• 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

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.
But do you think those magazines that you snuck WERE inappropriate for you at that age? I confess that I read virtually anything I could get my hands on when I was a kid, including my father's Louis L'Amour paperbacks which were not necessarily OK for me to read. For that matter, neither was Gone With The Wind or To Kill A Mockingbird, which I read for the first time when I was maybe 10 years old, dictionary in hand. I had no idea what a whore lady was and when I looked it up (amazingly whore was in the dictionary), it led me to look up procurement and some other words whose definitions I did not quite believe were possible.

I know very well that I was a pretty sheltered child, as sheltered as my parents could keep me. But I still saw and heard some ugly racism first hand, some of it from the mouth of a beloved grandparent. My parents never knew that I was sexually assaulted by someone I thought of as family years before I was considered old enough to date.

Of course this is not ideal and of course, some of the very ugly things I read or experienced were beyond my capacity to understand. I still have difficulty understanding some of it. I know what happened during the Holocaust, during the campaign to exterminate Indians, to a teenage girl who was tortured to death, including sexually by the person who was entrusted with her care and some neighborhood kids. I know these things happened and yes, it made me sick to even think about, with the limited ability to actually understand what happened that I had at the time. I'm no less sickened now than I was then.

But: If I had encountered these books and news articles under the guidance of a sensitive and supportive teacher, I might have been able to process them better than I was. If I had been raised a little less sheltered, I might have stood up for myself sooner and more firmly. I might have even told adults what was happening but I never did.

I think providing information and context is the best way to protect children. I think providing a supportive and understanding environment goes much further than keeping things hidden behind the librarian's desk. Sadly, children often experience a lot of horrible things that no adult wants their child to have to deal with. Pretending things are like Leave It To Beaver is not helpful.
 
I think words matter and for me, calling it 'privilege' is something of a misnomer because to me, justice isn't privilege. It should be the normal state for everyone.
Yes, exactly.

Advantage is a word that I think is more accurately descriptive.
That's no better. "Advantage" implies that injustice against black people benefits white people. It doesn't. People of all races are better off when injustices are not being inflicted on anyone.
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
The problem is that a lot of people in America, and Canada believe their is no more racial discrimination of any significance whatsoever in their societies in the 21st century.
Even if this were the case, part of the problem remains: that people's lives are not lived simply in the present moment and in hopes and plans for the future; for people are psychologically suffused and weighed down emotionally and conceptually by their own past and even by the past of their forebears. I think that many of these adult Cons don't want their kids realizing how compromised and racist and proudly advantaged their parents, grandparents have been.
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism. It hurts everybody. But it hurts those who are the objects of racism very much more than it does the racists or the uninvolved bystanders. Just as the person with the broken legs is much, much, much worse off than the person who broke his legs or the medical personnel who treated the injured person or his family who will experience economic loss and inconvenience or his employer, friends, the rest of society whose legs are not broken.
 
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism.

The problem is this is never defined and left deliberately vague. Are there specific laws or regulations? And when explicit racist practices are identified, e.g. college admissions or when the USDA specifically excluded White farmers from a Covid loan relief program, such practices are deemed fine and please shut up.
 
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism.

The problem is this is never defined and left deliberately vague. Are there specific laws or regulations? And when explicit racist practices are identified, e.g. college admissions or when the USDA specifically excluded White farmers from a Covid loan relief program,
Didn't happen. White farmers were not specifically excluded. Of course, the USDA has a long and documented history of real discrimination against black farmers, but hey, that was then, and now some white snowflakes are upset.



such practices are deemed fine and please shut up.
 
Didn't happen. White farmers were not specifically excluded.
Yes, they were.
What the program does: Under USDA’s debt relief program, Black, Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic and Latino farmers qualify for payments of up to 120 percent of their outstanding USDA loans. The department estimates 16,000 farmers of color qualify for the aid, which is designed to also cover any taxes owed on the loan forgiveness.
 
Didn't happen. White farmers were not specifically excluded.
Yes, they were.
What the program does: Under USDA’s debt relief program, Black, Native American, Alaskan Native, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic and Latino farmers qualify for payments of up to 120 percent of their outstanding USDA loans. The department estimates 16,000 farmers of color qualify for the aid, which is designed to also cover any taxes owed on the loan forgiveness.
The USDA has a long history of discrimination against black farmers.
There was a time when Black farms prospered. Just two generations out of slavery, by 1910 Black farmers had amassed more than 16 million acres of land and made up about 14% of farmers. The fruit of their labors fed much of America.

Now, they have fewer than 4.7 million acres. Black farms in the U.S. plummeted from 925,000 to fewer than 36,000, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's latest farm census. And only about one in 100 farmers is Black. What happened?

They were able to overcome the broken promise of "40 acres and a mule" to the newly freed slaves — a military order, later rescinded. But over the last century, they faced one obstacle after another because of their race.

Farmers needed loans to expand, to buy seed, to bridge the time between harvests. But lenders — chief among them, the USDA — often refused to give them money, and often rushed to foreclose. Suppliers and customers undercut them. Laws of inheritance led to the breakup of homesteads.

"These were systematic practices that were deployed in order to — basically set up Black and Brown farmers for failure," Natalie Baszile, author of "We Are Each Other's Harvest: Celebrating African American Farmers, Land, and Legacy," told CBS News' Vladimir Duthiers and Anne-Marie Green.

"When that happens decade, after decade, after decade, there's a cascading effect. This is why Black farmers and farmers of color are so far behind. This is why they have the debt that they have," she said.
 
In March, when Congress passed its $1.9 trillion Covid-19 stimulus package, the legislation included a $4 billion loan forgiveness program targeted at Black and other minority farmers. Based on strong evidence that the U.S. Department of Agriculture had perennially discriminated against certain groups, placing them at much higher risk of foreclosure than white farmers, the program offered a one-time emergency payout to alleviate debt for what it called “socially disadvantaged” farmers.
The policy represented a worthy and long-overdue attempt to redress historic and ongoing discrimination by USDA. But now the program is under legal siege.
Over the past few months, white farmers and ranchers have filed about a dozen lawsuits against USDA, alleging that they were victims of racial discrimination because, unlike several minority groups, white people did not automatically qualify for the emergency debt relief. While the lawsuits have been filed in multiple states, a class action has been certified in a case in Texas, where five farmers sued with backing from Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s former adviser. To the chagrin of Black and other minority farmers long awaiting relief, several federal courts have issued temporary injunctions blocking payments while these cases are decided.

Now, the Biden administration must decide whether to soldier on in court to defend the program or seek legislative fixes to inoculate it from legal challenges. But whichever strategic choice Democrats make, the program is worth fighting for. There are strong legal arguments in its favor, and it represents a necessary effort by the U.S. government to disrupt and repair its own legacy of racism against Black and other Americans.
If the federal bureaucracy is ever going to make amends for its history of discrimination — at USDA and beyond — it is going to have to adopt race-conscious policies like the one the Biden administration is trying to implement for farmers. Reckoning with a past and present of racial discrimination requires race-consciousness, not colorblindness.
Under existing legal precedent, the government
 
The USDA has a long history of discrimination against black farmers.
I am addressing laughing dog's false statement.
White farmers can still apply for debt relief.
White farmers were specifically excluded from this program. In fact, it was found to be unconstitutional.

I don't know why you and laughing dog have such a hard time admitting this: presumably you approve of white farmers being excluded. So why the need to spread false statements about what is happening?
 
The USDA has a long history of discrimination against black farmers.
I am addressing laughing dog's false statement.
White farmers can still apply for debt relief.
White farmers were specifically excluded from this program. In fact, it was found to be unconstitutional.

I don't know why you and laughing dog have such a hard time admitting this: presumably you approve of white farmers being excluded. So why the need to spread false statements about what is happening?
What have I stated that is false?
 
The USDA has a long history of discrimination against black farmers.
I am addressing laughing dog's false statement.
White farmers can still apply for debt relief.
White farmers were specifically excluded from this program. In fact, it was found to be unconstitutional.

I don't know why you and laughing dog have such a hard time admitting this: presumably you approve of white farmers being excluded. So why the need to spread false statements about what is happening?
What have I stated that is false/
"White farmers can still apply for debt relief"--not in the context where a specific program that excluded white farmers was being discussed.

You and laughing dog immediately gave Trausti an orgy of evidence that what he claimed was true. Any discrimination by race against white people is fine and please shut up.

Again: it seems you approve of the USDA's original intentions to discriminate by race against white farmers. So why is it so hard for you to admit that's what the program under discussion intended to do (since halted because it was found unconstitutional)?
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism. It hurts everybody.
I agree, except that I suspect you and I would disagree on what constitutes systemic racism, what constitutes evidence for it, and what actions are reasonable to combat it.

For example, a USDA debt relief program that excludes white farmers I would call systemically and institutionally and explicitly racist, whereas I suspect you would not.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
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.
Actually, those words have meanings.

The bill says it is an unlawful employment practice to subject any individual, as a condition of employment, etc., to training that etc., that espouses, advances, etc., or compels an individual to believe that an individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or some other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
The wording is not good as it takes a bit of reading to understand what it is saying, but the standard is defined.

Jimmy Higgins said:
Second, because this is now potentially a thing, parents can argue that curricula is causing "discomfort" for their kid.
No, you misunderstood the text, as Gospel pointed out. Now, I understand that it's not very clear. But after reading it for a while, judges and lawyers would have no trouble.
If the curricula causes them discomfort, that is not actionable. They could sue if the curricula - or the actual teachings, even if not put in writing - teaches their children that they ought to feel discomfort, guilt, etc., on account of their race, color, etc..

Jimmy Higgins said:
As I specifically stated, no curricula would ever include that!
Of course not in writing. The law would be breached if this were done without putting it in writing. Then it would become a matter of evidence for the courts to decide.

Jimmy Higgins said:
So, this will instead target books and sources on information regarding the 19th and 20th Century, and gawd forbid current events.
It will target the behaviors it lists.
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism. It hurts everybody.
I agree, except that I suspect you and I would disagree on what constitutes systemic racism, what constitutes evidence for it, and what actions are reasonable to combat it.

For example, a USDA debt relief program that excludes white farmers I would call systemically and institutionally and explicitly racist, whereas I suspect you would not.
There is no such USDA program.
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism. It hurts everybody.
I agree, except that I suspect you and I would disagree on what constitutes systemic racism, what constitutes evidence for it, and what actions are reasonable to combat it.

For example, a USDA debt relief program that excludes white farmers I would call systemically and institutionally and explicitly racist, whereas I suspect you would not.
There is no such USDA program.
Yes, there was, until it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Why are you denying this?
 
First we have the usual suspects touting outright falsehoods - the USDA program excludes white farmers.

Then we have someone misread their own link - a federal judge issued a restraining order which did not strike the program down as unconstitutional as claimed.

Finally, there is yet another bonehead false claim that conflates the requirement of accuracy in the description of a program with advocacy for it or its intention,

Makes one wonder why makes such posters so desperate to defend their beliefs that they have to resort to such dishonest or stupid claims.
 
not being discriminated against on the basis of one's race is a right. If other people in the society are not accorded the same right, you have an advantage over them, whether you chose that advantage or use it.
Someone having their legs broken by the mob doesn't enrich people whose legs are not broken. All of society is poorer and worse off.
Yes, that’s EXACTLY the reason everybody should be cognizant of and in opposition to systemic racism. It hurts everybody.
I agree, except that I suspect you and I would disagree on what constitutes systemic racism, what constitutes evidence for it, and what actions are reasonable to combat it.

For example, a USDA debt relief program that excludes white farmers I would call systemically and institutionally and explicitly racist, whereas I suspect you would not.
There is no such USDA program.
Yes, there was, until it was struck down as unconstitutional.

Why are you denying this?
 
Back
Top Bottom