Watch the far right rally around this.
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
0 points (NaN% liked)
Not The Onion
21885 readers
1017 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, ableist, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm sure you are correct, but is there a non-far right anymore?
the majority of people are not far right.
the issue is that people who are far right, are far more likely to run for office than moderate candidates are. and run better campaigns, and win more votes.
I don't know. I ask because I cannot explain anyone even tolerating Trump's actions in any way unless they are far right. I still know people defending his actions... Anyone opposing him in any way, the rest of America thinks is "far left". So it's a weird time...
You are captured by the false media narrative that you are one thing or the other.
The vast majority of voters are neither far right or far left. They are moderate. However, moderate people dont' get any airtime because the extremists here, and everywhere else, paint everyone as either FOR or AGAIN things.
Moderate voters went for Trump because he offered them a better platform to vote for, especially economically. And Trump's tanking now that his policies are showing to be horrible. But he has 2.5 more years in office.
Thats what you get when you choose your leaders by popularity contest. That wouldn't be appropriate even if she was an adult.
how else are you suppose to select school board members? should they be appointed by the town/county or something?
In a sane world, by ability and competence
How do you assess that exactly? What are the qualifications or objective measurements of competence as a school board member?
And furthermore, according to whom? your personal assessment in particular?
There isn't a single right answer to that and I'm not going to suggest there is.
How any organisation operates, be that public or private, is down to the culture of the organisation, and culture comes from people, process, motivation, legislation, and a whole bunch of factors.
If an organisation has a clear mission, is held organisationally accountable in appropriate ways to that mission and makes people feel professionally enriched and valuable, it will attract competent people. And importantly, an organisation full of competent and principled individuals will attract other competent individuals.
On the flip side, if an organisation is subject to decades of mismanagement, has very poor oversight, doesn't reward people for being good at their jobs and in fact rewards the wrong behaviours then exactly the opposite will happen. People who are competent at what they do will either leave or be crushed down, while those who know how to play the bootlicking game will be raised up, and this type of organisation again becomes self-perpetuating.
None of this happens overnight, in either direction. Failure can take years or decades, and so can the reverse.
The issue is that it's self-referential. The org itself gets to define what is good management or bad. Outsides parties, have no say.
And that's how local school boars work. They are local politics and they have very little external oversight, if any at all. Sort of criminal acts, like a board member embezzling school funds, that violate state law, there isn't really much criteria over which they can be held accountable, other than winning votes from their local voters.
I live in Boston. I can harp all I want about a local school board in TN, but the only power I have is over my own local school board here, where I can vote. And man the candidates we have... are usually a mix of nutbags and slightly less nutbags. School board elections tend to attract weirdos more than sensible people, IME.
By merit??
who judges that merit? how is it defined?
Do you know what a bad faith argument is?
Yes, and it's not this. I'm not making an argument either. I'm asking you a clear and obvious question.
Just to be clear, you're arguing that merit/competence can't be accurately judged and therefore should be ignored in favour of popularity ?
it can't be judged without well-defined criteria, no.
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I'd like to know.
because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none. anyone can run for school board.
You should ask people in a professional setting that work with schools this instead of demanding the answers from the black box of the internet.
That's not even required (though it would most likely be more accurate ) , there are some easy , low-hanging fruit answers to this question that don't need expertise.
I'm just interested in seeing if they really think popularity is the best option here.
any elected position is a popularity contest.
popularity as the only criteria or as one of many criteria ?
are you being deliberate obtuse?
an election is about who gets the most votes. there are no other criteria involved.
unless the election system has some other type of ruleset, like the presidential electoral college, or a more than majority requirement.
No u!
Seriously, do you even vote in your local school board elections? I do. If so, what criteria do you use? I vote according to the educational platform they propose.
None of that has anything to do with merit of qualifications that are hypothetically being raised as criteria for evaluating a school board member's performance or competency.
It's not demanding answers, it's pointing out the typical lemmy/reddit hypocracy of sitting on a illusory high horse, getting outraged, and refusing to actually deal with the problem on your local level where you do have the ability to make a difference.
or if you want to be really extreme, you could move to this district in TN and run for school board yourself.
it can’t be judged without well-defined critical, no.
That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.
So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?
seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I’d like to know because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none.
Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.
anyone can run for school board.
Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.
It's not an argument. It's a fact.
My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That's literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.
It’s not an argument. It’s a fact.
That seems definitive, good to have a rock solid source.
My local school board anyone can run. The only requirement is you are a resident of the district you represent, and you are over 18, and you are a registered voter. That’s literally it. There are no other requirements, qualifications, or criteria for running for school board.
Useful information , eligibility to run is still not the full criteria for how someone is evaluated for a position though.
Technically, i suppose it could be considered an initial screening, so you're not entirely incorrect, just incorrect that it's the only evaluation mechanism.
If it were , there'd be no need for votes, first person to apply and be eligible would automatically get the job.
I have no idea what you are saying now. You're saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you'd do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?
OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?
OK.
I have no idea what you are saying now. You’re saying, you should dictatorially be given the power to appoint school board members, and you’d do so solely on a first come, first given, basis?
I mean, not at all , read the reply again.
OK, so you are saying you want to be a dictator of school board members, because you are the one who should have sole authority in this area. And you would not judge people based on qualifications or merit?
Ah, i see, you don't have an actual response so you weaponise ignorance, that's actually pretty clever.
It's hard to argue with someone not using reason as a basis, you neither have to present a reasonable argument nor support it, that's downright devious.
In case that reply was serious and you just missed what i was saying, i'll try and simplify for you and leave out the extra words around it so there's nothing to be confused about...ready ?
Who can run is not the only criteria for who is qualified for a position.
No dude, legally. It is. It is the only criteria that restricts and defines who can run for the position.
You can make up arbitrary things in your head, but legally you cannot stop anyone from running or winning, with the made up criteria in your head.
You can go and campaign to change your local election laws, btw.
I hear schools are pretty good at giving people these funny things called "tests" to assess an individual's knowledge on a certain subject. Not only are schools good at testing, I hear there is a WHOLE INDUSTRY built on creating and running them.
You know, they could give those to other people too I'll bet! In fact, I'll bet you can use them to qualify doctors, lawyers, barbers, auto mechanics and all sorts of people!
Oh wait, these are politicians. We shouldn't do that to them. I don't know why, but it just feels wrong. Never mind.
there is no test to run for, or be on a school board.
what would this test be, exactly? are you saying school board members should have to pass a civil service type of test before they can run, or after they are elected?
So your general point is a concern. Who can you trust to make the judgement. But that doesn't mean you should just toss up your hands either. As was pointed out, tests of various sorts could be done and the results presented to the voters so that they have more to go on than the number of lawn signd they have seen for a person. The write ups in the guides are nearly pointless. They can say anything they want in there. For a person running for reelection, their voting record would be nice to give voters easy access to. There are lots of ways to present the voters with objective information so that they can choose based on thier preferences. But none of that happens today.
it's a democratically elected position.
the judgement is the judgement voters of that district.
do you vote in your own local school board elections? I do, and yeah you vote based on the person's policy stated positions. however, just because I do that, doesn't mean lots of candidates I don't vote for, don't get elected and push policies I don't agree with... because they get more votes than the candidates I vote for did.
Also, why do you assume that the voters in this school district, don't want this guy? He may very well be who they think is best for the job. If you don't live in this district... you don't get to vote for the school board there.
Ok, I've said this before and I will say it again. If you want to find someone who has a drive to do something they shouldn't you look for the jobs that allow them to do so without much oversight/consequence or where it is actively incentivised. Are you a profit driven sociopath? Corporate management/executive will treat you just right. Wish to do violence to people, maybe specifically brown people? The police and the military got you covered. Want to diddle kids? The implicit permission and authority of the priesthood, teacher, school admin/board member gets you a ton of access and assumed innocence.
That does not mean that every person who works in corporate is a sociopath, that every soldier is a violent racist, and that every priest is a pedophile. But if you ARE a sociopath, violent racist, or pedophile, you can see how those jobs might appeal to you and so you are certainly going to find more of those kinds of people in those professions than elsewhere.
The problem is how the institutions deal with it. If they try to cover it up, the whole institution is complicit.
Take the Boy Scouts for example. It's an organization dealing almost exclusively with children, so of course pedophiles will be attracted to it.
Does that mean that all about leaders are pedophiles? Of course not. But the fact that the BSA swept it under the rug to save face means you can't be sure anything will be done if there's one in your troop.
It's in the institutions best interest to cover it up. It is not in their interest to be transparent.
Institutions, made of people, are just like people, in that they pursue their self-interest first and foremost. Morality, the law, and all that is ultimately secondary.
And the self-interest primarily for orgs, like most people, is to protect their image at all costs, including the cost of allowing abusers to continue to be into them, as long as it isn't publicly visible and it's plausibly deniable.
This is why local elections matter people!
How would you know he was a creep based on his campaign alone?
Republican
Fair enough