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

[Bomb#20]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread.

But Metaphor is just a vector, same as laughing dog, Toni, Jarhyn, etc. Patient Zero was Elixir.

Reminds me of a saying about not feeding certain under-bridge dwelling creatures.

That's an ad hominem.

 

[Toni]

Please note: I love books. I have a house full of books, from my attic to my basement. The only room that does not have books ( plural) in it is the very tiny first floor powder room. I have books that I’ve read until they are literally falling apart. I have paperback books that I’ve read until they were falling apart abs then replaced them with hardcover versions—abs I still have the worn out falling apart paperback books. I still have the chemistry text from my first year at university!!!

And…,we have some books from my husband’s childhood that appear on the list of problematic books in the OP. I have the encyclopedias my parents bought when my older sibling was in elementary school. An atlas filled with maps where borders have dramatically changed!

I may have a book problem.

And I think that schools really do need to get rid of outdated books to make room for new more up to date books. And… as painful as I personally find this: it sometimes means destroying old books who no longer serve a good purpose.

Yes, you have a book problem. Most books, including virtually 100% of new books, can be obtained in electronic formats. Buy e-books, strip the DRM (so you don't lose them if the license server disappears) and store them in a standard format like .epub or .mobi.

I also have a Kindle.

I don’t like my Kindle.

I enjoy physical books, turning pages, etc. much cozier.

 

[Toni]

What market, exactly, do you think there is fir outdated school textbooks?

I don't know how many different times I have to explain selling used books. When libraries have books they no longer want, they sell them. If they can't sell them, I guess they junk them or onsell them to a wholesale buyer.

And I think that schools really do need to get rid of outdated books to make room for new more up to date books. And… as painful as I personally find this: it sometimes means destroying old books who no longer serve a good purpose.

So, let them do that. If there is no way to sell them, then pulp them.

Just...don't burn them in a religious bonfire of atonement.

For the most part, I really agree: books aren’t for burning. Apparently try some of the books were burned in a religious ceremony. Never mind how you or I feel about religion—it seems to have been culturally significant fir some of the people disparaged in the books. It bothers me, as well because of other associations with burning books and I think it was perhaps an unwise choice that could as easily be used against these same peoples.

 

[Bomb#20]

Attacking people for attacking Nazis tells most people all they need to know about your position.
Nobody said that not wanting to read it means you want to do it.
But if you don’t want OTHERS to read it
YOU MIGHT BE A NAZI
Nobody wants YOU to make yourself uncomfortable by trying to read it Meta. Declining to read due to discomfort could indicate cowardice or semi-literacy, but not genocidal intent.

But your meme is not attacking Nazis. Your meme is attacking normal people by de facto calling them Nazis. Being labeled a Nazi by his enemies does not make a person a Nazi. It is not even suggestive evidence that he's a Nazi. All it means is the discussion has been Godwinned. All the people who think your meme is deep and insightful have for some reason found Godwinning inspirational. Your meme is a libel.

And when you claim that those who attack the purveyors of the meme are "attacking people for attacking Nazis", you are adding a second libel to the first.

What do you find evil about the child’s statement ( assuming for the moment that this is what the child actually said)?
...
FWIW, I don’t think whoever said/wrote those words is correct for most people.

Then you've answered your own question. Statements about other people that are false, damaging, and made with reckless disregard for the truth are evil.

Assume or pretend to believe that a 9 year old child said the words that are imputed to her: Why is it evil for her to say those words?

It isn't evil for her to say those words. And the reason it isn't evil is because she's nine.

The adults celebrating and repeating her statement are not nine.

 

[Jarhyn]

Only Metaphor is allowed to impute intent

Nah he’s kinda libertarian. Anyone can impute intent. And anyone is allowed to hold to a belief that only what they impute is correct.

Of course they are "allowed" to hold that belief. It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think it is incorrect.

Tell that to every scientist ever.

Science and rationality is built on doubt. Anything else is religion.

 

[Metaphor]

Only Metaphor is allowed to impute intent

Nah he’s kinda libertarian. Anyone can impute intent. And anyone is allowed to hold to a belief that only what they impute is correct.

Of course they are "allowed" to hold that belief. It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think it is incorrect.

Tell that to every scientist ever.

Science and rationality is built on doubt. Anything else is religion.

It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think that belief is incorrect.

You are responding as if I'd written 'It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously reject the possibility that you are mistaken', which I did not write and do not believe.

 

[Enigma]

Of course they are "allowed" to hold that belief. It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think it is incorrect.

Tell that to every scientist ever.

Science and rationality is built on doubt. Anything else is religion.

Thinking that something is incorrect is not the same thing as thinking that something may be incorrect.

I mainly say this out of the concern that wizarding powers and sloppy and imprecise use of language rarely tend to go well together for any given wizard. Or for anyone around them.

 

[Bomb#20]

The law you're quoting, HB 741, commands the Florida public education system to treat anti-semitism the same way it treats racial discrimination, and it adds religion to the list of characteristics public schools (and private schools that receive government funds) can't discriminate against -- a list that already included race. So in what way is DeSantis treating the black plight as different from the Jewish one? It seems like he was going to some effort to treat those plights the same.

Your reply seems to be missing the part where CS/CS/HB 741 protects Jews from discrimination (which is awesome) while SB-148 protects white people from their own feelings.

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

It also doesn't help that there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that CRT (whatever that means to some white people) is/was being taught in Florida Schools or being utilized by private corporations.

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? The bill doesn't mention CRT. The specific kinds of teaching the bill makes actionable are spelled out; the CRT fans will vociferously deny that CRT promotes those kinds of teaching; and whether it does or not has no bearing on whether a teacher should teach those ways. A teacher who teaches in those ways might have been inspired to by CRT or by something else, and the source doesn't matter.

With that said, has DeSantis signed any bills that can be remotely construed to be providing protection for antisemites against feeling discomfort, guilt & anguish about Jewish history?

Almost certainly -- any bill can be remotely construed any way the remote construer pleases. This thread provides numerous examples.

Be that as it may, you appear to be making an analogy between white people and antisemites. That seems like a flawed analogy to me, since being white doesn't make one anti- anything. As far as I know, De Santis hasn't signed any bills to protect antisemites from anti-antisemite teaching, while he has signed a bill to protect white people from anti-white-people teaching*. But if one were to separate out the white people who are antiblack and analogize antisemites to only that subset of white people, then DeSantis' treatment looks even-handed. As far as I know he has not signed any bill to protect antiblacks from anti-antiblack teaching. For example, if a Florida teacher teaches that non-antiblack people are morally superior to antiblack people, and that an antiblack person by virtue of his antiblackness is inherently racist and oppressive, and that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish and psychological distress over his antiblackness, SB 148 does not define that teaching as discriminatory.

(* And Jewish people from antisemite teaching, and black people from anti-black-people teaching, and ...)

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, it's legal for people to yell "The Jews run the banks" and "the Holocaust never happened" and "there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" and "Christ-killer" at Jewish people too, as long as they aren't Florida teachers on the job or receiving government funds when they say those things. And if Florida teachers yell racist stuff at you, that's already illegal.

You have a point here, however, I'd like to mention that bringing up "blue lives matter", "blacks owned slaves too" & "black on black crime" when someone is discussing certain aspects of the black experience doesn't have the same stigma attached to it as "The Jews run the banks" and "the Holocaust never happened" and "there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" and "Christ-killer" when the topic of the Jewish experience is the subject.

Stigma is kind of arbitrary -- cultures evolve the way they do for crazy reasons and it's not really something government can control.

To be more specific, I haven't heard about people losing their government jobs over the former.

There was a University of Massachusetts professor fired for saying everyone's life matters.

Last I knew President Trump showed support for Blue Lives Matter and one state went as far as making attacking police a hate crime as a result of that "movement".

"Hate crime" is pretty arbitrary too. Why is beating somebody up for being a Red Sox fan not as bad as beating him up for being a Mormon? I kind of figure we should replace the whole concept with the crime of hurting anyone as a proxy for somebody else. It covers classic hate crimes, and shooting up a school, and taking hostages, and hurting your kid because you're mad at your spouse, and killing the dog of the guy who cut you off in traffic...

To my knowledge, there were no hate crime laws added in response to holocaust deniers to the benefit of holocaust denial (etc).

Are you analogizing policing to holocaust denial?

 

[laughing dog]

So Metaphor has gotten you all gulled into another small tangent off the main subject of the thread.

But Metaphor is just a vector, same as laughing dog, Toni, Jarhyn, etc. Patient Zero was Elixir.

Your ad hominem list is incomplete.

 

[Gospel]

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

First thing, let's not pretend that SB 148 is a response to something that happened outside of some white people's feelings. There is absolutely no proof that CRT was/is being used in Florida Public Schools or Private businesses. So yes, its purpose is to protect some white people from their own feelings. Consider this, what is in SB 148 that is not already being covered under the civil rights act (which also protects everyone)? If schools or corporations were actually doing any of the stuff SB 148 suggests then the Governor has failed to implement the law.

 

[Jarhyn]

[

It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think that belief is incorrect.

You are responding as if I'd written 'It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously reject the possibility that you are mistaken', which I did not write and do not believe.

So you are invoking contradiction then.

The invocation of contradiction is not rationalism. It's not even intelligence. It is the deal breaker to any concept of intelligence. It is incoherent what you said:

To "think that belief is incorrect" is to "accept possibility that you are mistaken"; to "accept the possibility that you are mistaken" is to "think that belief is incorrect" in context.

To invert "accept" we get "reject".

So, "It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think that belief is incorrect." Is equivalent in context to "It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously accept the possibility you are mistaken."

My response is:
It would be religious to hold a belief and simultaneously reject the possibility that you are mistaken.

 

[Elixir]

'it is unpleasant and distressing to read'.

Call the waaambulance.
That some facts are unpleasant does not mean we should "protect" kids (or you) from them.

 

[Elixir]

Your meme is attacking normal people by de facto calling them Nazis

Seriously, B20 I thought better of you.
That's like complaining that this one attacks innocent cats.



There is in fact some delicious symmetry between the mice’s view of cats and a nine yo's view of Nazis...

(I know that the next complaint from the Metaverse is that no 9yo said that, which is totally irrelevant since the meme was constructed to deliver from that perspective, whether is was actually voiced by a 9yo or a 90yo)

 

[Metaphor]

So you are invoking contradiction then.

The invocation of contradiction is not rationalism. It's not even intelligence. It is the deal breaker to any concept of intelligence. It is incoherent what you said:

To "think that belief is incorrect" is to "accept possibility that you are mistaken"; to "accept the possibility that you are mistaken" is to "think that belief is incorrect" in context.

To invert "accept" we get "reject".

So, "It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously think that belief is incorrect." Is equivalent in context to "It would be incoherent to hold a belief and simultaneously accept the possibility you are mistaken."

My response is:
It would be religious to hold a belief and simultaneously reject the possibility that you are mistaken.

What I wrote was pretty elementary, yet you appear to be struggling mightily with understanding it. I will try to illustrate it for you.

Beliefs are thoughts about things that a person accepts as true.

I believe there's an apple in the fridge. (a)

If I believe there is an apple in the fridge, it is incoherent to say I also believe things that contradict that belief, e.g.

I believe there is only milk in the fridge. (b)

For one person to simultaneously believe (a) and (b) is incoherent. There cannot be an apple in the fridge while simultaneously there is only milk in the fridge.

If I believe (a) and you believe (b), it is necessary that I think you are wrong about (b). If I did not think you were wrong, I could no longer possibly believe (a). I cannot believe something and its negation.

Certainty of belief is a different matter. I know that I have been wrong about things I believed before, so it is entirely possible that something I believe right now I will no longer believe in the future, because evidence will change my mind. If, for example, I open the fridge and there is not an apple in it, I will no longer believe there's an apple in the fridge.

​

 

[Metaphor]

Call the waaambulance.
That some facts are unpleasant does not mean we should "protect" kids (or you) from them.

I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false.

 

[laughing dog]

Technically, you are explaining your religious belief and nothing more.

 

[Jarhyn]

<An obtuse justification of religious belief that doesn't speak to the verbage responded to>

No.

So, you are trying to put up a straw man.

I am saying that it is perfectly fine to say "there is an apple in the fridge" so long as you accept "there may not be an apple in the fridge."

You, metaphor, refuse utterly to accept "there may not be an apple in the fridge"

I am saying nothing about milk. I am saying something about your unwavering and absolute belief about the apple.

 

[Metaphor]

No.

So, you are trying to put up a straw man.

I am saying that it is perfectly fine to say "there is an apple in the fridge" so long as you accept "there may not be an apple in the fridge."

I never said anything different. If you think I did, you are mistaken.

All of my beliefs are subject to revision.

You, metaphor, refuse utterly to accept "there may not be an apple in the fridge"

Non. I did not say it and I don't believe it.

 

[Metaphor]

Technically, you are explaining your religious belief and nothing more.

Explaining that you cannot simultaneously believe something and its negation is not explaining a religious belief.