Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Bomb#20]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

the conservative political playbook
step 1: invent a problem that doesn't exist
step 2: start making invasive laws that strangle actual freedom in order to combat the problem that doesn't actually exist
step 3: scream about liberals trying to restrict freedom and destroy american democracy

So, the bill will strangle actual freedom by prohibiting actions that no one is performing or intends to perform. "Your honor, I never borrowed the plaintiff's lawnmower, it was already broken when he lent it to me, and it was not broken when I returned it." Got it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.

I think you're misparsing the passage -- it has to be read as:

subjecting any individual, as a condition of employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing, or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any other required activity (that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such individual to believe specified concepts) constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin...​

If you try to get "compel belief that something is discrimination" out of it by grouping the words differently, it will contain a "specified concepts constitutes ..." clause or some similar grammatical error. So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct -- the passage as written appears to rightly point out the reality that any Christian school teaching children that boys are superior to girls is in fact thereby discriminating against girls. (But, per the explicit subsection 9 exemption, the bill allows Christian schools to do that.)

No--you're trying to divide something that is a whole.

"constitutes discrimination" limits the compels belief bit. You can't compel belief that something is discrimination, that doesn't say you can't compel other beliefs.

 

[Bomb#20]

... So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct ...

No--you're trying to divide something that is a whole.

"constitutes discrimination" limits the compels belief bit. You can't compel belief that something is discrimination, that doesn't say you can't compel other beliefs.

It's only some beliefs that it says you can't compel, but the beliefs the bill says you can't compel are the "specified concepts", i.e., the concepts the law specifies further along when it gets out of the summary into the details, i.e.:

"51 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are​

52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or​

53 national origin.​

54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​

55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,​

56 whether consciously or unconsciously.​

57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either​

58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her​

race, color, sex, or national origin.​

60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin​

61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to​

62 race, color, sex, or national origin.​

63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​

64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be​

65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,​

66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,​

67 color, sex, or national origin.​

68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​

69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive​

70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.​

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or​

72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or​

73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.​

74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,​

75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or​

76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,​

77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,​

78 color, sex, or national origin."​

But if you want to compel belief that scratching your belly is discrimination, the bill is perfectly okay with that.

Of course, the very notion of compelling belief is absurd. Indoctrinators try to induce belief; they compel profession of belief; but they have no way to compel the people in their power not to privately disagree and merely pretend to believe.

I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent.​

​

Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I'm not sure. I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret — I'm not a bit angry.​

​

That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake —​

​

Or not knowing —​

​

Or having no notion —​

​

Or not being there —​

​

There should be, of course —​

​

But there isn't.​

​

That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then?​

​

Then we'll make it after luncheon.​

​

I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.​

​

- The Mikado​

 

[Politesse]

An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.

So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.

 

[Bomb#20]

An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

And in the second place, you appear to be taking for granted that oppressing some implies privileging the rest. That's not how it works -- oppression is not a zero sum game. When a white mother was barred from having her mixed-race children ride in the same rail car with her, that law oppressed her too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.

So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.

You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.

 

[Politesse]

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?

 

[Politesse]

An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.

So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.

You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.

The law as written does not say "only in the case of moral claims".

 

[ZiprHead]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

 

[Metaphor]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

 

[ZiprHead]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down.

 

[Metaphor]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down.

The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.

 

[ZiprHead]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down.

The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.

So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.

 

[Metaphor]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down.

The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.

So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.

You misunderstood the bill, not me. I pointed out a plain reading of it does not imply what you claimed it implied.

Also, even your scenario doesn't work. Feeling bad "for" "coloured folk" is not the same as being taught that you ought to feel ashamed for being a particular race.

 

[ZiprHead]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.

Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down.

The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.

So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.

You misunderstood the bill, not me. I pointed out a plain reading of it does not imply what you claimed it implied.

Also, even your scenario doesn't work. Feeling bad "for" "coloured folk" is not the same as being taught that you ought to feel ashamed for being a particular race.

You think that will matter to US right-wingers? How sweetly naive you are.

 

[Bomb#20]

An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.

So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.

You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.

I don't see where you're getting that. If a teacher says Plessy v Ferguson was very wrong and it was wickedly oppressive to all black people in America right up until Brown v Board of Education corrected the guidance from the SCOTUS to the lower courts, what provision of SB 148 is he in violation of?

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?

How the hell did you get that garbage hypothesis from what I wrote? Of course I'm not suggesting whatever random idiocy you dream up and make believe I suggested. Of course it applies to history classes. It applies to volleyball classes. But if you think the fact that it applies to history classes magically confers on the bill the quality of containing provisions that magically mean whatever the hell meaning you make up and attach to them without regard to what those provisions actually say, then you are overestimating the effect on reality of whatever woo you derived that opinion from.

If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus oppressed all black people, she has not thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus is continuing to oppress all black people in 2021, she has thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.

 

[laughing dog]

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?

How the hell did you get that garbage hypothesis from what I wrote? Of course I'm not suggesting whatever random idiocy you dream up and make believe I suggested. Of course it applies to history classes. It applies to volleyball classes. But if you think the fact that it applies to history classes magically confers on the bill the quality of containing provisions that magically mean whatever the hell meaning you make up and attach to them without regard to what those provisions actually say, then you are overestimating the effect on reality of whatever woo you derived that opinion from.

If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus oppressed all black people, she has not thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus is continuing to oppress all black people in 2021, she has thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.

On what basis do you think that these jackasses will notice verb tenses in their assault on education?

 

[Bomb#20]

71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.

So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".

Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?

 

[Bomb#20]

The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.

On what basis do you think that these jackasses will notice verb tenses in their assault on education?

On the basis that when they sue some school for teaching something the law doesn't prohibit, the school's lawyer will point out in court that the taught concept isn't on the list of prohibited concepts, and the judge will read the law and read what the teacher said to the class and rule in favor of the school, and then these jackasses will notice that they lost.