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

[Toni]

I don’t have a problem with programs prioritizing those most hurt by something catastrophic, such as a hurricane or a pandemic for relief measures. To me, that makes a great deal of sense.

It is unfortunate but also true that women and minorities have been hardest hit by economic losses due to the pandemic. It makes sense that they would be prioritized.

I realize it is difficult for conservatives, particularly conservative foreigners to recognize or admit that the reason certain groups have been harder hit is racism and sexism.

Since recipients will need to demonstrate losses due to the pandemic, I’m not sure why waiting a couple of weeks will make it less likely that white men can demonstrate their losses. In fact they have extra time to organize their paperwork.

 

[Metaphor]

I don’t have a problem with programs prioritizing those most hurt by something catastrophic, such as a hurricane or a pandemic for relief measures. To me, that makes a great deal of sense.

The program doesn't do any such thing. It makes no evaluation of individual need first. It begins by excluding non-white non-men first.

It is unfortunate but also true that women and minorities have been hardest hit by economic losses due to the pandemic. It makes sense that they would be prioritized.

It "makes sense" if you have no problem with the government discriminating by sex and race, and the government is doing it in the direction you favour. (For those playing at home, Toni favours the government discriminating against white people, and white men in particular).

I realize it is difficult for conservatives, particularly conservative foreigners to recognize or admit that the reason certain groups have been harder hit is racism and sexism.

I realise that it is easy for white liberals, particularly white liberals who disfavour their own ingroup, to attribute everything to racism and sexism.

Since recipients will need to demonstrate losses due to the pandemic, I’m not sure why waiting a couple of weeks will make it less likely that white men can demonstrate their losses. In fact they have extra time to organize their paperwork.

So, why not reverse it? Why not have everyone else wait and give non-white non-men the 'extra' time to apply?

Your claim, by the way, is so grossly disingenuous it beggars belief. Non-white non-men are not cut off from applying after two weeks. They have as much time organising their paperwork as white men do, only they get an exclusive window and first dibs on funds, no matter what the actual case is with respect to need.

I reject the government discriminating against people by race and sex.

 

[Toni]

I don’t have a problem with programs prioritizing those most hurt by something catastrophic, such as a hurricane or a pandemic for relief measures. To me, that makes a great deal of sense.

The program doesn't do any such thing. It makes no evaluation of individual need first. It begins by excluding non-white non-men first.

It is unfortunate but also true that women and minorities have been hardest hit by economic losses due to the pandemic. It makes sense that they would be prioritized.

It "makes sense" if you have no problem with the government discriminating by sex and race, and the government is doing it in the direction you favour. (For those playing at home, Toni favours the government discriminating against white people, and white men in particular).

I realize it is difficult for conservatives, particularly conservative foreigners to recognize or admit that the reason certain groups have been harder hit is racism and sexism.

I realise that it is easy for white liberals, particularly white liberals who disfavour their own ingroup, to attribute everything to racism and sexism.

Since recipients will need to demonstrate losses due to the pandemic, I’m not sure why waiting a couple of weeks will make it less likely that white men can demonstrate their losses. In fact they have extra time to organize their paperwork.

So, why not reverse it? Why not have everyone else wait and give non-white non-men the 'extra' time to apply?

Your claim, by the way, is so grossly disingenuous it beggars belief. Non-white non-men are not cut off from applying after two weeks. They have as much time organising their paperwork as white men do, only they get an exclusive window and first dibs on funds, no matter what the actual case is with respect to need.

I reject the government discriminating against people by race and sex.

You're incorrect on all counts.

Here's a link to the actual program:

Restaurant Revitalization Fund | U.S. Small Business Administration

www.sba.gov

 

[Metaphor]

I don’t have a problem with programs prioritizing those most hurt by something catastrophic, such as a hurricane or a pandemic for relief measures. To me, that makes a great deal of sense.

The program doesn't do any such thing. It makes no evaluation of individual need first. It begins by excluding non-white non-men first.

It is unfortunate but also true that women and minorities have been hardest hit by economic losses due to the pandemic. It makes sense that they would be prioritized.

It "makes sense" if you have no problem with the government discriminating by sex and race, and the government is doing it in the direction you favour. (For those playing at home, Toni favours the government discriminating against white people, and white men in particular).

I realize it is difficult for conservatives, particularly conservative foreigners to recognize or admit that the reason certain groups have been harder hit is racism and sexism.

I realise that it is easy for white liberals, particularly white liberals who disfavour their own ingroup, to attribute everything to racism and sexism.

Since recipients will need to demonstrate losses due to the pandemic, I’m not sure why waiting a couple of weeks will make it less likely that white men can demonstrate their losses. In fact they have extra time to organize their paperwork.

So, why not reverse it? Why not have everyone else wait and give non-white non-men the 'extra' time to apply?

Your claim, by the way, is so grossly disingenuous it beggars belief. Non-white non-men are not cut off from applying after two weeks. They have as much time organising their paperwork as white men do, only they get an exclusive window and first dibs on funds, no matter what the actual case is with respect to need.

I reject the government discriminating against people by race and sex.

You're incorrect on all counts.

Here's a link to the actual program:

Restaurant Revitalization Fund | U.S. Small Business Administration

www.sba.gov

Thank you for providing a link that proves I am correct. It is exactly as I said. There is a priority group definition with an exclusive application window and there is a set amount of earmarked funds.

I understand the program isn't everything you'd like. For example, white men are eventually allowed to apply, whereas I know you would prefer that white men be excluded all together. Come the revolution, Toni, perhaps your personal taste for excluding white men and mocking their needs might be more directly indulged, instead of this terrible half-measure, which still allows white men to have their case considered....eventually.

 

[Toni]

I don’t have a problem with programs prioritizing those most hurt by something catastrophic, such as a hurricane or a pandemic for relief measures. To me, that makes a great deal of sense.

The program doesn't do any such thing. It makes no evaluation of individual need first. It begins by excluding non-white non-men first.

It is unfortunate but also true that women and minorities have been hardest hit by economic losses due to the pandemic. It makes sense that they would be prioritized.

It "makes sense" if you have no problem with the government discriminating by sex and race, and the government is doing it in the direction you favour. (For those playing at home, Toni favours the government discriminating against white people, and white men in particular).

I realize it is difficult for conservatives, particularly conservative foreigners to recognize or admit that the reason certain groups have been harder hit is racism and sexism.

I realise that it is easy for white liberals, particularly white liberals who disfavour their own ingroup, to attribute everything to racism and sexism.

Since recipients will need to demonstrate losses due to the pandemic, I’m not sure why waiting a couple of weeks will make it less likely that white men can demonstrate their losses. In fact they have extra time to organize their paperwork.

So, why not reverse it? Why not have everyone else wait and give non-white non-men the 'extra' time to apply?

Your claim, by the way, is so grossly disingenuous it beggars belief. Non-white non-men are not cut off from applying after two weeks. They have as much time organising their paperwork as white men do, only they get an exclusive window and first dibs on funds, no matter what the actual case is with respect to need.

I reject the government discriminating against people by race and sex.

You're incorrect on all counts.

Here's a link to the actual program:

Restaurant Revitalization Fund | U.S. Small Business Administration

www.sba.gov

Thank you for providing a link that proves I am correct. It is exactly as I said. There is a priority group definition with an exclusive application window and there is a set amount of earmarked funds.

I understand the program isn't everything you'd like. For example, white men are eventually allowed to apply, whereas I know you would prefer that white men be excluded all together. Come the revolution, Toni, perhaps your personal taste for excluding white men and mocking their needs might be more directly indulged, instead of this terrible half-measure, which still allows white men to have their case considered....eventually.

I wonder if there's a pill you could take or whether it would involve a lot of therapy for you to recognize that you often attribute motives, feelings and beliefs to people with whom you disagree?

And I wonder if you ever read what you write very carefully. Or what anyone writes. I'm not sure how to address that.

I recognize that you aren't interested in addressing anything that might force you to reconsider your world view.

 

[Metaphor]

I wonder if there's a pill you could take or whether it would involve a lot of therapy for you to recognize that you often attribute motives, feelings and beliefs to people with whom you disagree?

I also attribute motives, feelings, and beliefs to people I agree with. As do you. All the time.

And I wonder if you ever read what you write very carefully. Or what anyone writes. I'm not sure how to address that.

I recognize that you aren't interested in addressing anything that might force you to reconsider your world view.

My worldview is that the government should not discriminate by race and sex. Your worldview is 'the government may discriminate by race and sex, if it is discriminating against white people and white men in particular'.

EDIT: Your apologia for the government actually doing what you like is puzzling, though. It's as if you do not believe the government is discriminating by race and sex when it clearly and obviously and explicitly is.

 

[ZiprHead]

My worldview is that the government should not discriminate by race and sex. Your worldview is 'the government may discriminate by race and sex, if it is discriminating against white people and white men in particular'.

But the government has discriminated by race and sex, quite often. By not addressing that previous discrimination still leaves those groups far behind others who were not discriminated against.

 

[Metaphor]

My worldview is that the government should not discriminate by race and sex. Your worldview is 'the government may discriminate by race and sex, if it is discriminating against white people and white men in particular'.

But the government has discriminated by race and sex, quite often. By not addressing that previous discrimination still leaves those groups far behind others who were not discriminated against.

It does not leave any 'group' behind. It leaves individuals behind, individuals who have unfairly been discriminated against. Sometimes that grievance can be addressed and sometimes it cannot. But discriminating by race and sex is not a way to address a legitimate grievance. It creates new people with a legitimate grievance.

Women in 2022 who have built small businesses in America have not been discriminated against as a sex class, by the government (systemic), in their business dealings. In fact, women and ethnic minorities often have set aside programs specifically for their benefit.

Years ago, Toni revealed a preference for supporting women-owned businesses. Her personal discrimination is acceptable. Commanding government resources to favour her group, however, is not.

 

[Trausti]

My worldview is that the government should not discriminate by race and sex. Your worldview is 'the government may discriminate by race and sex, if it is discriminating against white people and white men in particular'.

But the government has discriminated by race and sex, quite often. By not addressing that previous discrimination still leaves those groups far behind others who were not discriminated against.

How does this make any sense for immigrants and their children who came here / were born here in the last 50 years?

 

[Trausti]

In 2004, Lani Guinier and Henry Gates were *shocked* to discover that the main beneficiaries of affirmative action were not descendants of American slaves.

Top Colleges Take More Blacks, but Which Ones? (Published 2004)

African-American students whose families have been in America for generations are being left behind in affirmative action admissions policies at nation's elite universities; at Harvard, where 8 percent of undergraduates are black, majority are West Indian and African immigrants or children of...

www.nytimes.com

While about 8 percent, or about 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, Lani Guinier, a Harvard law professor, and Henry Louis Gates Jr., the chairman of Harvard's African and African-American studies department, pointed out that the majority of them — perhaps as many as two-thirds — were West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples.

 

[Toni]

My worldview is that the government should not discriminate by race and sex. Your worldview is 'the government may discriminate by race and sex, if it is discriminating against white people and white men in particular'.

But the government has discriminated by race and sex, quite often. By not addressing that previous discrimination still leaves those groups far behind others who were not discriminated against.

It does not leave any 'group' behind. It leaves individuals behind, individuals who have unfairly been discriminated against. Sometimes that grievance can be addressed and sometimes it cannot. But discriminating by race and sex is not a way to address a legitimate grievance. It creates new people with a legitimate grievance.

Women in 2022 who have built small businesses in America have not been discriminated against as a sex class, by the government (systemic), in their business dealings. In fact, women and ethnic minorities often have set aside programs specifically for their benefit.

Years ago, Toni revealed a preference for supporting women-owned businesses. Her personal discrimination is acceptable. Commanding government resources to favour her group, however, is not.

The entire western society has operated as a giant set aside program for the benefit of white men.

Declaring that discrimination against women and persons of color in the US no longer exists—by someone who has never set foot in the US no less—is utterly untrue.

Declaring that targeting aid to those who have been discriminated against through the entirety of the existence of the United Stated is unfair towards the group(s) who have benefited for the past several centuries from the discrimination against women and persons of color abs so have enormous advantages is ridiculous.

Particularly when data shows that women and persons of color have faced the worst financial losses during the pandemic. It seems reasonable to give such disadvantaged groups to apply first for aid.

 

[Bomb#20]

Look Bomb#20, I understood what the purpose of SB 148 is and have already told you I don't see anything discriminatory about it (as written). I just came back from 30 years into the future to post this message. There haven't been any judgments in favor of a black defendant and plaintiff as a result of SB 148. When you finally arrive in my future we'll continue this discussion as that's when you will understand why I consider SB 148 protection for only white people.

Okay, let's say it's 2052 and you're right, there haven't been. So apparently in thirty years nobody in the Florida education system ever told black students they ought to accept being racially profiled by police because aggressive racially biased policing actually makes them safer due to the level of black-on-black violence. (If a teacher had been telling that to black students, they could have gotten a judgment against the school district under SB 148.) If nobody in the Florida education system has been saying stuff like that to students, that would appear to mean Florida schools had already rooted out all the anti-black racists from their personnel, just by applying their own institutional culture and employment practices. I.e., assuming you're right that SB 148 really does provide protection for only white people, that's because people of other races have already gotten the same protection by some other mechanism.

When the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law to people of all races was enacted, there was already a cultural mechanism in place protecting white people from being denied equal protection of the law, so a lot of people no doubt objected to the amendment on the grounds that it only protected black people and wouldn't provide any protection to white people. I'm not convinced that was a good argument against it.

Most of it, as far as I can see. What do you see in it that was already covered under existing civil rights acts, and which civil rights acts do you have in mind?

The part that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, facilities, and schools & outlawed discrimination in federally funded projects.

As far as I know, existing public accommodation law says a school can't refuse to hire black teachers and can't refuse to teach black students, and it can't make all the black teachers attend training sessions unless the white teachers have to attend them too. But if the training sessions all the new teachers attend tell them to expect white children will be racist and black children will be troublemakers and Chinese children will need no help with math, I don't see where previously existing law classifies that training as discrimination. SB 148 addresses the content of the training rather than the rules for who has to attend it.

 

[Metaphor]

The entire western society has operated as a giant set aside program for the benefit of white men.

Okay luv.

Declaring that discrimination against women and persons of color in the US no longer exists—by someone who has never set foot in the US no less—is utterly untrue.

I did not say that. In fact, I knew you would make that ridiculous statement or something like it and I worded what I said very carefully, to no avail, seemingly.

The US government has not discriminated against small business owners according to their race or sex. If they have, it would be discrimination that benefits them, such as specific set asides. If they have discriminated against people by race or sex in a way that has hurt them, those people should be compensated. However, the people in the same race or sex class should not be 'compensated' just for being in the same race or sex class.

Declaring that targeting aid to those who have been discriminated against through the entirety of the existence of the United Stated is unfair towards the group(s) who have benefited for the past several centuries from the discrimination against women and persons of color abs so have enormous advantages is ridiculous.

Your statement above is eye-bleedingly ridiculous--at least in regards to women--and I've explained why before.

It pains me to have to explain it again, but I'll try do so briefly, for the board's benefit if not yours.

Any woman who was actively discriminated against by society or the US government in centuries or decades past is either long dead or is justified in seeking compensation (for the governmental discrimination).

If your own mother inherited nothing because of sexist attitudes about inheritance, that doesn't make women born now poorer. The money didn't vanish. The money instead went to men, who formed households with women, and the offspring of those couples, male and female, benefited from the wealth of their parents.

Unless you are talking about blood libel and women living right now inheriting spiritual trauma from beyond the grave, there is nothing to compensate for.

Particularly when data shows that women and persons of color have faced the worst financial losses during the pandemic. It seems reasonable to give such disadvantaged groups to apply first for aid.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. In no way would that be reasonable. You give priority to people who fared the worst, not people who belong to groups who had a worse average.

How did they measure who fared the worst? They measured it by measuring who fared the worst. Since you appear to agree that the people who fared the worst should be prioritised, then we should prioritise those people, regardless of their race or sex class.

When you cut white men, Toni, do they not bleed?

One wonders what kind of trauma surgeon you would have made. First, separate out the presentees into two groups: human beings and white men, and treat the human beings first.

 

[laughing dog]

There are two categories of fear here. There is the fear from some that teachers will teach students to be ashamed of their race. There is the fear from others that this law will have a chilling effect on education.

Interesting, the first fear takes priority in these type of laws while the second fear is hand-waved away as immaterial.

 

[Bomb#20]

Whether it was struck down before implementation doesn't change the fact that the it was racist.

Aid is often targeted towards those who have been disproportionately affected in a negative way.

The USDA has a long history of writing policy and designing programs that were racist—against persons of color.

Somehow those were not worth discussing. Nope.

People come to PD to argue. There's no one to argue against. Nobody here is in favor of the USDA programs that discriminated against nonwhite people.

I'm against it.
Me too.​

Good discussion.

The usual suspects have to get their panties in a twist if white men are not the primary beneficiaries.

The usual suspects get their panties in a twist if anybody argues in favor of racial discrimination. The fact that they only get their panties in a twist if white men are not the primary beneficiaries is a measurement artifact caused by the circumstance that people here only argue in favor of racial discrimination if white men are not the primary beneficiaries. The racial bias you are seeing and imputing to others is actually your own.

And don’t let up after a program policy has been ‘corrected’ to remove any language that might not favor white men.

They would probably have let up after it was corrected if they perceived you not to be in favor of the original uncorrected version. If you're still jonesing for the original then the original is still something to argue about.

Same bunch who think the works starts now, with them on third base. No need for reparations for those who don’t get the same at bats.

See, that's why they think you're still in favor of the original uncorrected version and there's still something worth discussing.

 

[Toni]

The entire western society has operated as a giant set aside program for the benefit of white men.

Okay luv.

Declaring that discrimination against women and persons of color in the US no longer exists—by someone who has never set foot in the US no less—is utterly untrue.

I did not say that. In fact, I knew you would make that ridiculous statement or something like it and I worded what I said very carefully, to no avail, seemingly.

The US government has not discriminated against small business owners according to their race or sex. If they have, it would be discrimination that benefits them, such as specific set asides. If they have discriminated against people by race or sex in a way that has hurt them, those people should be compensated. However, the people in the same race or sex class should not be 'compensated' just for being in the same race or sex class.

Declaring that targeting aid to those who have been discriminated against through the entirety of the existence of the United Stated is unfair towards the group(s) who have benefited for the past several centuries from the discrimination against women and persons of color abs so have enormous advantages is ridiculous.

Your statement above is eye-bleedingly ridiculous--at least in regards to women--and I've explained why before.

It pains me to have to explain it again, but I'll try do so briefly, for the board's benefit if not yours.

Any woman who was actively discriminated against by society or the US government in centuries or decades past is either long dead or is justified in seeking compensation (for the governmental discrimination).

If your own mother inherited nothing because of sexist attitudes about inheritance, that doesn't make women born now poorer. The money didn't vanish. The money instead went to men, who formed households with women, and the offspring of those couples, male and female, benefited from the wealth of their parents.

Unless you are talking about blood libel and women living right now inheriting spiritual trauma from beyond the grave, there is nothing to compensate for.

Particularly when data shows that women and persons of color have faced the worst financial losses during the pandemic. It seems reasonable to give such disadvantaged groups to apply first for aid.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't at all. In no way would that be reasonable. You give priority to people who fared the worst, not people who belong to groups who had a worse average.

How did they measure who fared the worst? They measured it by measuring who fared the worst. Since you appear to agree that the people who fared the worst should be prioritised, then we should prioritise those people, regardless of their race or sex class.

When you cut white men, Toni, do they not bleed?

One wonders what kind of trauma surgeon you would have made. First, separate out the presentees into two groups: human beings and white men, and treat the human beings first.

Yes, the US has a long history of discriminating against businesses on the basis of race and sex.

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

 

[Bomb#20]

The cognitive dissonance of those who decry "systemic racism" but make apologies for clearly racist policies is jarring. No one should face discrimination because of the color of their skin. No one. It used to be the liberal position to treat all as individuals and abhor judging people by their immutable race. What the hell happened?

What happened is millions of Americans who never held liberal positions in the first place, because they were social democrats, not liberals, took up calling themselves "liberals", because tastes in labels are susceptible to fads.

 

[Metaphor]

Yes, the US has a long history of discriminating against businesses on the basis of race and sex.

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

Explain, in words I can understand, how a 25 year old woman running a cafe has been discriminated against by the US government, and deserves more relief than a 25 year old man running a cafe.

 

[Bomb#20]

Still no explanation of why no outcry about systemic racism that benefits white men.

What currently extant systemic racism benefits white men? Racism usually hurts people of all races; it just hurts its targets more. The obvious example of extant systemic racism targeted against black people -- the greater penalty for crack than for cocaine powder -- hurts black men more than white men, clearly. But that doesn't mean this systemic racism "benefits white men". White men don't benefit from being locked up for consuming unapproved vegetation, even when other people are locked up longer. The drug war is insane and the U.S. apparently learned exactly nothing from Prohibition.

It would be great if they could offer some explanation for why they bitched about an issue that was resolved before it was ever discussed here.

Apparently even the very idea that someone somewhere proposed a program that did not specifically favor white men was a bridge to far for them to let go without comment. Even after such provisions had been since removed.

No, what's a bridge too far for them is that the ideology that caused the program to be proposed is still being actively promoted right here in IIDB. Your proposal that what's a bridge too far for them is that it did not specifically favor white men is libelous. You are making strawman arguments. Stop it.

All of those who claim they are against systemic racism would be so much more credible if they started dissecting extant programs whose net effect was to disadvantage persons of color.

I guess that would be a bridge too far.

I expect by "extant programs whose net effect was to disadvantage persons of color", you're referring to extant programs whose net effect is to advantage wealthier people relative to poorer people, and you're calling this "disadvantage persons of color" on account of poverty being more common among nonwhite people than among white people. Calling such a program "systemic racism" instead of "systemic classism" is just propaganda if it disadvantages a poor white person the same way it disadvantages a poor black person.

If that's not the sort of program you have in mind, what extant programs are you calling "systemic racism"?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

As far as I can tell SB 148 protects people of all races and religions from discrimination. Do you see anything in lines 44-78 -- the list of actions it defines as legally discriminatory -- that you think are not in fact discriminatory? Conversely, as far as I can tell it doesn't protect anyone from their own feelings. The rest of the bill contains among other things an expression of the legislature's disapproval of hurting people's feelings, but I don't see where it does anything substantive about it. And as I think you noted upthread, some of that stuff they said they disapproved of would make you feel bad too. So if the schools do take that part to heart and refrain from teaching in a way the legislators disapprove of, that would protect you from your feelings too, not just white people from theirs (if we pretend for the sake of discussion that you're still in school.)

First thing, let's not pretend that SB 148 is a response to something that happened outside of some white people's feelings. There is absolutely no proof that CRT was/is being used in Florida Public Schools or Private businesses. So yes, its purpose is to protect some white people from their own feelings.

Just as a for-example, SB 148 prohibits subjecting any individual, as a condition of passing an examination, to training that espouses, promotes, advances, or inculcates that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. I.e., teachers aren't allowed to tell their classes affirmative action is a good thing. Are you seriously claiming that no Florida teacher ever told his class affirmative action is a good thing?

Consider this, what is in SB 148 that is not already being covered under the civil rights act (which also protects everyone)?

Most of it, as far as I can see. What do you see in it that was already covered under existing civil rights acts, and which civil rights acts do you have in mind?

If schools or corporations were actually doing any of the stuff SB 148 suggests then the Governor has failed to implement the law.

It sounds like you're conflating deeds that were already illegal, with espousing the deeds, which wasn't. For instance, it was already illegal for an employer to refuse to hire Chinese people. SB 148 makes it also illegal for an employer to require his employees to listen to his rants about what a bad idea hiring Chinese people is.

Do you see anything in lines 44-78 -- the list of actions it defines as legally discriminatory

BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78.

Sorry, I forgot how long ago it was that somebody linked to the law. Here it is again.

But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.

Well, in the first place, it bans teachers from blaming Japanese students for Pearl Harbor the same as it bans teachers from blaming white students for Jim Crow. And in the second place, legislators being motivated by having a particular group in mind doesn't make a law legally discriminatory as long as they write the law to cover everybody. For instance, when racial preferences were overturned in Texas colleges, the legislature reacted by passing a law that gave automatic admission to students in the top 10% of their high school classes. The entire point was to work around the ruling and get more black and Hispanic students admitted to top Texas colleges, but that didn't make it illegal.

Look Bomb#20, I understood what the purpose of SB 148 is and have already told you I don't see anything discriminatory about it (as written). I just came back from 30 years into the future to post this message. There haven't been any judgments in favor of a black defendant and plaintiff as a result of SB 148. When you finally arrive in my future we'll continue this discussion as that's when you will understand why I consider SB 148 protection for only white people.

Your observation from 2052 seems compatible with, say, only judgments against white defendants with non-black but also non-white plaintiffs.
But alright, I take it in 2052 there have been only rulings in favor of white plaintiffs, against defendants of any color.

Then a question is: Were those rulings favoring white plaintiffs in accordance to SB148?
I mean, where those white plaintiffs treated in a way SB148 banned?
If the rulings were in accordance to SB148, do you think it was unjust for the courts (even if legal) to rule in favor of those white plaintiffs? If so, why?
If they were not in accordance to SB148, the problem in those cases does not seem to be SB148, but the courts.