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

[Metaphor]

Bill Title: Requiring graduating high school seniors to pledge oath to Constitution

Senate Bill 495
By Senator Azinger
[Introduced January 27, 2022; referred
to the Committee on Education]
A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new section, designated §18-2-6d, relating to requiring that all graduating seniors in West Virginia pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
ARTICLE 2. state board of education.
§18-2-6d. Oath to uphold United States Constitution upon graduation.


Upon graduation from high school, all seniors shall pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation. The oath shall read as follows:
"I, _____, as a graduating senior of _______ High School, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God."

Well, that sounds ridiculous.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Seriously, if you need to ask this question, maybe it should have been your first post.

Different posters have different beliefs, so I ask on a poster-by-poster basis.

- slavery
- Jim Crow
- Mexican War
- "Manifest Destiny"
- Native American massacres
- Civil War
- treatment of women
- Reagan response to AIDS epidemic
- treatment of immigrants
- Violent Civil Rights Movement pushback in the south
- Support of 9/11 Coup in Chile / minor massacre
- General support for bad leaders to "fight against Communism" in Central/South America

Why do you think they would stop teaching any of the above? It seems unrelated to what the law bans. It does not ban the teaching of history at all.

We've got a couple hundred years worth of mistakes to feel a bit guilty over.

Actually, it would be irrational to feel guilty about the wrongdoings of other people. For that matter, some students might feel guilty if they learn the are likely descendants of Gengis Khan, because of his crimes. But that is irrelevant, because the law does not say anything about teaching stuff that people irrationally might feel guilt about.

But of course, teachers en masse aren't blaming the white students for these events.

Great, so why do you even suspect they would stop teaching them?
It seems unrealistic.

Argument from incredulity.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with US conservatives.

First, with that sort of reasoning, you do not need to justify anything at all, ever, whenever you choose to say something about a law promoted by conservatives. You can say "argument from incredulity" when one points out that the claims you make are simply not based on any evidence you presented, and then you can just say they are conservatives.

Second, actually, the teachers are surely not conservatives. Why would they stop teaching history? Because some conservatives threaten to sue them with a law that says nothing in support of the lawsuits? For that matter, conservatives can do the same without the law, so you should predict that teachers will stop teaching history regardless of whether there is SB148.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You asked a question, these are the answers. Accept it and move on. These are all cases of egregious white Christian Male violations of rights of other people. They are uncomfortable to read about because they were wrong. And all of these things can be viewed as problematic by whatever meddlers are given the keys to review curricula as well as parents who take partisanship very seriously when it comes to teaching history. Heck, evolution is still an issue for teaching in school.

I asked that question to Loren. I got no answer from him. In any case, the law does not ban the teaching of history. It does not ban any of the above. And sure, they are uncomfortable to read because they involved all sorts of violations of rights. But that is uncomfortable regardless of whose race the perpetrators were. The law does not ban the teaching that these events happened.

The law establishes no standard. Which makes it viable for irrational claims to be taken seriously. That is why the law is written the way it is.

Sure it does. I already quoted the law. The law does not say teachers are not allowed to teach things when some students irrationally feel guilty about them.

Only to someone who doesn't live in the United States and has zero exposure to any of this.

Or to people who live in the US but does not have an ideology, or has an ideology that interferes with reason in other contexts, but not this particular one.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The standard of "uncomfortable" strongly suggests irrationality is expected to play an important role in the determination of the violation of law. Hence, one wonders why you are even bringing up the standard of rationality.

First, that is not the standard for things that are banned. Take a look:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/00148/

Second, the principle upon which instruction must be consistent, and which involves discomfort (quoting the relevant parts), is:

(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
....

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

So, the teaching must be consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.

Words have meaning. Teaching of historical events is consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.

As a matter of fact, the law still says that things like the history of the Holocaust or slavery etc, are to be taught.

The law opens the door to actions whenever a student says they were made uncomfortable about their race due to teaching of the content.

No, it does not. People can sue for no good reason if they so choose, but that's not what the law says.


Whether their feeling of uncomfortableness or guilt is rational is irrelevant. Whether a reasonable person would have such feeling is irrelevant to the real possibility that an action against the teacher or school takes place. Whether such action legally succeeds is irrelevant to it being undertaken. What the law actually says is not relevant to the possibilities of how it will be interpreted.
[/quote]
No, the law actually says that the history of slavery, etc., are to be taught. If someone says he feels discomfort, that's not at all to say that the teaching of the history of slavery is not consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. Indeed, if the person feels guilty or whatever just because they are taught history, that's not because they were made to feel that way on account of their race. Rather, it's because they are confused, and the teachers should if anything explain to them that the behavior of other people of the same race is obviously not their fault. Moral guilt is individual.

The fact that there is no evidence to support the rationale for this law is truly suggestive that its intent is not to remedy actual wrongs or to prevent further wrongs.

I don't agree that there is no evidence (it's too easy to find), but granting there isn't for the sake of the argument, the law and what the law writers intend are quite different things.

People who live in the USA and who are familiar with how local school districts operate have pointed out that teachers, principals, and the elected representatives who oversee the district can easily be bullied or manipulated into kowtowing to special interests.

Well, yes, the Woke mostly dominate, and their dominance will likely only increase. But it's hard to tell what is forced and what is sincere Woke fervor on the part of the teachers. But that they'll go the other way because of a bill that says nothing of the sort seems pretty unlikely.

 

[Hermit]

The law opens the door to actions whenever a student says they were made uncomfortable about their race due to teaching of the content. Whether their feeling of uncomfortableness or guilt is rational is irrelevant. Whether a reasonable person would have such feeling is irrelevant to the real possibility that an action against the teacher or school takes place. Whether such action legally succeeds is irrelevant to it being undertaken. What the law actually says is not relevant to the possibilities of how it will be interpreted.

The fact that there is no evidence to support the rationale for this law is truly suggestive that its intent is not to remedy actual wrongs or to prevent further wrongs.

People who live in the USA and who are familiar with how local school districts operate have pointed out that teachers, principals, and the elected representatives who oversee the district can easily be bullied or manipulated into kowtowing to special interests.

All of which points to a reasonable expectation of a chilling effect on the teaching of history.

Exactly. The bulk of SB148's text is perfectly reasonable, but it is a trojan horse. The real intention is to silence teachers, and it will succeed in good measure. It's well and good to stipulate that

Instructional personnel may facilitate discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate manner, the topics of sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination, including topics relating to the enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination

but any teacher can be hauled before the court, charged with having made a student feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. It is then up to the teacher to prove that they did not do that. In the absence of a verifiable recording this will be difficult. Teachers will be discouraged from mentioning topics involving sexism, slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination, including topics relating to the enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in sexism, racial oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination altogether. Mission accomplished.

 

[Metaphor]

It is then up to the teacher to prove that they did not do that. In the absence of a verifiable recording this will be difficult.

That is not how civil lawsuits work.

 

[Hermit]

It is then up to the teacher to prove that they did not do that. In the absence of a verifiable recording this will be difficult.

That is not how civil lawsuits work.

In theory. In practice the plaintive will allege that the teacher made them feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of their race and the defendant will have to provide evidence that the plaintiff's accusation is unfounded. Unlike in criminal lawsuits it is not necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and Floridian juries are likely to make full use of this wiggle room.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seriously, if you need to ask this question, maybe it should have been your first post.

Different posters have different beliefs, so I ask on a poster-by-poster basis.

- slavery
- Jim Crow
- Mexican War
- "Manifest Destiny"
- Native American massacres
- Civil War
- treatment of women
- Reagan response to AIDS epidemic
- treatment of immigrants
- Violent Civil Rights Movement pushback in the south
- Support of 9/11 Coup in Chile / minor massacre
- General support for bad leaders to "fight against Communism" in Central/South America

Why do you think they would stop teaching any of the above? It seems unrelated to what the law bans. It does not ban the teaching of history at all.

We've got a couple hundred years worth of mistakes to feel a bit guilty over.

Actually, it would be irrational to feel guilty about the wrongdoings of other people. For that matter, some students might feel guilty if they learn the are likely descendants of Gengis Khan, because of his crimes. But that is irrelevant, because the law does not say anything about teaching stuff that people irrationally might feel guilt about.

But of course, teachers en masse aren't blaming the white students for these events.

Great, so why do you even suspect they would stop teaching them?
It seems unrealistic.

Argument from incredulity.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with US conservatives.

First, with that sort of reasoning, you do not need to justify anything at all, ever, whenever you choose to say something about a law promoted by conservatives. You can say "argument from incredulity" when one points out that the claims you make are simply not based on any evidence you presented, and then you can just say they are conservatives.

Did you not say "It seems unrealistic."? That could be an encyclopedia example of an argument from incredulity.

Second, actually, the teachers are surely not conservatives. Why would they stop teaching history? Because some conservatives threaten to sue them with a law that says nothing in support of the lawsuits? For that matter, conservatives can do the same without the law, so you should predict that teachers will stop teaching history regardless of whether there is SB148.

Because they don't want to end up in court taking on all the expence that sort of thing entails. That's where the chilling effect come in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You asked a question, these are the answers. Accept it and move on. These are all cases of egregious white Christian Male violations of rights of other people. They are uncomfortable to read about because they were wrong. And all of these things can be viewed as problematic by whatever meddlers are given the keys to review curricula as well as parents who take partisanship very seriously when it comes to teaching history. Heck, evolution is still an issue for teaching in school.

I asked that question to Loren. I got no answer from him. In any case, the law does not ban the teaching of history. It does not ban any of the above. And sure, they are uncomfortable to read because they involved all sorts of violations of rights. But that is uncomfortable regardless of whose race the perpetrators were. The law does not ban the teaching that these events happened.

I'm certain you'll start catching on at some point.

The law establishes no standard. Which makes it viable for irrational claims to be taken seriously. That is why the law is written the way it is.

Sure it does. I already quoted the law. The law does not say teachers are not allowed to teach things when some students irrationally feel guilty about them.

Or maybe not.

Only to someone who doesn't live in the United States and has zero exposure to any of this.

Or to people who live in the US but does not have an ideology, or has an ideology that interferes with reason in other contexts, but not this particular one.

Yeah, you umm... skipped the later part about developments in the last year alone in the US. You did so because it impacted your 'see no evil, hear no evil' spin on this. This law was created to deal with an imaginary problem. Much like the election reform bills in GOP controlled states were put forth to deal with the non-existent voter fraud problems. I'm sorry you are willingly blind to this. You ask questions, but don't care about the answers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seriously, if you need to ask this question, maybe it should have been your first post.

Different posters have different beliefs, so I ask on a poster-by-poster basis.

- slavery
- Jim Crow
- Mexican War
- "Manifest Destiny"
- Native American massacres
- Civil War
- treatment of women
- Reagan response to AIDS epidemic
- treatment of immigrants
- Violent Civil Rights Movement pushback in the south
- Support of 9/11 Coup in Chile / minor massacre
- General support for bad leaders to "fight against Communism" in Central/South America

Why do you think they would stop teaching any of the above? It seems unrelated to what the law bans. It does not ban the teaching of history at all.

We've got a couple hundred years worth of mistakes to feel a bit guilty over.

Actually, it would be irrational to feel guilty about the wrongdoings of other people. For that matter, some students might feel guilty if they learn the are likely descendants of Gengis Khan, because of his crimes. But that is irrelevant, because the law does not say anything about teaching stuff that people irrationally might feel guilt about.

But of course, teachers en masse aren't blaming the white students for these events.

Great, so why do you even suspect they would stop teaching them?
It seems unrealistic.

Argument from incredulity.

Maybe you are unfamiliar with US conservatives.

First, with that sort of reasoning, you do not need to justify anything at all, ever, whenever you choose to say something about a law promoted by conservatives. You can say "argument from incredulity" when one points out that the claims you make are simply not based on any evidence you presented, and then you can just say they are conservatives.

You must make a really good enabler.

Second, actually, the teachers are surely not conservatives. Why would they stop teaching history? Because some conservatives threaten to sue them with a law that says nothing in support of the lawsuits? For that matter, conservatives can do the same without the law, so you should predict that teachers will stop teaching history regardless of whether there is SB148.

There is no basis to meddle without these modifications in SB148.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't it ironic, how the GOP is using the "feelings" of a student to justify these changes? The GOP... who often remark and mock the idea of liberals and their "feelings"?

 

[laughing dog]

The standard of "uncomfortable" strongly suggests irrationality is expected to play an important role in the determination of the violation of law. Hence, one wonders why you are even bringing up the standard of rationality.

First, that is not the standard for things that are banned. Take a look:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/00148/

Second, the principle upon which instruction must be consistent, and which involves discomfort (quoting the relevant parts), is:

(3) The Legislature acknowledges the fundamental truth that all individuals are equal before the law and have inalienable rights. Accordingly, instruction on the topics enumerated in this section and supporting materials must be consistent with the following principles of individual freedom:
....

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

So, the teaching must be consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.

I will rephrase to avoid further pedantry from you.
The standard of "of be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race" strongly suggests irrationality is expected to play an important role in the determination of the violation of law. Hence, one wonders why you are even bringing up the standard of rationality.

No, the law actually says that the history of slavery, etc., are to be taught. If someone says he feels discomfort, that's not at all to say that the teaching of the history of slavery is not consistent with the principle that an individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race. Indeed, if the person feels guilty or whatever just because they are taught history, that's not because they were made to feel that way on account of their race. Rather, it's because they are confused, and the teachers should if anything explain to them that the behavior of other people of the same race is obviously not their fault. Moral guilt is individual.

Your analysis misses the point - the standard of "discomfort, guilt, or any other form of psychology distress" literally enshrines irrationality as a standard. Your pseudo-rational analysis as to what logically should or reasonably will happen is inappropriate. Moreover, the implication that everyone shares your morality (Moral guilt is individual) is not only false, it is irrelevant to the issue. Your view(s) as to how the world (or the USA) should be is irrelevant to the reality of how the USA is

Hermit's reply a few posts up might help you understand how deeply flawed your analysis is.

.

I don't agree that there is no evidence (it's too easy to find), but granting there isn't for the sake of the argument, the law and what the law writers intend are quite different things.

You make a distinction without a difference in this case - there is no rational reason to impose a cost on anyone to prevent a non-existent problem.

Well, yes, the Woke mostly dominate, and their dominance will likely only increase. But it's hard to tell what is forced and what is sincere Woke fervor on the part of the teachers. But that they'll go the other way because of a bill that says nothing of the sort seems pretty unlikely.

This law, and the number of fervent defenders indicates that the mindless conservatism is awake, alive and growing,

BTW, one of my many character flaws that I have to struggle with is that whenever I see someone use "the Woke", I see an incredibly fearful, kneejerk conservative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Asians used to be heavily discriminated against. Yet they're running away with that chart--what singled them out to succeed when other races continued to fare badly?

Hint: Culture! Asians strongly favor education. That's why they're pulling away from the pack.

Education is a big part. But not all of the story.
Asian culture also prioritizes working hard/smart. Duty. Delayed Gratification. There's a bunch of cultural reasons Asian Americans out perform other race based cultural groups around here.
Tom

Yeah, I wasn't trying to list everything, just the biggest. The point is that it's culture, not race, that is the factor these days.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nothing can help that black guy in 1911. Giving a different black guy now a hand up does nothing to the past wrong.

That different black guy is at a substantial disadvantage due to the financial crimes committed against blacks over generations. We aren't giving that different black guy a "hand up". He is too far down for us to do that. We are providing an opportunity for him to just be "not quite as far down".

We need to make things right going forward.

It'd probably cost something that starts with a big B or T to do that.

The past is the past, we can't change it, it has basically no bearing on the situation.

It has every bearing on the situation today. Blacks have much less wealth today than whites because of the 'in the wide open' conspiracy to see as such.

You persist in thinking intergenerational wealth transfer is a substantial factor.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bill Title: Requiring graduating high school seniors to pledge oath to Constitution

Senate Bill 495
By Senator Azinger
[Introduced January 27, 2022; referred
to the Committee on Education]
A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new section, designated §18-2-6d, relating to requiring that all graduating seniors in West Virginia pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
ARTICLE 2. state board of education.
§18-2-6d. Oath to uphold United States Constitution upon graduation.


Upon graduation from high school, all seniors shall pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation. The oath shall read as follows:
"I, _____, as a graduating senior of _______ High School, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God."

Well, that sounds ridiculous.

Nothing can help that black guy in 1911. Giving a different black guy now a hand up does nothing to the past wrong.

That different black guy is at a substantial disadvantage due to the financial crimes committed against blacks over generations. We aren't giving that different black guy a "hand up". He is too far down for us to do that. We are providing an opportunity for him to just be "not quite as far down".

We need to make things right going forward.

It'd probably cost something that starts with a big B or T to do that.

The past is the past, we can't change it, it has basically no bearing on the situation.

It has every bearing on the situation today. Blacks have much less wealth today than whites because of the 'in the wide open' conspiracy to see as such.

You persist in thinking intergenerational wealth transfer is a substantial factor.

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a huge factor, Possibly the biggest.

 

[Trausti]

Bill Title: Requiring graduating high school seniors to pledge oath to Constitution

Senate Bill 495
By Senator Azinger
[Introduced January 27, 2022; referred
to the Committee on Education]
A BILL to amend the Code of West Virginia, 1931, as amended, by adding thereto a new section, designated §18-2-6d, relating to requiring that all graduating seniors in West Virginia pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of West Virginia:
ARTICLE 2. state board of education.
§18-2-6d. Oath to uphold United States Constitution upon graduation.


Upon graduation from high school, all seniors shall pledge an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America as a condition of graduation. The oath shall read as follows:
"I, _____, as a graduating senior of _______ High School, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God."

Well, that sounds ridiculous.

Nothing can help that black guy in 1911. Giving a different black guy now a hand up does nothing to the past wrong.

That different black guy is at a substantial disadvantage due to the financial crimes committed against blacks over generations. We aren't giving that different black guy a "hand up". He is too far down for us to do that. We are providing an opportunity for him to just be "not quite as far down".

We need to make things right going forward.

It'd probably cost something that starts with a big B or T to do that.

The past is the past, we can't change it, it has basically no bearing on the situation.

It has every bearing on the situation today. Blacks have much less wealth today than whites because of the 'in the wide open' conspiracy to see as such.

You persist in thinking intergenerational wealth transfer is a substantial factor.

Intergenerational wealth transfer is a huge factor, Possibly the biggest.

Yep. This canard just won’t die.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nothing can help that black guy in 1911. Giving a different black guy now a hand up does nothing to the past wrong.

That different black guy is at a substantial disadvantage due to the financial crimes committed against blacks over generations. We aren't giving that different black guy a "hand up". He is too far down for us to do that. We are providing an opportunity for him to just be "not quite as far down".

We need to make things right going forward.

It'd probably cost something that starts with a big B or T to do that.

The past is the past, we can't change it, it has basically no bearing on the situation.

It has every bearing on the situation today. Blacks have much less wealth today than whites because of the 'in the wide open' conspiracy to see as such.

You persist in thinking intergenerational wealth transfer is a substantial factor.

It is a huge factor! It is undeniable!

Asians used to be heavily discriminated against. Yet they're running away with that chart--what singled them out to succeed when other races continued to fare badly?

Hint: Culture! Asians strongly favor education. That's why they're pulling away from the pack.

Education is a big part. But not all of the story.
Asian culture also prioritizes working hard/smart. Duty. Delayed Gratification. There's a bunch of cultural reasons Asian Americans out perform other race based cultural groups around here.
Tom

Yeah, I wasn't trying to list everything, just the biggest. The point is that it's culture, not race, that is the factor these days.

So, the reason for black poverty and white poverty is black culture and white culture?

 

[Trausti]

The most impactful inheritance is parental genes for behavior and intelligence. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The most impactful inheritance is parental genes for behavior and intelligence. The acorn doesn’t fall far from the tree.

This implies that siblings should be nearly alike in behavior.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Once again, disparate outcomes being presented as proof of discrimination.

Is this like the redlining where it turns out to be socioeconomic, not racial?

This is a hugely common fallacy employed by racists from both ends of the spectrum.
Confusing correlation with causation.
Tom

And then some delight in Ignoring what conditions created the current "socioeconomic" balance, which then feeds racists and their correlation/causation issue "at each end of the spectrum".

It shifted from being explicit to being "Minnesotan" about it. Which is to say, they do stuff that will get the effect while making it very difficult to reveal their behavior as explicitly linked to that goal.

Of course racism created it, I don't see anyone denying that. That doesn't mean you can fix the problem by removing the racism, or that the continued existence of the problem shows the racism is continuing.

You're the doctor in the ER prescribing a seat belt for a broken arm.

So your solution is to keep the racism?

To me that seems like going to the ER for a heart attack and hearing that it can’t be a heart attack because they’re all full up with heart attack patients.

Everyone is trying to evade my point.

Measuring the results of racism is not proof that racism exists now, it's only proof it existed at some point in the past. The eternal reliance on irrelevant "evidence" is pretty much an admission that there isn't a problem now. If there's good evidence of current racism, present it! Make sure to control for socioeconomic factors--something which almost no such research does.