Yeah, that’s fine, a bit outside the metaphor as there is no analog.

Basically just that socially enforced boundaries are a thing even in public spaces.

But we are allowed, and encouraged to read it, just not post. It is public.

I’m not sure the specific name of it. Something like “women only” but I’m not finding it in search. I browse lemmy by all, so it comes up every now and then for me.

We are fully allowed to read it, just don’t post. Reading it is very insightful.

Lets say you go to a public building and in that public building there is a room marked women only, lets say in that room are some toilets, would you go in that room? Since it’s a public space in the same building as all the other public space, the only difference is that portion of the space is understood to be only for women, or those that identify as women.

You may stumble in accidentally, and you will be gently corrected, but if you keep stumbling in, it’s gonna start to seem weird, and the corrections will get less gentle.

Umm, does he not realise we would also want those pedophiles in jail too?

Like sure ‘every pedophile’ is better, but half is a good start, we’ll get the rest in due time. Stuff is constantly leaking.

Ah, nevermind then. I was taking it on word from someone else. Guess I shouldn’t do that, even for something that would be weird to make up.

Yeah, it doesn’t point it out, but if you check the names, they are all there.

End of line.

Yeah, and if he had any tangible effect on the odds of that… wouldn’t it be decreasing them?

Definitely need to marry an anime obsessed girl, for this and all the other reasons.

Oh man, did you know that the capes thing was actually in-world propaganda/disinformation in the movies? Syndrome killed all the people listed as having cape accidents, so it was like a go-to coverup that they died in cape related ways, like the people making the cover stories didn’t have the creativity to come up with anything else. And it just ended up making capes seem like a bad idea.

Is that not what the other commenters here are arguing? Cuz even when I ask them if that’s what they are saying they keep answering like it is what they are saying, that I must not have gone to an american school. No, I didn’t go to an american school, is it really that bad there? Like Canada is right next to the states, it can’t be that much worse just crossing one border.

I don’t get what you are saying? The kids didn’t do anything wrong? Or they shouldn’t also be in trouble? I don’t get why everyone is saying the kids should be allowed to steal?

Yes I have been to high school, no kids didn’t steal food from the teachers in my high school. But even if they did, they would have been wrong to do so…

Is it really a common thing nowadays for kids to steal from teachers? And not considered wrong when they do?

I really thought the reason it didn’t mention the trouble the kids got in was just cuz including underage children in news articles has to be so redacted as to essentially be pointless unless they are the main focus of the article. Not that they are considered to have not done anything wrong nowadays.

I’m not arguing that she wasn’t wrong, I state multiple times that she was wrong. He’s arguing the kids aren’t wrong at all. I maintain the kids also did something wrong.

So, it’s your opinion that the kids did nothing wrong by stealing and eating the teachers food? They aren’t even partly responsible?

So the parents get their kids home and they are ok with the kids stealing the teachers food, the teacher shouldn’t have had food in the classroom since kids are allowed to just steal whatever they want.

Eating a parents food is a little more understandable, though still not something a kid should do without permission. Eating a teachers food, is down right actual stealing. It is different even if the teacher is supposed to act like a parent, though I haven’t heard of that being the case, if anything teachers are restricted from acting like parents to the children.

They may have some legal burden, but it doesn’t mean it should be treated exactly as if they are the parents in every situation.

But I did say it was fair that the teacher got in trouble, just thought it odd initially that it doesn’t mention the kids repercussions, til I thought about the hurdles involved in writing that bit of the article and assumed they just didn’t bother.

While I definitely get that she shouldn’t have left them sitting out, is it not the fault of the kids randomly eating other peoples food without permission that the food ended up being much more “not for them” than it already would have been?

Well, I suppose just cuz the article doesn’t mention the kids getting in their fair share of trouble doesn’t mean they didn’t, including underage kids in a news article is a hassle and barely worth doing when they are the main or only part of a story.

That sounds alot like someone who “doesn’t care” if the epstein files get released.

As far as I can tell, they are providing a valuable, wanted, service. It’s unfortunate that it’s impacting you negatively somehow, but I think people would prefer that they keep it up.

Is what they are doing bothering you, or did you just misunderstand the point of their behaviour, and assumed something malicious was going on?