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

[Gospel]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

 

[Jarhyn]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias the businesses of unrepublican persons to look for brothels?

There we go.


Edit: I tend to think that it is always necessary to say the quiet part out loud, loudly, in a way so as to clearly ridicule it. If I had an "I'm ridiculing that" light I would flash it whenever I say such quiet parts out loud. I'm such a "mind reader".

Like we didn't already have a committee on unamerican activities lead us on a witch hunt already.

 

[Gospel]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

I agree that it shouldn't even be a law in the first place. Regrettably, neither you nor I am the only people living in America. It seems some Americans believe CRT is a clear and present danger to the American way of life and their proof is equivalent to the scrawlings on Glenn Beck's whiteboard. There is fuck all you or I can do to change their minds & they have the same power to influence our laws as we do. So if they are going to move forward with this mucus dangling from the ceiling law it had better be written in a way that represents all American's and not some Americans.

Sometimes the better tactic is to concede & help write captain obvious-styled legislation than outright reject and let idiots write it how they want knowing damn well that the Governor has a track record of signing bills that target specific groups. It's like Politicians have no issue putting work into swindling voters but won't use the same skills to swindle other politicians.

News title should read: Florida Democrats agree to Desantis' Anti CRT bill and suggested improving its protections to include all American's with the following amendment.


"An individual should not be made to do anything nor be held responsible for anything on account of his or her race."

Not only would that law make them "feel better" it will also not create gray areas that may prevent people from talking about critical moments in American History.

 

[Politesse]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

If it is restricted to "urban" pizzerias, I bet the majority of Republicans would already support the measure.

 

[Politesse]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

I agree that it shouldn't even be a law in the first place. Regrettably, neither you nor I am the only people living in America. It seems some Americans believe CRT is a clear and present danger to the American way of life and their proof is equivalent to the scrawlings on Glenn Beck's whiteboard. There is fuck all you or I can do to change their minds & they have the same power to influence our laws as we do. So if they are going to move forward with this mucus dangling from the ceiling law it had better be written in a way that represents all American's and not some Americans.

Sometimes the better tactic is to concede & help write captain obvious-styled legislation than outright reject and let idiots write it how they want knowing damn well that the Governor has a track record of signing bills that target specific groups. It's like Politicians have no issue putting work into swindling voters but won't use the same skills to swindle other politicians.

News title should read: Florida Democrats agree to Desantis' Anti CRT bill and suggested improving its protections to include all American's with the following amendment.


"An individual should not be made to do anything nor be held responsible for anything on account of his or her race."

Not only would that law make them "feel better" it will also not create gray areas that may prevent people from talking about critical moments in American History.

This can be a good strategy, but it is also perilous in its own way; laws can be amended easier than they can be abolished in most state legislatures, and you see a pattern in partisan politics where a compromise is reached, a law is passed... and a five or six year process of whittling down the law to trim away its most "controversial" (to the dominant party) clauses will begin.

 

[thebeave]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

Why does the anti gay marraige stance continue to be framed a "right wing" issue? You are rewriting history. It was a stance many Democrats had taken, including both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during their campaigns in 2008. It wasn't until the 2012 election year came near that BO declared his "views were evolving" on the issue. You will probably say he didn't really believe what he said, but what does it tell you about his Democrat base that he felt he had to lie about supporting gay marraige?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

Why does the anti gay marraige stance continue to be framed a "right wing" issue?

Really? Are you going to seriously play dumb on this one?

You are rewriting history. It was a stance many Democrats had taken, including both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during their campaigns in 2008. It wasn't until the 2012 election year came near that BO declared his "views were evolving" on the issue.

His view on "gay marriage" evolved zero. He said he was against it in 2008 to have a certain group of people vote for him. President Obama did nothing to inhibit gay marriage rights. Lots of Republicans did otherwise in the '00's.

You will probably say he didn't really believe what he said, but what does it tell you about his Democrat base that he felt he had to lie about supporting gay marraige?

It's politics, it is ALWAYS politics. Also a reminder that Obama wasn't a crazy far left-winger, and he'd compromise what he believed in to get elected.

But this is a distraction from the reality that same sex marriage ban Constitutional Amendments were used to turn out conservative voters.

 

[Gospel]

This can be a good strategy, but it is also perilous in its own way; laws can be amended easier than they can be abolished in most state legislatures, and you see a pattern in partisan politics where a compromise is reached, a law is passed... and a five or six year process of whittling down the law to trim away its most "controversial" (to the dominant party) clauses will begin.

Thus it's not a strategy It's a reality. Our leaders need to grow up and learn to fucking talk to each other since the average citizen won't do that with those they disagree with. Their job is to listen to each other and find common ground that works best for all parties. Then turn around and explain the concessions to their voters and get feedback to do it all again until we get to a place that an ineffective number of people wouldn't be able to change.

 

[Politesse]

Their job is to listen to each other and find common ground that works best for all parties.

I appreciate your optimism, but very few sitting politicians have any self-interest in doing as you describe. In fact, it would be more likely to hurt their political careers than help them, to be seen as "consorting with the enemy" in this fashion. I agree that this is a childish and selfish attitude, but it seems unlikely to change in the near future. I don't think the common citizenry is actually as radical as all that, but the problem of our times is that radicals are controlling the outcome of votes in a predictable way. And it fills the legislatures with self-interested, wealthy do-nothings whose ideologies are a mask they put on in the morning.

 

[Gospel]

Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds.

The bill does not say that.

The bill says making people's touchy feelies feel guilt, anguish, or responsible for acts on account of his/her race is out of bounds without being specific about what would cause the feeling of guilt, anguish or responsibility nor does it provide any specific acts. As such the word anything in the context in which Jimmy used it is fairly accurate.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds.

The bill does not say that.

The bill says making people's touchy feelies feel guilt, anguish, or responsible for acts on account of his/her race is out of bounds without being specific about what would cause the feeling of guilt, anguish or responsibility nor does it provide any specific acts. As such the word anything in the context in which Jimmy used it is fairly accurate.

The bill does not say that. I've already said why the bill does not say that more than once. The bill does not say it and I can't understand why people persist with the falsehood that it does.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

They exist and they're on TikTok.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.

What legislation are you talking about?

Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

Bill to ban lessons making white students feel ‘discomfort’ advances in Florida Senate

A Florida state Senate committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would prohibit making white people feel “discomfort” when taught or trained about past discrimination in public schools…

thehill.com

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.

I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

The Hill Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of The Hill. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

 

[Metaphor]

(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".

Feeling discomfort and distress is natural when learning about human suffering.

Feeling discomfort or distress on account of your race, when leaning about human suffering, is taught.

But I agree that nobody should be taught to feel responsible, rather than in terms of what they 'feel' regardless of what was taught.

 

[Toni]

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

They exist and they're on TikTok.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.

What legislation are you talking about?

Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

Bill to ban lessons making white students feel ‘discomfort’ advances in Florida Senate

A Florida state Senate committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would prohibit making white people feel “discomfort” when taught or trained about past discrimination in public schools…

thehill.com

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.

I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

The Hill Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of The Hill. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Your meter is off tilt.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

They exist and they're on TikTok.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.

What legislation are you talking about?

Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

Bill to ban lessons making white students feel ‘discomfort’ advances in Florida Senate

A Florida state Senate committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would prohibit making white people feel “discomfort” when taught or trained about past discrimination in public schools…

thehill.com

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.

I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

The Hill Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of The Hill. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Your meter is off tilt.

You...do not appear to understand basic reasoning.

 

[Gospel]

Feeling discomfort or distress on account of your race, when leaning about human suffering, is taught.

Too bad the law isn't written that way. Hows about they actually write "no one should teach anyone to feel discomfort or distress on the account of their race". As written teaching is not a requirement to make someone feel distressed on account of their race because teaching is not mentioned at all.

 

[Toni]

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

They exist and they're on TikTok.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.

What legislation are you talking about?

Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

Bill to ban lessons making white students feel ‘discomfort’ advances in Florida Senate

A Florida state Senate committee on Thursday advanced a bill that would prohibit making white people feel “discomfort” when taught or trained about past discrimination in public schools…

thehill.com

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.

I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

The Hill Media Bias Rating

Learn the AllSides Media Bias Rating of The Hill. AllSides rates the media bias of hundreds of news outlets, media sources and writers.

www.allsides.com

Your meter is off tilt.

You...do not appear to understand basic reasoning.

lol

 

[Elixir]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

 

[Jarhyn]

I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950

This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

The only reason to be uncomfortable with it is if there is something you like about what was done, because only liking it (or thinking there are positive aspects to such evil not accessible through not-evil) will generate the internal conflict that is "discomfort"