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

[laughing dog]

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.

My response was to your "I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false."

 

[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.

My response was to your "I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false."

Nobody on this board agrees with the plain meaning of the "quote" from the Antiracist Childlike Empress. Nobody believes that a white child who reads about white atrocities and is made uncomfortable by it means they want to commit the same atrocities.

So, if it is a religious belief, it is one we all share.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

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

This is what you said.

Doubt is the action of "holding that something you believe is incorrect".

Usually that is done within an "error bar".

"I believe there is an apple in the fridge", is tempered with "possibility: there is no apple in the fridge (.001%)"

Statements made in such a way always are accepted by rational people as holding the caveat "I believe this is not correct to (error %)."

I hold that all my "beliefs" are in some way subtly incorrect except those founded directly on set theory, and only within the context wherein set theory describes that thing.

So I can absolutely say, without doubt or religion, that globally deterministic systems may contain locally stochastic systems.

I can say it's absolutely religious to believe your imputement of intent is not subject to and ought not be subject to your own doubt to the extent that everyone else's imputement of intent is subject to the same.

But it isn't, so I can say with the same certainty given the axiom "uncritical belief is religion" that your uncritical belief in your imputement is religious.

 

[Elixir]

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.

My response was to your "I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false."

You’re trying to explain religious bounds to someone who doesn’t get the bounds of a fucking MEME!

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

My response was to your "I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false."

Nobody on this board agrees with the plain meaning of the "quote"...

Nobody on this board except you believes it is appropriate to take a thing of politics and read it with plain and unthinking interpretation

 

[Metaphor]

his is what you said.

Doubt is the action of "holding that something you believe is incorrect".

Usually that is done within an "error bar".

"I believe there is an apple in the fridge", is tempered with "possibility: there is no apple in the fridge (.001%)"

Statements made in such a way always are accepted by rational people as holding the caveat "I believe this is not correct to (error %)."

I hold that all my "beliefs" are in some way subtly incorrect except those founded directly on set theory, and only within the context wherein set theory describes that thing.

So I can absolutely say, without doubt or religion, that globally deterministic systems may contain locally stochastic systems.

I can say it's absolutely religious to believe your imputement of intent is subject to and ought be subject to your own doubt to the extent that everyone else's imputement of intent is subject to the same.

But it isn't, so I can say with the same certainty given the axiom "uncritical belief is religion

I know what I said Jarhyn.

You have failed, spectacularly failed, to understand what I said.

I never said beliefs could not or should not be subject to revision. You appear to believe I did say that or that I think that. I don't know why you believe that.

 

[Gospel]

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

BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78. But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

My response was to your "I did not say that. I am explaining to you why the words of the Antiracist Childlike Empress are false."

Nobody on this board agrees with the plain meaning of the "quote" from the Antiracist Childlike Empress. Nobody believes that a white child who reads about white atrocities and is made uncomfortable by it means they want to commit the same atrocities.

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

These certainly suggest there is no reason to take your posts seriously.

 

[Metaphor]

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

I believe the plain meaning is false.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

Expressing the possibility that you may be wrong about a belief is not a contradiction.

I believe my birthday is in February. It would be something I'd bet my home on. But, I can conceive the possibility of a typo on my birth certificate and/or a bizarre conspiracy concocted by my parents to make me believe it was February when it wasn't.

That I believe my birthday is in February but can also conceive of possibilities that would make that belief wrong is not a contradiction.

 

[Jarhyn]

I believe the plain meaning is

Nobody on this board except you believes it is appropriate to take a thing of politics and read it with plain and unthinking interpretation

 

[laughing dog]

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

I believe the plain meaning is false.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

Expressing the possibility that you may be wrong about a belief is not a contradiction.

I gave examples where the plain meaning 2 of your posts is contradictory.

 

[Metaphor]

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

I believe the plain meaning is false.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

Expressing the possibility that you may be wrong about a belief is not a contradiction.

I gave examples where the plain meaning 2 of your posts is contradictory.

The examples you gave are not a contradiction and I've explained why already.

 

[laughing dog]

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

I believe the plain meaning is false.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

Expressing the possibility that you may be wrong about a belief is not a contradiction.

I gave examples where the plain meaning 2 of your posts is contradictory.

The examples you gave are not a contradiction and I've explained why already.

You are mistaken. Simultaneously claiming "A child could have uttered those word "and "I don't believe the child pictured in that meme or any child anywhere, uttered those words" is making contradictory statements. The second sentence means you do not believe it could have happened at all.

 

[Metaphor]

That is false - clearly you believe that "plain meaning", otherwise you would simply be trolling.

I believe the plain meaning is false.

BTW, the plain meaning of your post 179 ("I believe it could have happened")is contradicted by the plain meaning of your post 221 ("I don't believe the child pictured in that meme, or any child anywhere, uttered those words.").

Expressing the possibility that you may be wrong about a belief is not a contradiction.

I gave examples where the plain meaning 2 of your posts is contradictory.

The examples you gave are not a contradiction and I've explained why already.

You are mistaken. Simultaneously claiming "A child could have uttered those word "and "I don't believe the child pictured in that meme or any child anywhere, uttered those words" is making contradictory statements. The second sentence means you do not believe it could have happened at all.

You are mistaken.

"I don't believe the child pictured in that meme or any child anywhere, uttered those words" (a)
"A child could have uttered those word " (b)

(a) and (b) do not contradict each other. (a) is a statement about what I believe. (b) is a statement espousing the possibility that I could be wrong about the belief.

Indeed, people make certainty-qualified utterances of belief all the time without anybody claiming they are self-contradictory.

"I could be wrong, but I believe there is an apple in the fridge".
"I believe my birthday is in February, but I concede that there is some tiny chance that it might not be"
"I had toast for breakfast and there is no doubt in my mind whatever about that".

None of the above statements, qualified as they are with strength of belief clauses, are contradictory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Fiction books are art, and art has no truth-value in the same way non-fiction does. If, for some reason, fiction books were to be retired, it would also be prudent to sell them.

In practice fiction that's pulled normally isn't going to be sellable. They're pulling it because it's not circulating and if it's not circulating there's little demand.

Okay, yep, you are right. Libraries never sell retired books. I never saw or heard such a thing and I certainly don't have ex-library copies in my own home right now.

I see them selling extra copies after the surge of demand for a best seller and I see them selling donations they don't need. That's not the same as selling books that got pulled because they don't circulate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Physical books have their merits but to me it's not worth the handling hassles.

I have a Kindle--it hasn't been used in years. The Kindle app on my phone, though, sees basically daily use and books which aren't just freeform text I read on my PC.

 

[Toni]

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.

Physical books have their merits but to me it's not worth the handling hassles.

I have a Kindle--it hasn't been used in years. The Kindle app on my phone, though, sees basically daily use and books which aren't just freeform text I read on my PC.

I tend to read a lot of news on my computer, and sometimes I browse on my phone. But if I want to curl up with a good book, well, digital just doesn't cut it.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78. But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.

B20's question is whether there is any action that SB 148 prohibits that are not discriminatory. The question is not whether SB 148 is itself discriminatory. It seems you're saying that SB 148 is discriminatory because it has the goal of protecting white people from the CRT boogie man or protect corporations from the same boogieman. But that would not make it discriminatory in the sense in which B20 was asking whether the actions it ban are discriminatory.

It seems to me that if the things it bans do not exist or are already banned anyway, it will have no effect or perhaps it will facilitate the enforcement of already existing bans. What bad effects do you think it will have?

 

[Enigma]

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

BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78. But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.

The lines from the text of the bill in question: https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

43 760.10 Unlawful employment practices.—
44 (8)(a) Subjecting any individual, as a condition of
45 employment, membership, certification, licensing, credentialing,
46 or passing an examination, to training, instruction, or any
47 other required activity that espouses, promotes, advances,
48 inculcates, or compels such individual to believe any of the
49 following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race,
50 color, sex, or national origin under this section:
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
59 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.
79 (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.

 

[Gospel]

The lines from the text of the bill in question: https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

That was my first thought but wanted to make sure. No, I do not see anything legally discriminatory in any part of SB 148 as it is written. As I've said before SB 148 does nothing that the Civil rights act doesn't already do except provide placebo verbal medicine to some white people. I don't know how else to say it.