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

[Metaphor]

You're actually wrong about the term ban. School districts, libraries, school boards, and even broader groups do 'ban' books. They ban them from their premises, from their curricula and sometimes, there area book burnings. These, unfortunately, are not relegated to Nazi Germany but take place in the US and elsewhere.

Yes. Recently, leftists have burned JK Rowling's books the same way rightists burned them in the 1990s.

In my town, a group of conservative Christians or rather "Christians" were unable to ban books about Halloween from their school's library so what they would do is, the mothers would simply check out as many volumes of Halloween themed books from their school's library as they could, until there were no more on the shelves and lock them up in the trunks of their cars until after Christmas when there would be little or no demand for them. Nauseating, yes. But at least it was confined to that one school building.

I've never heard of a parent being able to borrow from their child's school library. How odd.

 

[Metaphor]

You were ridiculed for your hypocritical actions and statements.

I didn't say or do anything hypocritical. But, if I'm honest, a charge of hypocrisy from somebody who responded to the Antiracist Childlike Empress with "This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen" is not a terribly concerning charge, because it shows you either don't know what words mean, or you do know and you hold a false and morally bankrupt viewpoint on the relationship between feelings and desire to inflict atrocities.

 

[Toni]

You're actually wrong about the term ban. School districts, libraries, school boards, and even broader groups do 'ban' books. They ban them from their premises, from their curricula and sometimes, there area book burnings. These, unfortunately, are not relegated to Nazi Germany but take place in the US and elsewhere.

Yes. Recently, leftists have burned JK Rowling's books the same way rightists burned them in the 1990s.

In my town, a group of conservative Christians or rather "Christians" were unable to ban books about Halloween from their school's library so what they would do is, the mothers would simply check out as many volumes of Halloween themed books from their school's library as they could, until there were no more on the shelves and lock them up in the trunks of their cars until after Christmas when there would be little or no demand for them. Nauseating, yes. But at least it was confined to that one school building.

I've never heard of a parent being able to borrow from their child's school library. How odd.

I also didn't know that parents could do this. I thought it odd and in this context, infuriating.

 

[laughing dog]

You take the saying out of context which permits your vile interpretation quite clear. There is no need to repeat it. The problem is not that anyone does not understand it. The problem is that every person with a modicum of human understanding is repulsed by it.

It wasn't a 'saying', and it was not out of context. They were plain words which you concocted a True Meaning for, then implied I was autistic for not participating in your secret leftist business rituals.

You keep on being you - making blatantly false accusations and distorting reality.

"Secret leftist business rituals" would be hilarious if it wasn't batshit nuts. And don't try to hide behind that "oh it was sarcasm" malarkey.

 

[Rhea]

Recently, leftists have burned JK Rowling's books the same way rightists burned them in the 1990s.

Are you seriously trying to peddle the Moore-Coulter that there is an equivalency between individual activists burning children’s fantasy books they have purchased and school boards and town board hysterically removing books about history from school libraries?

Did you seriously just do that?

 

[Metaphor]

"Secret leftist business rituals" would be hilarious if it wasn't batshit nuts. And don't try to hide behind that "oh it was sarcasm" malarkey.

In Australian aboriginal cultures, 'secret men's business' and 'secret women's business' are religious rituals and knowledge closed to people who don't qualify.

But yes, I was mocking you with it.

 

[Metaphor]

Recently, leftists have burned JK Rowling's books the same way rightists burned them in the 1990s.

Are you seriously trying to peddle the Moore-Coulter that there is an equivalency between individual activists burning children’s fantasy books they have purchased and school boards and town board hysterically removing books about history from school libraries?

Did you seriously just do that?

Did you seriously just make the above post?

I agreed with Toni that book burning was not over, and I pointed out a recent book burning. Perhaps a better example would have been the 2019 burning of 4,700 books by a leftist school board in Canada?

 

[Bomb#20]

Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.

For the reading impaired (from the link)
"760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.

know you aren't willing to hear this, especially from me, because taking it to heart would wound your pride, but the text you wrote:

760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.​

has two specific things wrong with it that make it fail to qualify as providing a provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits:

(1) It does not express a thought. It isn't grammatical English. It's word salad. You put a noun phrase, "full and equal enjoyment of education", in a context where English requires a clause: "under the interpretation that [clause]".

(2) It does not contain any provision of SB 148. Part of it is text from a different law; the rest is your own composition.

I know you, so I know you will feel a strong urge to reply to this with yet another ad hominem.

Now I see why you are so motivated to defend these fellow religionists - you are also a snowflake. If you dish out ad homs, you ought to be willing to take them.

How the bejesus do you figure I'm unwilling to take them? Exactly which part of didn't you understand? I was straight-up inviting you to take your best shot at me. And not only did you deliver as predicted, you did it just as insipidly as I anticipated. Seriously dude, you need to think up some putdowns more original than playing I'm-rubber-you're-glue and plagiarizing prideandfall's putdowns.

You are incorrect on both counts. First, your inability or refusal to understand a written text does not mean it does not express a thought.

True; it's the circumstance that you put a noun phrase where you needed a clause that means it does not express a thought. Now, you could clear all this up by just rewriting whatever you meant to say more carefully. You keep declining every opportunity to do so and instead keep laying the predictable consequences of your poor writing at my door. Why is that? Could it be because you didn't have any actual argument to make?

Second, my response specifically refers to the link in Ziprhead's response and the text is from that link.

We have a culture of anonymity here and I know "laughing dog" isn't your real name, so pardon me if this is an invasion of privacy. But I may have guessed your true identity. Are you, by any chance, the Pope?

It's just that I don't know of anyone else as convinced of his own infallibility as you. You keep insisting you're right, as if pure willpower were all it took to be right when your error has been thoroughly pointed out to you, and before diving headlong into your bulldog act, you don't do the most elementary fact-checking.

I told you what you wrote does not contain any provision of SB 148. When you deduced I was incorrect on that count because your response specifically refers to the link in Ziprhead's response and the text is from that link, did it just never occur to Your Holiness to check whether what ZiprHead had linked to was SB 148?

 

[Bomb#20]

What you're missing is that this bill puts legitimate teaching about past wrongs into a fuzzy area--it could make a racist uncomfortable and thus be close enough to the line that teachers would be afraid to do it.

When a law does not provide a bright line between legal and illegal the real-world result is it acts as a damper on legal activity that's merely near the edge. That's the real purpose of this law.

See, this is exactly what I'm on about. On the one hand, I hear opinion after opinion like yours, telling me how gray and fuzzy the bill is when laws should provide a bright line. On the other hand, I read the text of the bill and see bright lines. On the one hand, I hear ninety-odd people telling me the bill authorizes, or somehow fuzzily invites, lawsuits for being made uncomfortable. On the other hand, I read the bill and see for myself that it authorizes nothing of the sort. I ask others to point out a specific passage in the bill that creates a gray area, and the replies are just one illogical argument after another. In that situation, why on earth would I trust the judgment of people who come off as deeply unreasonable over the evidence of my own eyes?

We see a fuzzy area in the made uncomfortable part.

People should be uncomfortable about some of the things in history. Combine this with the fact that slavery was perpetrated by the whites and you could easily make a racist uncomfortable about their heritage.

What you're missing is that the "made uncomfortable part" is lines 297-299. What SB 148 makes actionable is listed in lines 44-78.

 

[Gospel]

Overall I don't think this new law will do anything but make apathetic people feel more comfortable about not giving a shit. After reading it multiple times I see how it can not be used to adversely affect black people and our history in America. All it does is protect the unsympathetic from their own feelings in the form of placebo verbal medicine.

Now if there were indeed instances of what this law purports is occurring or has occurred in Florida schools and private corporations I'd change my mind as I feel that no one should be forced to feel a certain way or agree to something on account of their race in order to get hired, keep their jobs, graduate school and so on.

 

[laughing dog]

Q

.......It's just that I don't know of anyone else as convinced of his own infallibility as you. ....

It's a good thing you have such a super-duper irony meter, because that one just broke every other one in the universe.

Do you feel better after letting all that bloviating bile out?

I

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

I know this post was from a while ago, but I wanted to reference it due to the _other_ phrasing in the text. Some of the words like "promote," "advance," and "inculcate" seem more open to erroneous inferences rather than direct, explicit things. For example, conservatives infer patterns of these things are promoting, advancing, and inculcating but generally each thing is invalidly reckoned, but each is still claimed and being used as fact by the very people making the legislation.

 

[laughing dog]

Ultimately, whether or not this law (and others like it) have a chilling effect will be a social and empirical question.

First, I think the narrow focus on the text is naive and misplaced. Text that appears clear and simple in the law is often not. The history of 2nd amendment of the US Constitution - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - indicates it is not as clear as one would think.

Second, only time will allow us to see the number and extent of the expected lawsuits and their success, as well as the extent to which public schools alter the curriculum and methods to avoid these lawsuits.

It seems an awful lot of bother over a perceived problem that has little or no empirical basis.

 

[Gospel]

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?

I know this post was from a while ago, but I wanted to reference it due to the _other_ phrasing in the text. Some of the words like "promote," "advance," and "inculcate" seem more open to erroneous inferences rather than direct, explicit things. For example, conservatives infer patterns of these things are promoting, advancing, and inculcating but generally each thing is invalidly reckoned, but each is still claimed and being used as fact by the very people making the legislation.

According to how it's written, it is still legal for me to say that some people on the account of their race in the past were precious pieces of shit that had the privilege of breaking the law without scrutiny when they committed rape & murder against black people. As long as I don't tell the person I'm speaking to that they must believe any of it.

Edit: Or withhold (if I'm in that position) a job from them until they believe it.
Edit2: disregard the stricken part, that doesn't matter. It's the "on account of their race" part that matters. As long as I don't treat the person unfairly on account of their race it's all good.

 

[Toni]

Recently, leftists have burned JK Rowling's books the same way rightists burned them in the 1990s.

Are you seriously trying to peddle the Moore-Coulter that there is an equivalency between individual activists burning children’s fantasy books they have purchased and school boards and town board hysterically removing books about history from school libraries?

Did you seriously just do that?

Did you seriously just make the above post?

I agreed with Toni that book burning was not over, and I pointed out a recent book burning. Perhaps a better example would have been the 2019 burning of 4,700 books by a leftist school board in Canada?

So I looked up the 4700 books burned in Canada and I’m having a hard time seeing people removing racist books from school shelves as ‘leftist.’

Book burning at Ontario francophone schools as 'gesture of reconciliation' denounced

More than 4,700 books were removed from library shelves at 30 schools, and they have since been destroyed or are in the process of being recycled

nationalpost.com

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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?

I know this post was from a while ago, but I wanted to reference it due to the _other_ phrasing in the text. Some of the words like "promote," "advance," and "inculcate" seem more open to erroneous inferences rather than direct, explicit things. For example, conservatives infer patterns of these things are promoting, advancing, and inculcating but generally each thing is invalidly reckoned, but each is still claimed and being used as fact by the very people making the legislation.

According to how it's written, it is still legal for me to say that some people on the account of their race in the past were precious pieces of shit that had the privilege of breaking the law without scrutiny when they committed rape & murder against black people. As long as I don't tell the person I'm speaking to that they must believe any of it.

Edit: Or withhold (if I'm in that position) a job from them until they believe it.
Edit2: disregard the stricken part, that doesn't matter. It's the "on account of their race" part that matters. As long as I don't treat the person unfairly on account of their race it's all good.

I agree that in theory, maybe, but in practice what we observe is conservatives saying people are receiving messages as a pattern of whites being bad guys on account of their race. A few examples are Moms 4 Liberty group making accusations that reading material causes white children discomfort on account of their race. These types of erroneous inferences were at least partially impetus for the legislation to begin with. In light of additional fuzzy words like "promote," "inculcate," "advance" such data could be used to infer an instructor is doing said thing on the basis of a pattern whose data was all inferred incorrectly. For example, they could say Wit&Wisdom promotes, advances etc those things on account of race. I realize grade school is a different subsection, but conceptually I think the point of fuzzy words, seeing patterns of incorrect inferences that they are already guilty of doing poses an actual risk to real people who may react preventively. I also agree with LD that this is an empirical question or there is one on the table to see what happens.

 

[Elixir]

Apparently Meta is all butthurt about the inference he makes, that he himself completely manufactured from whole cloth;

“Not wanting to read Maus means you want to commit genocide.”

And he keeps repeating that fallacy while ignoring and refusing to address the FACT that what the meme actually derides is people who don’t want OTHER people to read Maus.

The people who most vehemently don’t want other people to read Maus are those who would commit the atrocities described therein.

Seems to be yet another fact that is so unpalatable to right wing snowflakes that they have to pretend it doesn’t exist. Instead they heap ridicule upon it in a manner that is uncannily similar to the mockery they put forth when told that Cheato would never accept electoral defeat, regardless of the margin.

They were wrong as wrong can be about that, too.

 

[Metaphor]

Apparently Meta is all butthurt about the inference he makes, that he himself completely manufactured from whole cloth;

The plain words of the meme do not mention being offended by 'other people' reading.

I get it. You posted an idiotic meme that says an idiotic thing. I'd quietly let go of the idea that the meme is a transcendent holy text if I were you.

 

[Elixir]

The plain words of the meme do not mention being offended by 'other people' reading.

The plain words of the meme do not mention a lot of things that it was meant to shine a light on.
That's what makes it a fucking meme, not an essay.

Good thing for you that I explained the meaning, since it went so far over your head. You can thank me later.

Seriously, I don't think anyone here is so obtuse as to be unable to divine that the meme is ripping on book-banning right wingers, many of whom would be the types who facilitate, aid and abet, or actually commit atrocities themselves.
I don't think that escapes anyone. Not even you, Meta. But your "Oh those book banning people are being treated so unfairly!" act is disturbingly convincing.

 

[Metaphor]

The plain words of the meme do not mention a lot of things that it was meant to shine a light on.
That's what makes it a fucking meme, not an essay.

Good thing for you that I explained the meaning, since it went so far over your head. You can thank me later.

Seriously, I don't think anyone here is so obtuse as to be unable to divine that the meme is ripping on book-banning right wingers, many of whom would be the types who facilitate, aid and abet, or actually commit atrocities themselves.
I don't think that escapes anyone. Not even you, Meta. But your "Oh those book banning people are being treated so unfairly!" act is disturbingly convincing.

I get it. The meme is deficient on its own, and instead of you admitting that, the fault lies with the people outside the faith to seek out the True Meaning--a True Meaning not at all apparent from the words in the meme itself.

But even the True Meaning--as divined by you--is wicked and false, though less objectionable than the plain meaning.