374
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] fox2263@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

The cons in that sub believe the department should be gone as it steals money and indoctrinates kids. They say test scores haven’t gone up so what’s the point.

They also say America went to the moon in 69 and the doe was invented in the 70s. Therefore it’s not needed.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

"They also say America went to the moon in 69 and the doe was invented in the 70s. Therefore it’s not needed."

Maybe if they were actually educated, they'd realize an anecdote aint worth shit 🤷‍♀️

[-] pacology@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

For what’s worth, DoE was established in 1979.

[-] brendansimms@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

A federally managed DoE goes all the way back to 1867 - it became a cabinet-level department with a specified 'Secretary of Education' in 1979.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They never really say this exactly but I believe they are fine with getting the money but want it no strings attached. This is an old objection, such as from Title IX and the ADA.

You should pull yourself up by your bootstraps and walk right in even if you’re mobility impaired. Only boys want to play sports: why waste money on girls? Our priority is a new stadium at this top school: why do we have to put money into this failing school? Why can’t we use education money for religious indoctrination and just leave us public school for the poors? /s

Then you’ll see some sort of contorted logic about divisive inclusiveness and unfair equity

Or at least this new attempt to destroy Education looks a lot like those older complaints

this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
374 points (97.5% liked)

politics

31286 readers
2955 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS