• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Nah, it's more likely they fear the American Government is listening to the bible when it said "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". Their ancestors made the bed and God is known for making subsequent generations sleep in it.
 
This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.
Agree 100%. It is Word.
In fact it’s so on-point that I expect no response to it from the subjects referenced.
Which is why I think that your image:
View attachment 36950
Needs to be brought up again and again, so that they are least can't claim later they didn't see it, even if they can play idiot and pretend they didn't understand it.
 
What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.

Except if it makes them uncomfortable they can claim the teacher is teaching they should be uncomfortable.
 
What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.

Except if it makes them uncomfortable they can claim the teacher is teaching they should be uncomfortable.

They don't have to mention the word teaching because the law as it is written doesn't mention the word teaching.
 
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds. They don't create limits, they created a dubious and undefined standard that isn't black and white and can be easily used to take a school to court... something schools don't have money to do... to determine if whatever was taught was out of bounds. It is a form of legalized judicial harassment.

Yup, this is the real issue. It's about going just far enough that it can be used to create trouble for those who aren't actually doing wrong.

What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?
People should feel uncomfortable about what happened. They just shouldn't be forced to feel guilty for the acts by others, and almost no teacher in the country has done that. Slavery, Trail of Tears, nuclear experiments on humans, our country has done some shady stuff, and we need to learn from that. The South (and Southern wannabes) just have this issue with truth, especially when it isn't convenient for them.

Though part of me wonders how much this has to even do with what is taught in school and rather how much this is about wedging people against each other.

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.
 
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?

Because it is a right wing issue:


Actually contains a surprise--55% of Republicans now support gay marriage.

(And look at the third chart--looks like much of the shift is demographic rather than political.)
 
Gay marriage has entered the chat. From what I can see in the queue from here, Hitler is not in the line. Awe crap he's already here!
 
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds. They don't create limits, they created a dubious and undefined standard that isn't black and white and can be easily used to take a school to court... something schools don't have money to do... to determine if whatever was taught was out of bounds. It is a form of legalized judicial harassment.

Yup, this is the real issue. It's about going just far enough that it can be used to create trouble for those who aren't actually doing wrong.

What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?
People should feel uncomfortable about what happened. They just shouldn't be forced to feel guilty for the acts by others, and almost no teacher in the country has done that. Slavery, Trail of Tears, nuclear experiments on humans, our country has done some shady stuff, and we need to learn from that. The South (and Southern wannabes) just have this issue with truth, especially when it isn't convenient for them.

Though part of me wonders how much this has to even do with what is taught in school and rather how much this is about wedging people against each other.

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.
When I first really started to understand what Hitler did, it was because I read The Diary of Anne Frank and identified with her because she was a girl just a little older than I was when I read her diary. It made the horror of antisemitism real to me, and the even more horrific concentration camps. I felt horrible because I saw what human beings did to other human beings. When I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, I was horrified and more, because once again, I found it horrific what people could do to other people. When I learned about slavery--and mind, you, this was a very mild, watered down 'knowledge-' I felt nauseated, horrified, much more than words can explain to think that some people did this to other people. And worse, in all of these cases because other people cheered it on or merely stood and watched it happen. Around this same time frame, I read the very lurid account of the torture death of a young girl a few years older than myself, who was tortured over a period of some months in a city near where I lived, by the woman who was given her care while the girl's parents had to travel for work. Again, this evil woman recruited others to help her torture this girl and other kids in the neighborhood knew what was going on and no one came to her rescue. Neighbors wondered but did nothing until the girl died.

How reading about these events made me feel is beyond my ability to describe. It still gives me chills to think about any of these. When I was a small child and I heard my grandfather disrespect a black man with a young son for no reason other than he could, it made me feel ashamed, disgusted, sick to my stomach.

I've been proud all my life that my family, as far as I've been able to trace, has never lived below the Mason-Dixon line and so is unlikely to have engaged in slavery. Some fought for the North in the Civil War. Given the level of casual bigotry that surrounded me while I was growing up, it's small enough comfort. Even then, I know that I could be wrong--maybe there were those in my family tree who enslaved other people. If they didn't it was not because they were so enlightened.

I felt and feel all of these things because I am a human being capable of empathy and not too cowardly to face these facts: People do terrible things to other people for profit and for convenience and for political power--and sometimes for very sick entertainment that defies explanation to me.

I am an extremely average human being. I understand parents wanting to protect their own kids from horrific knowledge. But mostly, I think it is the parents who feel uncomfortable, who don't know how to answer difficult questions or how to resolve the fact that Grandpa or Uncle Joe might have been funny, and smart, and hardworking and loved to tell good stories and were great hunters/farmers/mechanics/whatever---but they also were pretty racist.

That's the hard part; Not understanding or accepting that people are sometimes really awful human beings, terrible beyond most people's ken. But that these terrible truths can and do coexist with admirable characteristics: People with intelligence, a sense of duty and caring, talents, ambitions, love for family and friends--also could have some horrible faults and sometimes could also commit terrible atrocities, and more often, failed to stand up for what they knew in their hearts was wrong, or excused horrors as things of the past or justified by some need, as though it was justified to steal someone's life if you needed their labor or their land. Or if it happened long ago.

In order to convince oneself that it was acceptable to slaughter innocents, to rape, steal, murder, kidnap and more, one had to convince oneself that these were justified because you weren't really doing it to real human beings equal to yourself. No, you had to convince yourself that somehow, they were less than human.

Trouble is, it's really hard to eradicate that belief system once it's baked into the laws and customs of the land. How can you justify that Great Grandpa took part in the massacre at Sand Creek and still live with the fact that's how your family came by its homestead? And so on.

It makes people uncomfortable to consider these things. That's why we must consider these things.
 
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?

Because it is a right wing issue:


Actually contains a surprise--55% of Republicans now support gay marriage.

(And look at the third chart--looks like much of the shift is demographic rather than political.)
Well I sure as hell haven't forgotten that all the "centrists" opposed my basic civil rights - marriage, employment, access to healthcare -until it became socially unpopular to do so. But if I point it out I'm a "radical progressive", so... there really are more than just two Americas, I suppose.

THAT SAID, sympathy and action are different things. Waffley though they may havew been on the issue, neither Clinton nor Obama proposed any legislation actively promoting the persecution of gay couples; that is, was, and continues to be a project of the political right-wing. That's no secret, neither.
 
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds. They don't create limits, they created a dubious and undefined standard that isn't black and white and can be easily used to take a school to court... something schools don't have money to do... to determine if whatever was taught was out of bounds. It is a form of legalized judicial harassment.

Yup, this is the real issue. It's about going just far enough that it can be used to create trouble for those who aren't actually doing wrong.

What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?
People should feel uncomfortable about what happened. They just shouldn't be forced to feel guilty for the acts by others, and almost no teacher in the country has done that. Slavery, Trail of Tears, nuclear experiments on humans, our country has done some shady stuff, and we need to learn from that. The South (and Southern wannabes) just have this issue with truth, especially when it isn't convenient for them.

Though part of me wonders how much this has to even do with what is taught in school and rather how much this is about wedging people against each other.

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.
Part of me feels like that, but the other part makes me think this is nothing but an electoral ploy. We have an Aussie posting about the dangers of CRT in American schools, when CRT isn't remotely touched on in schools. It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
 
The proposed legislation appears to prohibit religious instruction.

...providing that 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...

Goodbye parochial schools and Bible Camp?
Doesn't look that way. I had to Google the whole law that this bill is an amendment to; it contains a subsection 9 (which this bill will renumber to subsection 10), that says:

(9) This section shall not apply to any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which conditions opportunities in the area of employment or public accommodation to members of that religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society or to persons who subscribe to its tenets or beliefs.​
Wait... so what entity would such training apply to, if not "Education institutions.... providing public accomodation to members of that.... educational institution...
So, "Students" are excluded as subjects of "teaching"... "employees" are excluded as subjects of "employers".... Makes no sense.
 
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
 
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
It's worse than that. They include trans stuff and Social Emotional Learning in what they label as "critical race theory." Giant scare tactic.
 
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
It's worse than that. They include trans stuff and Social Emotional Learning in what they label as "critical race theory." Giant scare tactic.
Jesus fuck, they really are straight up evil. They want to attack teaching fucking EMPATHY?!?
 
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?
there is no rewriting going on, you're just making the incredibly common mistake of wrongly assuming that Democrats are left wing.

Democrats are center-right as a party, and have been for at least the last 50 or 60 years. they are only "left" in contrast to the batshit fascist regressive theocratic oligarchy the Republican party has turned into over the same period.

Democrats will generally always opt for preservation of the status quo in all things, be they social/cultural or political/economic, with any sort of change to the law or the way of doing things only coming slowly and somewhat begrudgingly and only when insurmountable pressure to do so is coming out of the cultural zeitgeist.

so, anti-gay marriage IS in fact a right wing issue, your confusion is in thinking that Democrats aren't right wing when it fact they are*.
(*a rather insignificant number of Democrats have started espousing some vaguely left wing progressive ideals in the last 5-10 years but they are literally only a handful of people out of the entire apparatus of the federal government)
 

Thousands of people are spamming the tip line set up by Virginia's new Republican governor to report public-school teachers over critical race theory, TikTok activists told Insider.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who assumed office earlier this month, announced an email address that parents could message to report teachers whom they believed were "behaving objectionably."

The move has prompted widespread criticism, including from the singer John Legend. James Fedderman, president of the Virginia Education Association teachers union, told Insider he believed the tip line was "designed to intimidate educators simply trying to do their jobs."

Now Gen Z is also mobilizing.
 
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.
Can you point out any provision that creates such a gray area? It looks to me like the legislators did a pretty bad job of creating gray areas -- the lines between what you can teach and can't teach look to me pretty crisp and clear.

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.
Come again? Did you just say that no one shaming and some teachers are shaming and have gotten in trouble for it?

If what you intended to say was that not very many people are shaming races in the classroom, laws are usually against things not very many people are doing. If what you meant was that further punishment is unnecessary because those doing it already get punished to some degree, do you apply the same reasoning to upping the penalties against criminals by adding "hate crime" charges?
 
This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
Quote the provision that allows that.
There is no provision in this law for court and punishment. That's in the law it's amending.

A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to individual freedom; amending s. 3 760.10,
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 37 38 Section 1. Present subsections (8), (9), and (10) of 39 section 760.10, Florida Statutes, are redesignated as 40 subsections (9), (10), and (11), respectively, and a new 41 subsection (8) and subsection (12) are added to that section, to 42 read:
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
 
Back
Top Bottom