When asked in class
"Is violence an effective way of achieving changes in society?"
one of our children in the past replied yes.
Subsequently, they were held back and questioned under the initial stage of the schools PREVENT policy.
For a question that was expecting a response to what should have been asked "Do you think violence should be used as a way of achieving changes in society?"
How many autistic people get caught out by badly phrased and framed questions?
Obviously, violence can be accepted as being effective and also something a person does not wish to engage in.
Stupidly phrased/coded questions are going to catch out all sorts of people.
Prevent was awful when we were trained in it when it started. Everything we have heard, shows it got worse as it developed.
Now, we suspect, Westminster will taint autistic people with the *might be a terrorist* in the same way they have with others they do not like.
@CreatureOfTheHill are school children asked political questions, the answers of which lead to disciplinary actions?
It's not that clear in the article..
Comments about PREVENT are those from experience, as outlined, both as a staff member and a parent.
@CreatureOfTheHill That and the way the question is framed leaves too much room for interpretation. I can see myself answering it both ways, depending on what issue I'd think of, while being asked. Most of the times violence isn't the solution, but I really can't imagine overthrowing a dictator or solving a lot of the things happening during WWII or shortly after it with no violence what so ever.
@CreatureOfTheHill this has vibes of nearly 100 years ago.
I think I need to read into this PREVENT thing a little more. Is this a reserved matter? So it's equally pertinent in Sco as it is in Eng.
TBH, our experience of prevent at secondary was in England. But we think we did a prevent online learning module in Scotland for primary.
So think it is UK wide, but England certainly went to.town on it, where in Scotland it was seen as a box to tick.
Our wife confirms she has done training up here, but had zero actual child interactions based in it.
@CreatureOfTheHill ahh ok. Sounds very dodgy and seems to be dealt with a little bit more properly here? Either way, England goingto town on it is v bad.
institutitionalized teachers as snitches, acab
@CreatureOfTheHill the answer to this as it is phrased is obviously yes if you know any history at all.
the thing I find more dystopian than the ambiguous phrasing though is that they have utterly excluded themselves from this artificial conception of violence they use here.
the use of cops, military and economic violence for starters, evidently change society from how it would be without it.and it's been effective up until now at least.
institutitionalized teachers as snitches, acab
@CreatureOfTheHill that and the guardian running an uncritical claim that that cause they can name four whole autistic terrorists that therefore the school-snitches program overly snitching on autistic children is accurate and reflects a real problem, as opposed to ableist snitchery
@CreatureOfTheHill uh. I know this is the UK, but the American revolution comes to mind pretty quick.
@CreatureOfTheHill good god the clownshoes level of this question is just. it's so much.
"now kids, remember, violence is NOT an effective way to achieve change in society. all violence is bad and is not good for changing society. now, let's turn our history books to page one hundred and fifty three so we can continue our reading on the english civil war; can anyone tell me about this picture? yes that's right, it's king charles the first getting beheaded, let's talk about the changes in society that brought about -"
@CreatureOfTheHill of course it's also really bullshit because it's a gotcha for people with autism, and that coded ableism is running rampant.
but it's a goddamn stupid-ass question because at some point, kids are asked to learn that history is full of violence! and that violence changed society!
now you can ask teachers to take a nuanced view there and to try and talk about good violence versus bad violence and illustrate how violence isn't always a good way to do change, or how that violence can backfire on you. also because all of that is kind of important to understand history sometimes. if you ask people to learn about the french revolution, you're also going to have to ask them to learn things like "these people did a violence to enact societal change", and "is there a point at which this became a bit much and the solution wasn't more cowbell i mean more violence".
or even just. wars have violence in them and wars also can change society???? you could even go so far as to say those two things are the point of a war? organized doing a violence to change society?????
this is such a bad question on literally every level. it is like a beautiful thirteen layer trifle and all of the layers of the trifle are bad ideas.
Absolutely agree ⬆️
(Camping at the moment, so excuse the brevity in comparison to you as we are in a signal desert at the moment)
@CreatureOfTheHill (don't worry about it, i routinely write absolute fuckin brick walls of text at the slightest provocation LMFAO, have fun camping!)
The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!