We’re publishing an original article today by a trainee teacher. Needless to say, the political bias of his course is off the charts, particularly when it comes to the unholy trinity of Covid, woke gobbledegook and climate change. Here’s an extract in which he talks about the one-sided approach to teaching children about the pandemic.
I’ll start with Covid, because I find myself agreeing with the university when they say that trainee teachers would find it valuable to have a session dedicated to learning how to handle scenarios at school where students are worried about potential future lockdowns, have developed mental health conditions because of lockdowns, are obstinately (read: nobly) refusing to wear a mask, or subscribe to various covid-related ‘conspiracy’ theories. I do however completely disagree with the conclusions those educating trainee teachers draw, and the advice that is given.
For example, how could it possibly be good advice to try to allay a child’s concerns by saying that “lockdowns were a necessary imposition, and, although you’ve suffered, it’s been for a good cause and for the benefit of society”. Not only is this almost certainly not true, and not something I could ever tell a child, but why do people think that telling a child, who’s brain has not finished developing, who has suffered immensely, and who’s perception of the world is still largely egocentric, that their suffering was not only justified, but also that it is less important that some intangible, abstract, potential benefit that they cannot clearly grasp?
This type of thinking truly baffles me, but not as much as the insistence that lockdowns have been right and virtuous, even when we’ve had specific sessions on the harms that recurring lockdowns inflicted on young people and the damage it did to their mental health. The understanding of these costs is there, and it is being taught, which I suppose can only mean that the perceived benefits must be hugely overinflated in the minds of these educators of future educators.
Or perhaps there simply isn’t much thought being put into the matter: at this point in time, online learning, mask-wearing, regular testing, and pro-vaccine virtue signalling have all been so normalised that no one seems to question any of it. This week alone there were plenty of messages on the group chats of people uploading pictures of their negative LFTs, congratulations to people for their self-isolating, and unironic reminders for everyone to “get boosted now”. To say I feel unwelcome on these group chats is an understatement.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
There is an article in the Mailonline about that freak featured above that is being used in adverts by the despicable companies listed. As usual the Mailonline cuts comment sections short so most of us cannot have our say. I cannot see the point of a comment section if you won’t allow comments. But the Mailonline do this all the time on issues such as this or the illegals in boats etc. ——-I will NEVER EVER purchase anything from these Woke Capitalists seeking to make profit out of this vomit inducing garbage and pretending that profit isn’t important.
By referring to the bloke Mulvaney (with meat ‘n’ two veg’ intact I understand) as ‘she’ you diminish your own argument. Neither is he a celebrity. Call it out for what it is, like Megyn Kelly is brave enough to do, expletives included.
Do you think that a sweat shop full of dingy divers in the UK sharing 20 to a room that have a low grasp of English are going to set time aside to fill out their census.
its the same with the muslim community, they are quite an insular bunch I cant imagine them spending time on the census.
Mulvaney is a man not a she.
Toby, I have nothing but admiration for what you have done by setting up this site and it’s previous incarnation; I’ve even recently upped my monthly donation as a minor contribution to ensuring it’s survival. But referring to Mulvaney as “she” really does give the inch to the transactivitists that they do not deserve. I’m a bit hardcore on the subject, aligning myself 100% with Posie Parker (Kelly-Jay Keen) on the gender identity line, so maybe I’m on the extreme side of the argument; but I would have thought that paying respect to Mulvaney’s pronouns in the context of the issue at hand, i.e. the insidious hollowing out of womanhood by men and the genuflexion of woke big business in colluding with that objective, means that special care is needed not to give any quarter when taking them on. Period.
A man in womaface adverrtising piss masquerading as beer ….seems about right to me
It just sounds wrong when Toby refers to Dylan Mulvaney as ‘she’.