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

[Arctish]

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.

IOW it's virtue signaling. And yet the posters who usually decry that sort of thing don't seem to have a problem with it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

148 creates several objectionable goals.

1. It creates an undefined standard on shaming and uncomfortableness
2. Provides an avenue for parents of students to complain about reasonable curriculum
3. Provides an avenue for arbitrary people who review the material to meddle in the curricula.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's codifying ideological group complaints that are known to be based on incorrect inferences, using flexible verbiage at least in some parts. That creates risk of continued misconstruing things but whether that will be actualized and judged as incorrectly is another matter. So in that sense, there is an open question.

I don't think this is the end of the problem either.

 

[Gospel]

IOW it's virtue signaling. And yet the posters who usually decry that sort of thing don't seem to have a problem with it.

It's not virtue signaling. My take is that it is Dr. Destantis administering a placebo drug along with comforting words to people with a serious mental condition. Hat's off to him for staying in the fight against mental disorders.

 

[laughing dog]

It's codifying ideological group complaints that are known to be based on incorrect inferences, using flexible verbiage at least in some parts. That creates risk of continued misconstruing things but whether that will be actualized and judged as incorrectly is another matter. So in that sense, there is an open question.

I don't think this is the end of the problem either.

It is the beginning of the problem.

 

[Trausti]

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.

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

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.

Yes, because white people have to do extra homework because whites owned slaves, so we finally have legislation to prevent this.

 

[Trausti]

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.

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

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.

Yes, because white people have to do extra homework because whites owned slaves, so we finally have legislation to prevent this.

So you think it’s okay to discriminate against a person because of their race, really?

 

[Gospel]

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

I'm not familiar with that so I'll need to look it up and get back to you.

 

[Gospel]

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

I'm not familiar with that so I'll need to look it up and get back to you.

@Trausti I looked and it's not the same. CRT (the boogieman) that SB 148 is in response to would actually have to be in effect for it to be the same. It's not.

Edit: I mean to use the word similar not same.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

This may be similar to the 2006 Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which just said that the state may not discriminate based on race. Yet, a group of progressives challenged the Initiative, actually arguing that the 14th Amendment prohibition against race discrimination did not apply to White people. This went up to the Supreme Court and two liberal justices agreed with that. So sometimes we need a law affirming what we thought we already knew.

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.

Yes, because white people have to do extra homework because whites owned slaves, so we finally have legislation to prevent this.

So you think it’s okay to discriminate against a person because of their race, really?

Congrats on pulling that interpretation out of what I said. I understand, it is a popular "go to" amongst right-wingers.

However, my point was, the text being added to existing legislation is aiming to protect people white people (this isn't about Turkish immigrants being blamed for the Armenian geocide) from race based discrimination or treatment or shaming due to unfortunate history of white males doing this or that to whomever. Discrimination or treatment or shaming that isn't particularly allowed as-is, nor occurring at a rate that requires legislative intervention (as in it almost never occurs and when it does, said teacher gets in trouble).

 

[Gospel]

Look, the root issue here is that everyone needs to be treated fairly and not be discriminated against based on their race. America just so happened to have practiced the opposite in its not-so-distant past. Some private organizations whether schools or otherwise took it upon themselves to go the extra mile to help the black community (and others) in a time of need. Some people had issues with that from the start and still do while others are just now starting to chime in because they think the time has come that said assistance is no longer needed. That's the root issue at hand branching off into legislation against things like Affirmative Action and the CRT boogieman.

Now, I personally think it's time that initiatives like Affirmative action are ended as the majority of American's aren't out to oppress minority groups though it may seem that way on social media. As long as America maintains the current trajectory of increased intolerance for racism on our police force, government agencies, and private organizations we can make it the rest of the way without them. If anything it should accelerate us towards our goal without having Boogiemen as a distraction.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

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.

IOW it's virtue signaling. And yet the posters who usually decry that sort of thing don't seem to have a problem with it.

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?

148 creates several objectionable goals.

1. It creates an undefined standard on shaming and uncomfortableness
2. Provides an avenue for parents of students to complain about reasonable curriculum
3. Provides an avenue for arbitrary people who review the material to meddle in the curricula.

How does it do any of the above?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

IOW it's virtue signaling. And yet the posters who usually decry that sort of thing don't seem to have a problem with it.

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?

148 creates several objectionable goals.

1. It creates an undefined standard on shaming and uncomfortableness
2. Provides an avenue for parents of students to complain about reasonable curriculum
3. Provides an avenue for arbitrary people who review the material to meddle in the curricula.

How does it do any of the above?

Well, the first part should be quite obvious. "discomfort, guilt, anguish" What does that even mean? There is no standardization of it, which means it creates an amorphous gray area.

Second, because this is now potentially a thing, parents can argue that curricula is causing "discomfort" for their kid.

Third, meddling is made possible as this has been put under the review of anyone tasked with reviewing the curriculum.

No curriculum created was ever going to include:

1) 19th Century America
1a) Make white students feel guilty for slavery.
1aa) Do so by making them go to class in rags, and let the black students humiliate them
1ab) Bring Cotton Gin into class and force white students to use it while black students sell cotton for band.

So, this will instead target books and sources on information regarding the 19th and 20th Century, and gawd forbid current events.

 

[Gospel]

Jimmy, the language of this new keep white people safe from the boogieman law stipulates that to be breaking the law a teacher (maybe the curriculum itself) must say or imply that a person must feel discomfort on account of their race etc, not simply cause discomfort on account of their race etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Jimmy, the language of this new keep white people safe from the boogieman law stipulates that to be breaking the law a teacher (maybe the curriculum itself) must say or imply that a person must feel discomfort on account of their race etc, not simply cause discomfort on account of their race etc.

As I specifically stated, no curricula would ever include that!

 

[laughing dog]

Jimmy, the language of this new keep white people safe from the boogieman law stipulates that to be breaking the law a teacher (maybe the curriculum itself) must say or imply that a person must feel discomfort on account of their race etc, not simply cause discomfort on account of their race etc.

And how and who determines whether some teacher or curricula "implied" that someone must feel discomfort on account of their race? That is the crux of that issue.

 

[Gospel]

Guess we'll just have to wait and see Florida Man in action. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Loren Pechtel]

148 creates several objectionable goals.

1. It creates an undefined standard on shaming and uncomfortableness

This is what really bothers me. Undefined standards in law tend to produce very bad outcomes even when the objective is laudable. Here I think it's a deliberate effort to use that grey zone to suppress ideas they don't like.

 

[jab]

Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds. They don't create limits, they created a dubious and undefined standard that isn't black and white and can be easily used to take a school to court... something schools don't have money to do... to determine if whatever was taught was out of bounds. It is a form of legalized judicial harassment.

Yup, this is the real issue. It's about going just far enough that it can be used to create trouble for those who aren't actually doing wrong.

What happens when someone feels uncomfortable about being told what white people did even though the teacher doesn't tell them they should be uncomfortable about it?

People should feel uncomfortable about what happened. They just shouldn't be forced to feel guilty for the acts by others, and almost no teacher in the country has done that. Slavery, Trail of Tears, nuclear experiments on humans, our country has done some shady stuff, and we need to learn from that. The South (and Southern wannabes) just have this issue with truth, especially when it isn't convenient for them.

Though part of me wonders how much this has to even do with what is taught in school and rather how much this is about wedging people against each other.

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.

When I first really started to understand what Hitler did, it was because I read The Diary of Anne Frank and identified with her because she was a girl just a little older than I was when I read her diary. It made the horror of antisemitism real to me, and the even more horrific concentration camps. I felt horrible because I saw what human beings did to other human beings. When I read Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, I was horrified and more, because once again, I found it horrific what people could do to other people. When I learned about slavery--and mind, you, this was a very mild, watered down 'knowledge-' I felt nauseated, horrified, much more than words can explain to think that some people did this to other people. And worse, in all of these cases because other people cheered it on or merely stood and watched it happen. Around this same time frame, I read the very lurid account of the torture death of a young girl a few years older than myself, who was tortured over a period of some months in a city near where I lived, by the woman who was given her care while the girl's parents had to travel for work. Again, this evil woman recruited others to help her torture this girl and other kids in the neighborhood knew what was going on and no one came to her rescue. Neighbors wondered but did nothing until the girl died.

How reading about these events made me feel is beyond my ability to describe. It still gives me chills to think about any of these. When I was a small child and I heard my grandfather disrespect a black man with a young son for no reason other than he could, it made me feel ashamed, disgusted, sick to my stomach.

I've been proud all my life that my family, as far as I've been able to trace, has never lived below the Mason-Dixon line and so is unlikely to have engaged in slavery. Some fought for the North in the Civil War. Given the level of casual bigotry that surrounded me while I was growing up, it's small enough comfort. Even then, I know that I could be wrong--maybe there were those in my family tree who enslaved other people. If they didn't it was not because they were so enlightened.

I felt and feel all of these things because I am a human being capable of empathy and not too cowardly to face these facts: People do terrible things to other people for profit and for convenience and for political power--and sometimes for very sick entertainment that defies explanation to me.

I am an extremely average human being. I understand parents wanting to protect their own kids from horrific knowledge. But mostly, I think it is the parents who feel uncomfortable, who don't know how to answer difficult questions or how to resolve the fact that Grandpa or Uncle Joe might have been funny, and smart, and hardworking and loved to tell good stories and were great hunters/farmers/mechanics/whatever---but they also were pretty racist.

That's the hard part; Not understanding or accepting that people are sometimes really awful human beings, terrible beyond most people's ken. But that these terrible truths can and do coexist with admirable characteristics: People with intelligence, a sense of duty and caring, talents, ambitions, love for family and friends--also could have some horrible faults and sometimes could also commit terrible atrocities, and more often, failed to stand up for what they knew in their hearts was wrong, or excused horrors as things of the past or justified by some need, as though it was justified to steal someone's life if you needed their labor or their land. Or if it happened long ago.

In order to convince oneself that it was acceptable to slaughter innocents, to rape, steal, murder, kidnap and more, one had to convince oneself that these were justified because you weren't really doing it to real human beings equal to yourself. No, you had to convince yourself that somehow, they were less than human.

Trouble is, it's really hard to eradicate that belief system once it's baked into the laws and customs of the land. How can you justify that Great Grandpa took part in the massacre at Sand Creek and still live with the fact that's how your family came by its homestead? And so on.

It makes people uncomfortable to consider these things. That's why we must consider these things.

In the early 1960s, when I was a boy of 8-10, my father was reading a series of articles about the Nazi death camps, genocide and human experimentation. I wanted to read those articles. I already knew Nazis were bad, and about the death camps and genocide, and my father went over them again with me, but forbad me to read the actual articles he was reading because their content was too horrific for a small boy.
Being an inveterate reader, curious, and (mostly) without t v to pass the time, I of course snuck the magazines with that series of articles, read them and was thoroughly horrified and felt almost humiliated to be a human being if humans could so deliberately debase themselves so low. I had been raised in a Pelgian Heresy branch of fundamentalist Christianity and so I had a very positive view of basic human nature, though individual experiences with a few cruel adults had suggested to my fledging mind that adults were capable of being very corrupted from their original goodness.
I'm not sure I needed to know details of the camps at that point in my development, but certainly the basic facts, which my parents made sure I did know, were essential knowledge then and now.
In any case, for books simply in school libraries and not being taught in the classroom, it is the parents' responsibility to advise their children that certain titles are inappropriate for them at this point in their maturation.