• 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

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
so there is a specific cabal of whining self indulgent shit posters on this forum who have spent at least the last 8 years spamming our board with their pearl clutching anal-fingering crying about 'snowflakes' and 'safe spaces' and how liberals are a bunch of soft-skinned cry babies.
and for that entire time i've laughed at how pathetic those posters are for their level of outrage juxtaposed against:
A. such an insanely minimal issue, such as college campuses having a single room for women to hang out in without dealing with men,
B. the fact that when it comes to thin-skinned cry baby "snowflake" material the right has that market cornered entirely and always has.

but, it was mostly academic as a social debate since it was always random private institutions, and you could debate intent and outcome and the philosophy behind it.
however we now have this yellow bellied cuck mentality being made into actual law, which will be actually enforced and mandated on the people, and surprise sur-fucking-prise....


(CNN)A bill backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit Florida's public schools and private businesses from making people feel "discomfort" or "guilt" based on their race, sex or national origin received first approval Tuesday by the state's Senate Education Committee.

i have been saying this for years and years and will continue to say this:
when liberals get bad ideas on how to fix problems, it's usually on the fringe of what you can consider "left" and it never makes it to the areas of power or impacts society on any measurable level.
when regressives get bad ideas on how to fix problems it is immediately launched from whatever subthread on 8chan where it started to being a legislative priority within a few weeks.

politics is universally stupid, but only one side of the power duo in this country is actually dangerous.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,381
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Please, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. ;)

There is this continued false conflict out there by the right-wing. Often about school indoctrination, which has been decades upon decades of unsubstantiated BS, which has almost become common knowledge at this point, because the lie is told so often. And now it is about shaming. We see widely disseminated but very rarely occurring cases where a teacher does something real stupid and while not meant to be harmful, can be a bit traumatizing to students, when discussing race and history. But the reality is, most education in the classroom is about as uncontroversial as it gets. Including history. Guilt is not taught. Heck, many of us didn't even have family in the states around the Civil War. But we are expected to presume that it not only is true, but needs to be stopped by legislation.

That is Orwellian... and those supporting it are supporting draconian laws intent on changing our history. The legislation attempts to "protect" people from an ill-defined (and non-existent) problem, which means enforcement is grossly arbitrary and dependent on the enforcer.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,784
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
These draconian new laws seem to really be a backlash to the anti-racism movement and if you look at history, each time there has been movements against racism there has been a backlash. Fortunately, this isn't out in the street violence, but the draconian laws do restrict teachers and education, sometimes resulting in fines or maybe imprisonment could be possible, depending on the state. One of the things I have been saying since this began is that in _some_ of the states' legislation there is quite a bit of subjectivity allowed and that can easily turn into accusations and increases probability of deducing something is criminal when it isn't. I mean, these racists can simply claim they feel discomfort and already half the burden is met.
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
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 contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?
i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

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

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?
i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

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

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

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

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

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

Arctish

Centimillionaire
Joined
Jul 30, 2003
Messages
6,448
Location
Alaska
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic Humanist
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?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.​
 

Swammerdami

Squadron Leader
Staff member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
3,290
Location
Land of Smiles
Basic Beliefs
pseudo-deism
my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.

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

Do you think an employer should be able to compel employees to attend training that espouses the idea that members of one race are superior to members of another?
While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them. You can bet that white supremacy will still be preached in Florida with no consequences.

The proposed legislation appears to prohibit religious instruction.
...
Goodbye parochial schools and Bible Camp?
Good luck getting a Florida prosecutor to go after white Christians!
 

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them.
Well, the law does not say mere offense is enough, does it? It says teaching certain concepts in certain situations (like teaching that one race is inherently superior to another) is the offense, not 'causing offense'.
You can bet that white supremacy will still be preached in Florida with no consequences.
But the law does not prohibit the preaching of 'white supremacy', or anything, in general, but in particular situations and contexts. So it does not prohibit someone on the internet saying 'white people are superior', but it does prohibit an employer teaching that in a compulsory training course to her employees.

Do you have a problem with an employer being prohibited from teaching white supremacy to her employees?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them.
People can claim anything; but it doesn't look like the law would back them up:

(b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.​
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,381
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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
And that should be funny, but it is spot on truth.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,381
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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?
Yeah, can we start objecting to "original sin"? I'm supposed to feel guilt over The Fall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,519
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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?

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.
I think you're misparsing the passage -- it has to be read as:

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...​

If you try to get "compel belief that something is discrimination" out of it by grouping the words differently, it will contain a "specified concepts constitutes ..." clause or some similar grammatical error. So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct -- the passage as written appears to rightly point out the reality that any Christian school teaching children that boys are superior to girls is in fact thereby discriminating against girls. (But, per the explicit subsection 9 exemption, the bill allows Christian schools to do that.)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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. "Your honor, I never borrowed the plaintiff's lawnmower, it was already broken when he lent it to me, and it was not broken when I returned it." Got it.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,519
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.
I think you're misparsing the passage -- it has to be read as:

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...​

If you try to get "compel belief that something is discrimination" out of it by grouping the words differently, it will contain a "specified concepts constitutes ..." clause or some similar grammatical error. So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct -- the passage as written appears to rightly point out the reality that any Christian school teaching children that boys are superior to girls is in fact thereby discriminating against girls. (But, per the explicit subsection 9 exemption, the bill allows Christian schools to do that.)

No--you're trying to divide something that is a whole.

"constitutes discrimination" limits the compels belief bit. You can't compel belief that something is discrimination, that doesn't say you can't compel other beliefs.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
... So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct ...

No--you're trying to divide something that is a whole.

"constitutes discrimination" limits the compels belief bit. You can't compel belief that something is discrimination, that doesn't say you can't compel other beliefs.
It's only some beliefs that it says you can't compel, but the beliefs the bill says you can't compel are the "specified concepts", i.e., the concepts the law specifies further along when it gets out of the summary into the details, i.e.:

"51 1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are​
52 morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or​
53 national origin.​
54 2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​
55 or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive,​
56 whether consciously or unconsciously.​
57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either​
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her​
race, color, sex, or national origin.​
60 4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin​
61 cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to​
62 race, color, sex, or national origin.​
63 5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​
64 or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be​
65 discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of,​
66 actions committed in the past by other members of the same race,​
67 color, sex, or national origin.​
68 6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,​
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive​
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.​
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or​
72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or​
73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.​
74 8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness,​
75 neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or​
76 sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color,​
77 sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race,​
78 color, sex, or national origin."​

But if you want to compel belief that scratching your belly is discrimination, the bill is perfectly okay with that.

Of course, the very notion of compelling belief is absurd. Indoctrinators try to induce belief; they compel profession of belief; but they have no way to compel the people in their power not to privately disagree and merely pretend to believe.

I forget the punishment for compassing the death of the Heir Apparent.​
Yes. Something lingering, with boiling oil in it, I fancy. Something of that sort. I think boiling oil occurs in it, but I'm not sure. I know it's something humorous, but lingering, with either boiling oil or melted lead. Come, come, don't fret — I'm not a bit angry.​
That's the pathetic part of it. Unfortunately, the fool of an Act says "compassing the death of the Heir Apparent." There's not a word about a mistake —​
Or not knowing —​
Or having no notion —​
Or not being there —​
There should be, of course —​
But there isn't.​
That's the slovenly way in which these Acts are always drawn. However, cheer up, it'll be all right. I'll have it altered next session. Now, let's see about your execution — will after luncheon suit you? Can you wait till then?​
Then we'll make it after luncheon.​
I'm really very sorry for you all, but it's an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.​
- The Mikado​
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.
So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

And in the second place, you appear to be taking for granted that oppressing some implies privileging the rest. That's not how it works -- oppression is not a zero sum game. When a white mother was barred from having her mixed-race children ride in the same rail car with her, that law oppressed her too.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,519
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.
So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.
You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.
History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.
So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.
You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.
The law as written does not say "only in the case of moral claims".
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
 

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down. :rolleyes:
 

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down. :rolleyes:
The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down. :rolleyes:
The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.
So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.
 

Metaphor

Zarobljenik u hrastu
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,785
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down. :rolleyes:
The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.
So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.
You misunderstood the bill, not me. I pointed out a plain reading of it does not imply what you claimed it implied.

Also, even your scenario doesn't work. Feeling bad "for" "coloured folk" is not the same as being taught that you ought to feel ashamed for being a particular race.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
No. It doesn't say that. It very clearly says you cannot teach that they should feel that.

Here we go again, indeed.

Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: Yes, you should feel guilty because you are white.

Not Forbidden response:
Teacher: Some white people in America were involved in the transatlantic slave trade up until the 1860s.
Student: I am white, are you saying I should feel guilty about that?
Teacher: I did not suggest you should feel guilty on account of your race.
Yes, I'm sure that's how it would go down. :rolleyes:
The bill does not say what you think it does. You were wrong.
So some kid come home and says "Momma, I learned something in school today that makes me feel bad for those poor colored folk." Momma says "That's not supposed to happen. I'm calling my state representative." Then the teacher's life is torn apart while an "investigation" takes place. Maybe the teacher will win, maybe he won't.

It certainly won't be as cut and dried as you make it out to be. But that's the deception in the bill, the chilling effect on teachers.
You misunderstood the bill, not me. I pointed out a plain reading of it does not imply what you claimed it implied.

Also, even your scenario doesn't work. Feeling bad "for" "coloured folk" is not the same as being taught that you ought to feel ashamed for being a particular race.
You think that will matter to US right-wingers? How sweetly naive you are.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
An individual’s moral character or status as either58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or herrace, color, sex, or national origin.
So it is, in effect, illegal to teach about social privilege at all, correct? Even if I were discussing, say Plesy v Ferguson, it would be illegal to say that the decision discriminated against Blacks as a class, since that would imply oppression of a race as opposed to oppression of individuals only.
You can talk about Plessy v Ferguson but you can't attach any morality to it.
I don't see where you're getting that. If a teacher says Plessy v Ferguson was very wrong and it was wickedly oppressive to all black people in America right up until Brown v Board of Education corrected the guidance from the SCOTUS to the lower courts, what provision of SB 148 is he in violation of?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.
History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?
How the hell did you get that garbage hypothesis from what I wrote? Of course I'm not suggesting whatever random idiocy you dream up and make believe I suggested. Of course it applies to history classes. It applies to volleyball classes. But if you think the fact that it applies to history classes magically confers on the bill the quality of containing provisions that magically mean whatever the hell meaning you make up and attach to them without regard to what those provisions actually say, then you are overestimating the effect on reality of whatever woo you derived that opinion from.

If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus oppressed all black people, she has not thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus is continuing to oppress all black people in 2021, she has thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,912
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.
History classes are being explicitly being targeted by this law; are you seriously suggesting that it does not apply to history classes?
How the hell did you get that garbage hypothesis from what I wrote? Of course I'm not suggesting whatever random idiocy you dream up and make believe I suggested. Of course it applies to history classes. It applies to volleyball classes. But if you think the fact that it applies to history classes magically confers on the bill the quality of containing provisions that magically mean whatever the hell meaning you make up and attach to them without regard to what those provisions actually say, then you are overestimating the effect on reality of whatever woo you derived that opinion from.

If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus oppressed all black people, she has not thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. If a history teacher asserts that from 1896 until 1954 the government legally excluded black people from sharing public facilities with white people and thus is continuing to oppress all black people in 2021, she has thereby espoused the concept that a black individual's status as oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race. The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.
On what basis do you think that these jackasses will notice verb tenses in their assault on education?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,829
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.
On what basis do you think that these jackasses will notice verb tenses in their assault on education?
On the basis that when they sue some school for teaching something the law doesn't prohibit, the school's lawyer will point out in court that the taught concept isn't on the list of prohibited concepts, and the judge will read the law and read what the teacher said to the class and rule in favor of the school, and then these jackasses will notice that they lost.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.
Said better than I could have.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,771
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. I don't see anything in the bill saying you can't teach that a black individual’s status as oppressed used to be necessarily determined by his or her race. If you want to argue that teachers can't teach the facts without saying a black individual’s status as oppressed still is necessarily determined by his or her race, you're going to need a current example.

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

And in the second place, you appear to be taking for granted that oppressing some implies privileging the rest. That's not how it works -- oppression is not a zero sum game. When a white mother was barred from having her mixed-race children ride in the same rail car with her, that law oppressed her too.

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

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,025
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
Your example is far from equivalent to what is going on here. Your complainer is lying. This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,806
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?
i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

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

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

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,912
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
The concept the bill provision prohibits espousal of is stated in the present tense. This is not rocket science.
On what basis do you think that these jackasses will notice verb tenses in their assault on education?
On the basis that when they sue some school for teaching something the law doesn't prohibit, the school's lawyer will point out in court that the taught concept isn't on the list of prohibited concepts, and the judge will read the law and read what the teacher said to the class and rule in favor of the school, and then these jackasses will notice that they lost.
Assuming that the jackasses would lose in court and such a loss will teach most such jackasses a lesson (both big assumptions), what makes you think that schools will not choose to avoid wasting their precious resources on lawyers and simply adjust their curriculum to avoid such lawsuits?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,096
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?
i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

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

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

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

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

Apart from your misogynist framing, this sounds very much like you think they are hypocrites, on top of being 'delusional assholes'.
Do you think that employers compel employees to be subject to training that as a viewpoint that members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex or national origin?

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

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
38,381
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
the conservative political playbook
step 1: invent a problem that doesn't exist
step 2: start making invasive laws that strangle actual freedom in order to combat the problem that doesn't actually exist
step 3: scream about liberals trying to restrict freedom and destroy american democracy
So, the bill will strangle actual freedom by prohibiting actions that no one is performing or intends to perform.
The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

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

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
21,797
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

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