Current mood:

Cliquish

uniforms = fascism
There's wank in the Fark pool again.

The following article gets posted with a "Hero" tag:

Following the school district's implementation of a uniform policy, parents complained that they can't afford uniforms, principal fights back sending an email saying that they should think about their child's education [Article]

Comments start off agreeing with the principal (who is actually a board member), but TheCid is not amused.

TheCid | 2008-04-26 10:08:07 PM
What I want to know is, since when does the government have the power to tell people (regardless of age) what to wear?

How is this not a ridiculous overstepping of their constitutional bounds? How can anyone support this blatant authoritarianism??

the shaman takes a real shining to our boy, and the love affair begins:

TheCid | 2008-04-26 10:25:11 PM
Good to identify yet another person who's part of the problem with this nation. Farking authoritarian followers.

the shaman | 2008-04-26 10:27:48 PM
I've got you farkied as "stupid, paranoid, atheist asshole"

You are the problem.

...And ends:

TheCid | 2008-04-26 10:40:04 PM
You're a lunatic who believes in shamanism and supports tearing down the wall of separation between church and state. You're an deluded fool with no grip on reality.
The fact that you support the authoritarians here in no way surprises me.

Welcome to my ignore list, farktard.

real shaman | 2008-04-26 10:58:46 PM
woooooo!!!! I'm on a dumbass's ignore list.

The rest of the 561 comments (and counting!) result in a dog piling of TheCid, whose ignore list seems to be a desirable goal:

Arthur Jumbles | 2008-04-26 10:58:12 PM
Could you please put me on your ignore list too? Please. I'd put you on mine except I'm not afraid to listen to points of view that differ from my own and as such don't use one.

Some Bass Playing Guy | 2008-04-26 10:59:06 PM
One look at TheCid's picture in his profile tells me all I need to know about him. You know that one person in your circle of friends that nobody likes, but nobody can quite tell that person? That's TheCid. [Profile]

real shaman | 2008-04-26 11:02:03 PM
He looks like the punks whose lunch money ended up in my pocket.

jmmsmile | 2008-04-26 11:17:14 PM
Oooh oooooh! I wanna be on TheCid's ignore list! Pleeeease!!!

You little popcorn fart.

Communism is called:

KoalaFace | 2008-04-26 11:15:58 PM
you seem to be awfully overbearing about your precious crotch dropplings 'freedoms.' Face the facts- this world/country/state/education system is not about YOU. It is about what is the best for the WHOLE. What is best for the whole appears to be school uniforms, for the reasons previously stated.

Don't you think that if EVERYONE in this thread is disagreeing with you quite adimately, that maybe, just maybe, you could be wrong?

TheCid | 2008-04-26 11:18:36 PM
You posting on fark is not the best for the whole. Get back to work, comrade. This country is supposed to be about individual freedom.

Not that many people actually give a shiat about freedom anymore.

real shaman | 2008-04-26 11:24:33 PM
You know who else made lame jokes about communism?

farc | 2008-04-26 11:25:29 PM
godwinned!!!!! ftw

Some real shaman highlights as he enjoys his place on the ignore list:

real shaman | 2008-04-26 11:19:05 PM
neener neener neener neener neener neener
/boy can I be juvenile sometimes.

real shaman | 2008-04-26 11:31:01 PM
I remember now where I argued with thecid before....

He was in total agreement with the requirement of mandatory service for high school students.

It was totally ok then for government officials to tell your kids what to do.

One last funny before it turns into a bullying discussion and repeats from those late to the party:

KoalaFace | 2008-04-26 11:48:25 PM
[TheCid: What happened to your mother was wrong. The school had no business ordering her to change her hairstyle, and the fact that you still support this uniform bullshiat even though you know that story just confirms my suspicions- you are an idiot.

What good is health without freedom?]

you're a grad student, aren't you?

Also, bonus John Stuart Mill discussion starting at 2008-04-26 11:59:50 PM

(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

mlleelizabeth
2008-04-27 07:44 pm UTC (link)

Just for grins I looked at Walmart.com's prices for girls' uniform pieces. They range from $5.88 to $9.88 per piece. Going by that you could buy one outfit for around $15.00. I confess I don't really know where kids get non-uniform clothes these days, but most of the pre-teen and teen girls I know of (mostly through their parents) would die if their clothes came from WalMart, so I looked at Dillard's (that's kind of mid-range but okay, right?) and they have some really cute dresses, for around $30 - $45* and skirt and top combos in the same range. So the too expensive argument seems really stupid to me, especially since the article states very clearly that no child will be turned away for lack of a uniform and the school district will provide assistance to those who need it.

*To be completely fair to Dillard's, they also carry uniform items (mostly in the $12.99 to $19.99 range).

Sorry if that was too serious business!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	fuzzytowers 2008-04-27 08:55 pm UTC (link)
	I'd dress my kids in Salvation Army rags before I'd dress them in Walmart clothes. I guess it's a good thing I don't have kids. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	chibikaijuu 2008-04-27 11:49 pm UTC (link)
	Me too. Christ, Walmart makes me ick. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	iwanttobeasleep 2008-04-28 03:02 am UTC (link)
	Thirded! I was less offended by the insinuation that everyone can afford Wal-Mart as the insinuation that everyone should shop there. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	fuzzytowers 2008-04-28 12:28 pm UTC (link)
	And they love the free advertising. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	tachikoma01 2008-04-28 11:02 pm UTC (link)
	Seconding this comment. (Reply to this)(Parent)

smashingstars
2008-04-27 10:39 pm UTC (link)

No kid is going to be able to get by a full year on just one outfit, you're going to have to buy a minimum of 3 and do laundry all the time. If we're talking $6 Wal-Mart clothes, those won't last more than a couple dozen washes. And lots of families have 2-3 kids.

Unfortunately I think that strict dress codes and/or uniforms often highlight socioeconomic differences of students. While a lower-income family can clothe their kids in moderately trendy t-shirts and jeans at low cost, they may not be able to do the same with the pricier "business casual" type clothes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mlleelizabeth
2008-04-28 12:32 am UTC (link)

I didn't mean to suggest that anyone would clothe their child in just one outfit. I was doing an outfit to outfit comparison. You would need the same amount of clothes whether uniforms were involved or not.

My own experience was the opposite. We didn't wear uniforms at my school and it was a daily fashion show, with kids who couldn't afford pricier designer outfits teased and humiliated.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	smashingstars 2008-04-28 12:35 am UTC (link)
	Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you said it would be just one outfit. Just pointing out how lots of specific school-only clothes can add up to a lot of money pretty quickly. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

mlleelizabeth
2008-04-28 12:40 am UTC (link)

Well, that's true. Children's clothes in general add up to a lot of money and if they're in activities involving special clothes it's going to be even more. If they wear the same clothes both to school and to run around in on weekends and after school, they're going to wear out faster. Either way, clothing them is expensive. In this specific case the school disitrict was offering to help out, so I think the too-expensive argument just doesn't work. Also, bringing up my own experience again, I could not have worn my expensive, non-uniform school clothes for non-school activities anyway (we did not wear jeans and t-shirts to school), so even without the uniform I ended up with two sets of clothes.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

smashingstars
2008-04-28 12:49 am UTC (link)

The newspaper article linked says this:

Each school and School Advisory Council will be developing procedures and criteria to offer assistance to these students.

"Will be developing", as in "not yet developed". Further, each school may decide to deal with it differently. With this lack of planning and clarity, I don't think there is any way someone can simply assume that the "too expensive argument" should be dismissed. We don't even know if there will be any help, just that they're planning on developing procedures.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

riah_chan
2008-04-27 11:56 pm UTC (link)

The elementary school that my husband worked at until last year had a dress code policy that seems similar to the one wanked about... it was in a really low income area. They partnered with a discount store nearby and had clothes for about $3-6 a piece. The school would even help out if the parents couldn't afford it. The only people who really complained after it was initiated were the parents who wanted to dress their 1st graders in halter tops and their 3rd graders in thongs (literally).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	airawyn 2008-04-28 02:57 am UTC (link)
	If you usually clothe your kid in hand-me-downs and thrift store clothes it would be more expensive for the couple of years of the dress code. Longer, if the clothes didn't last long enough to be passed on to other kids. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	metallicar67 2008-04-28 09:07 am UTC (link)
	So the too expensive argument seems really stupid to me, especially since the article states very clearly that no child will be turned away for lack of a uniform I think it also said something about contacting the principal if you couldn't afford them. I get the feeling that's what happened here and the principal fired back with that email. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -