Carrolade @ Carrolade @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,056

Joined

1 yr. ago

grapples with political turmoil and North Korean propaganda.

Y'know, of all the world's countries, I would expect S Korea to be one of the most resistant to adversarial propaganda. I mean, here in the US we were largely insulated from it during the Cold War, so we didn't really have the exposure and thus experience in dealing with it. But S Korea has always been in radio range of an adversary, so shouldn't it be pretty well understood as "a thing" by the public at large?

Like, when someone knocks on my door and asks if I'd like to talk about Jesus, I understand exactly what is happening and why. We're culturally familiar with that here. If a S Korean picks a pamphlet up off the ground and it's obvious N Korean propaganda, do they have that same degree of cultural familiarity?

The comment I was replying to said the following:

For anyone wondering, this is what those staff ignored for two hours (WARNING: this may well trigger you, it sure as fuck ruined my day): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jx4in4UpdWE

This video is 43 seconds long. You hear that sound out of a little kid’s leg, followed by the screaming for two hours, and don’t immediately call the ambulance, you’re not a reasonable adult. You’re an inhuman monster. Anyone saying “well maybe they thought he was just acting out” is ignoring the basic facts of the case so they can be contrary on the Internet.

This implies staff knowingly ignored a severe injury, which is what I find unlikely and wanted to get straight.

Agreed, mostly. My issue is with the assumption that the staff knowingly neglected a severe injury, which is what the other commenter was trying to imply for some reason. There's just no way that ends well for them, in our country where people will chew out teachers for even giving a bad grade. The only way this strikes me as possible is the staff severely underestimating the child's condition after a "slip and fall".

Perhaps I don't. Though I think each of your examples has systemic reasons that make it unique from this situation.

It's a school, so there's no capitalist profit incentive unlike a nursing home. These are not bystanders, but people with a specific responsibility towards this child, and again, no profit incentive.

In this case, the child has parents that will be expecting their kid back from school in one piece at the end of the day. There is no way in hell they could realistically get away with knowingly ignoring such a severe injury. Broken femurs, again, can kill you due to internal bleeding. Not the death of some elderly nursing home patient, the death of a child (who has parents) under your care in a place where children do not die very often.

I don't see it as very likely.

So let me get this straight:

You think the staff heard something like this, and therefore knew that there was a severe injury, but just ignored it for some reason? Maybe they hated the child or something?

Even though they would most definitely get in deep trouble for ignoring what is actually a life threatening injury after anyone found out?

We don't know how the femur broke, I suspect it was likely a collision with something, otherwise it would have been noticed. You think the staff were knowingly neglecting a broken femur for the lulz or something, despite how very, very badly that would obviously end for them? I doubt it.

Sorry for upsetting you, but life isn't simple. We don't gain much from simply trying to identify some sort of bad guys and then blindly raging against them.

The hypothetical isn't hard, a culture where a guideline is given that children "acting out" isn't to be rewarded. In a case where a verbal child would be able to say "my leg hurts very badly", this child was unable to though, so a system that worked fine with previous children became unable to handle this particular circumstance. The only outward evidence that something is genuinely amiss becomes the crying. At what point then, does crying go from "potentially acting out" to "okay, this might be severe bodily damage"?

15 minutes? 30? An hour? This is where the misapplication of training comes in, and where a judgement call did become necessary, as I doubt any specific timetables were actually provided. Two hours is clearly too long, I think we can all agree on that. But staff at schools are usually undersupplied and understaffed, they are under stress and there are other duties that demand their time. This environment can lead to gross errors.

The "why" and "how" is exactly what I'm on as well, since the beginning. It's going to be more complicated than any sort of simple "wow, those people are really fucked up".

No, not really. This persons expertise in autism, their child, etc has no bearing whatsoever in how that one specific school treats its students. These are two completely separate topics, and that person's child has zero bearing on the discussion, since they are not a student at the Virginia school.

I'm saying it was likely an error in judgement, a mistake that reflects far more than the mindset of the people actually at fault in it. This was not a home, it was a professional environment wherein people are expected to follow the instructions they were given, even when those instructions are at odds with common sense. Choosing to follow your own common sense over any training you have received can be a fireable offense, even if that training has been misinterpreted and misapplied, perhaps even by those that trained you.

No, I did not say that.

See my most recent comment in the thread between me and that user for my reasoning.

No problem, I understand. I just have this sinking feeling that the school staff were probably trying to follow poor, outdated training principles that did not apply to their actual situation, instead of acting with outright malice, and ended up making an unforgivable mistake due to the errors of the system they were within. We really need to fund our schools better.

No, I did not imply this person does not know how to take care of their own child. I implied this person has no idea of what this specific school tells its staff regarding standard procedure, which I still stand by.

Well, I think it's fairly obvious this passed the line between protocol and neglect, it's also horrible optics for that specific school.

You're right that I do not have an autistic child, but arguing using sources instead of personal anecdote is pretty common, and generally a good thing, not a bad thing.

Sorry if I hit a nerve.

There is no fucking protocol that says

Sounds an awful lot like expertise of every protocol in every school to me. It's not easy to know for sure that some random school in Virginia absolutely does not have any sort of planned ignoring protocol.

Yes, the articles deal with the abstract, they do not specifically lay out every instance of how planned ignoring actually plays out, or exactly how one should draw a line between planned ignoring and genuine neglect in a case like this.

It's a hardware intensive process that tries to make lighting as realistic as possible. So, which areas are illuminated, which are in shadow. From an artistic perspective, this is very important to how a user visually processes any particular image.

No, not really. Just better graphics.

https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/family-resources-education/health-wellness-and-safety-resources/helping-hands/behavior-support-using-planned-ignoring-at-home

Having a non verbal child does not make you an expert in protocols.

Here's actually an article on how it may not be an effective strategy for autistic children:

https://learnplaythrive.com/rethinking-planned-ignoring-for-kids-on-the-spectrum/

I never said it was fair, don't get me wrong. How it got this way vs whether that's a good idea or not are two totally separate topics.

I'm not sure that most boards of directors are full of CEOs either. It is full of rich people though.

The CEO does not set his own compensation. He is hired by the owners of whatever company to operate it for them. They ultimately determine the compensation.

I agree there's no struggle to find top candidates, that's for sure. That's partly because the compensation tends to be very good. The trades, which do not compensate as well as a chief executive, are struggling more. If plumbers frequently pulled CEO pay, we would not have a shortage.

Sometimes a person does not have any good options available to them, but they still have to make a choice.