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

[Politesse]

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?

I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.

 

[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".

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?

I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.

Said better than I could have.

 

[Gospel]

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force.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.

As a black man, It makes me feel discomfort, guilt & anguish that I wasn't there to help stop the injustice.

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.

While it's true that the white mother was oppressed it is also true that she was not the intended target.

 

[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".

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?

Your example is far from equivalent to what is going on here. Your complainer is lying. This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.

 

[Worldtraveller]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.
2. it's hilarious to me how the pack of dipshits who's entire cultural position is screaming about "snowflakes" until their vaginas prolapse who are so thoroughly embodying being snowflakes.

Also, the same dipshits who continually use the phrase "smaller government " continue to push these insne, intrusive laws that specifically violate the constitution.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Assuming that the jackasses would lose in court and such a loss will teach most such jackasses a lesson (both big assumptions), what makes you think that schools will not choose to avoid wasting their precious resources on lawyers and simply adjust their curriculum to avoid such lawsuits?

 

[Toni]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.

But, whether the problem exists or not, do you have a problem with the contents of the legislation? For example, the bill prohibits an employer compelling employees to be subject to training that has the viewpoint that
"1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
national origin."

Do you think an employer should be able to compel employees to attend training that espouses the idea that members of one race are superior to members of another?

2. it's hilarious to me how the pack of dipshits who's entire cultural position is screaming about "snowflakes" until their vaginas prolapse who are so thoroughly embodying being snowflakes.

Apart from your misogynist framing, this sounds very much like you think they are hypocrites, on top of being 'delusional assholes'.

Do you think that employers compel employees to be subject to training that as a viewpoint that members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex or national origin?

I think that legislation is not needed until they first decide on industry standards for flux capacitors and appropriate speed limits for motor vehicles so equipped.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

There is no other reason for this legislation, as the very rare teachers that have done something as dumb as shaming... have rightly gotten into trouble.

 

[Elixir]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

 

[Toni]

I'm just going to be honest here: When I read the title of the thread, I was kind of hoping for pictures of actual blizzards, white outs, school cancelations, etc.

 

[Gospel]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

I dunno Elixir. I'm kinda digging this one.

(e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
296 by other members of the same race or sex.

I think that would look nice on the side of police vehicles.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

I dunno Elixir. I'm kinda digging this one.

(e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
296 by other members of the same race or sex.

I think that would look nice on the side of police vehicles.

Funny how the South still carries a grudge against the North though.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

There is no other reason for this legislation, as the very rare teachers that have done something as dumb as shaming... have rightly gotten into trouble.

Exactly - the muddling of the notion is done to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards. It emboldens these snowflakes to protest and/ir sue, which will be enough in many cases to cause unneeded change.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

There is no other reason for this legislation, as the very rare teachers that have done something as dumb as shaming... have rightly gotten into trouble.

Exactly - the muddling of the notion is done to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards. It emboldens these snowflakes to protest and/ir sue, which will be enough in many cases to cause unneeded change.

To cause maliciously designed change.

 

[marc]

To quote L. Ron Hubbard, who was Trump long before Trump was Trump

The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody
who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not
authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease.
If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
"A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (first published in
Ability, the Magazine of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY, 1955) Note: this
paragraph has apparently been purged from later editions of the
"Manual".

He may have been a self aggrandizing, narcissistic, habitual liar, but he did get a couple ideas right. This law doesn't have to say anything that would specifically prevent the teaching of history of racism. It is vague enough for the crazies and racists to start lawsuits. And even if every lawsuit fails, they are pressure on the schools to not teach it just to avoid the harassment and financial burdens brought by the suits.

 

[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?

I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.

So, just to clarify, were you just making a general comment about what laws shouldn't be passed, or did you intend to imply that SB 148 'vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background"'? If it was the latter, can you point out the provision that does this?

And, just to clarify, when you say 'any law censoring education', were you expressing your agreement with me that SB 148 would be a bad law because it unconstitutionally restricts free speech in private schools? Or were you expressing the opinion that the government instructing its own employees on the matter of what to say and what not to say while on the job qualifies as "censorship"?

And, just to clarify, do you think the existing laws prohibiting public school teachers from preaching their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with should be overturned?

On a more general note, it seems to me from the overall drift of this discussion that the above quoted clause in SB 148,

"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.",​

is in need of some context. For example, if the clause in context reads:

"There shall be a cause of action against a school for the effect of a teacher's speech if as a result of it,
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",​

then that provision means some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc. But if, on the other hand, the clause in context reads:

"(8)(a) 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 any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",​

then that provision doesn't give anyone a cause of action to screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc., unless the teacher told the class that they should feel bad on account of their race, etc.

Reading this thread, it's as though a number of posters' eyes saw the context of the quoted clause and yet somehow their brains saw a completely different context.

 

[Metaphor]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".

 

[Trausti]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.

The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".

To conclude that you’d actually have to read the bill, which for some is hard to do.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. ...

As a black man, It makes me feel discomfort, guilt & anguish that I wasn't there to help stop the injustice.

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.

While it's true that the white mother was oppressed it is also true that she was not the intended target.

True; but that doesn't make Politesse's argument any better.

 

[Politesse]

So, just to clarify, were you just making a general comment about what laws shouldn't be passed, or did you intend to imply that SB 148 'vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background"'? If it was the latter, can you point out the provision that does this?

No, they do the same kind of vague bullshit, just with the race concept instead of the religious concept. Regardless of the target, the point is that censorship neither truly protects anyone from discrimination nor is conducive to any honest study of the hman condition. If something is untrue, demonstrate that it is untrue and scientific consensus (and therefore scientifically informed pedagogy) will gradually move away from it. This won't happen because Congress passes a law against talking about things that "distress" students, and the costs of such a paradigm therefore swiftly outweigh any benefits.

And, just to clarify, when you say 'any law censoring education', were you expressing your agreement with me that SB 148 would be a bad law because it unconstitutionally restricts free speech in private schools?

Schools, whether public or private, do not enjoy the Constitutional protections of free speech in the first place. I am accusing censorship of being bad social policy. Whether it is bad social policy that also violates the first amendment somehow is an interesting question but my argument doesn't rest on it. Again, I don't think legal inertia should be the determining basis of the curriculum in the first place. When legislators play at being scientists, what you get is politicized science and very little learning at all.

then that provision doesn't give anyone a cause of action to screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc., unless the teacher told the class that they should feel bad on account of their race, etc.

If the argument is that a teacher would win a court case on the basis that they never literally instructed anyone to feel anguish, that's likely true, but that doesn't make this good law. I also don't think it's a given that this would be the case in the biased context of a courtroom populated by people inherently prejudiced against the defendant, nor that holding such a case in the first place would be valid. If a teacher is causing measurable harm to the mental wellbeing of their students, no censorship laws are required to dismiss them from their post anyway, a school district already has the power to dismiss an employee if they are demonstrably harming their students. This law is about politics, not the protection of children. If it's actually about protecting children, it's redundant and far too extreme. Because "feeling shame" is not a good, neutral measure of whether someone is being harmed by an instructor in the first place.