool. I was 14.
Did it work?
No... :)
Mighty Christian
he loves god, so what
Ok, I've said this before and I will say it again. If you want to find someone who has a drive to do something they shouldn't you look for the jobs that allow them to do so without much oversight/consequence or where it is actively incentivised. Are you a profit driven sociopath? Corporate management/executive will treat you just right. Wish to do violence to people, maybe specifically brown people? The police and the military got you covered. Want to diddle kids? The implicit permission and authority of the priesthood, teacher, school admin/board member gets you a ton of access and assumed innocence.
That does not mean that every person who works in corporate is a sociopath, that every soldier is a violent racist, and that every priest is a pedophile. But if you ARE a sociopath, violent racist, or pedophile, you can see how those jobs might appeal to you and so you are certainly going to find more of those kinds of people in those professions than elsewhere.
The problem is how the institutions deal with it. If they try to cover it up, the whole institution is complicit.
Take the Boy Scouts for example. It's an organization dealing almost exclusively with children, so of course pedophiles will be attracted to it.
Does that mean that all about leaders are pedophiles? Of course not. But the fact that the BSA swept it under the rug to save face means you can't be sure anything will be done if there's one in your troop.
Agreed.
It's in the institutions best interest to cover it up. It is not in their interest to be transparent.
Institutions, made of people, are just like people, in that they pursue their self-interest first and foremost. Morality, the law, and all that is ultimately secondary.
And the self-interest primarily for orgs, like most people, is to protect their image at all costs, including the cost of allowing abusers to continue to be into them, as long as it isn't publicly visible and it's plausibly deniable.
But the irony is that rooting out the pedophiles would have done far more to protect their image.
This, exactly. I work as a baby seal clubber, and some of my colleagues definitely have questionable motives for doing the job.
Jokes aside. Obviously, not all of these jobs require nefarious motives or deplorable personalities to attract people to those roles. Teachers, for example, are more likely to be people that have a commendable desire to care for and mold young minds. But I defy you to show me a single person that didn't have a direct encounter with or know of persistent rumors of one or more teachers at their schools that were, at minimum, creepy.
Soldiers can just be poor kids without real prospects sold on hero propaganda without actual malice. But there are none-to-few soldiers with a bloodlust searching for an excuse.
This Trump Public Schools?
Ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ew ... goddamn EWWWWWW
Yeah. Sorry. Cause....
EWWWWW
"Controversial Comment"
🤨
Jokes aside, by logic, isn't pedophilia a controversial topics in US right now?
I guess controversial is appropriate here since half of the country including most of the government love pedophilia.
This is why local elections matter people!
How would you know he was a creep based on his campaign alone?
Republican
Fair enough
everyone at that meeting should be barred from any sort of role in the educational sector + atleast a year long mandatory training on identifying & preventing sexual harassment.
The public hearing for possible action will be here for those in the area:
April 8th, 4:00pm
405 W College Street Jonesborough, TN, 37659
https://www.youtube.com/live/977US_SUGg8?t=4560 at 1:16:04
Edit:ed in exact link, thanks lazynooblet
Direct link to clip: https://www.youtube.com/live/977US_SUGg8?t=4560
Oh nice thanks. I'm stealing this.
Thanks!
lol wtf
oh yeah, this is America
Conservatives are all pedophiles. This cannot be stressed enough.
Not all of them, but an uncannily high number.
slogan phrase about the enemy here!
Statement of observable fact and extremely good reason why non-pedophiles would consider them an enemy
Observable fact that includes a blanket statement? Like seems like we have plenty of reasons to consider them an enemy than needing to add stuff. Like conservatives enable pedophiles and are war mongerers. Thats pretty bad, right?
Why add "and they all dont floss!" ?
Cry about it
We need a really big pit
Not really, six feet will do.
Someone should take one for the team and run for school board member, just to replace that creep. Seriously!
School board member is actually a really powerful position. They usually control the majority of a towns budget and are often the first stepping stone into politics.
How about Dog Walker?
Yeah, she is doing a study of school boards for class and was allowed to sit in apparently.
Now she has some material she really didn't sign up for.
What the fuck is wrong with this guy
Let me guess.
Evangelical MAGA Republican?
"I'm so surprised," said no one ever.
See what happens when a nations leaders dont hold anyone in power accountable for their actions? Rampant shit like this goes unchecked and our children are left vulnerable. These people think it's okay to do what they're doing because their leaders do it and its fine.
Fuck the king pedophile and all the pedophile protectors for allowing this shit to happen countless times with little repercussions.
We got our world of no rules like the libertarians wanted. We dont get cooler phones or something or no taxes. We get people in charge of schools that want to fuck children and can say so openly.
I've been to Tennessee, the most churches I've ever seen, seemed to be one on every block. Checks out.
"Where do you go to school at?" Poor grammar too. Unacceptable behavior for any school administration. Out with him.
Bad news
"Are you from Tennessee? 'Cause you're like... really hot."
To be fair, this is what I expected from Tennessee. I'm not shocked.
If I had money on where this ended, I'd put it on them abolishing the Student Board Member seat on the grounds that it was too much of a temptation for the rest of the board.
Maybe slide in a rule about students needing to wear full figure coverings to prevent anyone on the board from becoming aroused.
Yikes. Probably, as well, but yikes.
Does this girl not have a dad? If some man said that to my daughter I’d catch a charge wtf dude
Paid vacation with a settlement bonus for endured trauma you say??
(/s)
STUPID Libtards! ALL he's doing is Being a Pedophile! That's like THE most Protected thing you can Do in America!
-People who show up Armed to Drag Shows to PROTECT THE CHILDREN TM!
What?
He claims to have meant that she was hot as in "on fire" because she was asking a lot of pertinent questions. 🤷♂️ Nothing makes sense anymore.
He is just a sapiosexual, and age is just a number, baby.
So is 911
Oh so just objectifying innuendo towards a child then
"Protecting the children" is always a cover.
Ugh, the south
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=977US_SUGg8&t=4560s
There needs to be a new creep popping up everyday
Notice how every single man, almost every single person, is massively overweight.
Like I'm not hating on fat people, but why are they all fat?
Because it's the USA.
Only half of white people are overweight, let alone obese, which they all are here excepting the one in the middle.
Weird thing to complain about when the whole child flirting is right there.
Like bringing it up when it isn't related makes it seem more like it is a athing you personally dont like and are happy to point out. You basically associate fat people to child groomers here.
Forgive me, but I am tired of the needless parade about this topic as if it helps add another pin to the hate board, especially for body image reasons.
Why should a half not overweight population elect an all obese local government? I think it's worth mentioning, and that it's suspect that you don't.
Suspect away, I don't care that you think someone's appearance is worth mentioning and hating on here.
Ah, yeah. That checks out.
Was the student actually hot tho?
How can se really know if she is hot if there is no photo?
She's a highschool student. If you're over 20 and her being "hot" is even an option, you don't deserve another birthday
It's sad when people do not have sense of humour.
Pedo