• 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

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.
I dunno Elixir. I'm kinda digging this one.

(e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
296 by other members of the same race or sex.

I think that would look nice on the side of police vehicles.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,589
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.
I dunno Elixir. I'm kinda digging this one.

(e) An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex,
295 does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past
296 by other members of the same race or sex.

I think that would look nice on the side of police vehicles.
Funny how the South still carries a grudge against the North though.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
20,922
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
the conservative political playbook
step 1: invent a problem that doesn't exist
step 2: start making invasive laws that strangle actual freedom in order to combat the problem that doesn't actually exist
step 3: scream about liberals trying to restrict freedom and destroy american democracy
So, the bill will strangle actual freedom by prohibiting actions that no one is performing or intends to perform.
The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

There is no other reason for this legislation, as the very rare teachers that have done something as dumb as shaming... have rightly gotten into trouble.
Exactly - the muddling of the notion is done to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards. It emboldens these snowflakes to protest and/ir sue, which will be enough in many cases to cause unneeded change.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,060
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
the conservative political playbook
step 1: invent a problem that doesn't exist
step 2: start making invasive laws that strangle actual freedom in order to combat the problem that doesn't actually exist
step 3: scream about liberals trying to restrict freedom and destroy american democracy
So, the bill will strangle actual freedom by prohibiting actions that no one is performing or intends to perform.
The bill is aiming to create gray area for cover in order for "rights groups" and individuals to sue schools in order to prevent them from teaching history. No one is actually shaming races in the classroom, so the legislature is broadening what it considers shaming, turning it into a very muddled class of speech or subject.

There is no other reason for this legislation, as the very rare teachers that have done something as dumb as shaming... have rightly gotten into trouble.
Exactly - the muddling of the notion is done to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards. It emboldens these snowflakes to protest and/ir sue, which will be enough in many cases to cause unneeded change.
To cause maliciously designed change.
 

marc

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
1,803
Location
always on the move
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, skeptic, nerd
To quote L. Ron Hubbard, who was Trump long before Trump was Trump

The purpose of [a lawsuit] is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody
who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not
authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease.
If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
"A Manual on the Dissemination of Material" (first published in
Ability, the Magazine of DIANETICS and SCIENTOLOGY, 1955) Note: this
paragraph has apparently been purged from later editions of the
"Manual".

He may have been a self aggrandizing, narcissistic, habitual liar, but he did get a couple ideas right. This law doesn't have to say anything that would specifically prevent the teaching of history of racism. It is vague enough for the crazies and racists to start lawsuits. And even if every lawsuit fails, they are pressure on the schools to not teach it just to avoid the harassment and financial burdens brought by the suits.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,075
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
I think it would a good reason not to pass a law that vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background". Or any law censoring education, in fact. Just because someone intends to shoot at you no matter what you do, doesn't mean it makes any sense to hand them ammunition for the task.
So, just to clarify, were you just making a general comment about what laws shouldn't be passed, or did you intend to imply that SB 148 'vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background"'? If it was the latter, can you point out the provision that does this?

And, just to clarify, when you say 'any law censoring education', were you expressing your agreement with me that SB 148 would be a bad law because it unconstitutionally restricts free speech in private schools? Or were you expressing the opinion that the government instructing its own employees on the matter of what to say and what not to say while on the job qualifies as "censorship"?

And, just to clarify, do you think the existing laws prohibiting public school teachers from preaching their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with should be overturned?

On a more general note, it seems to me from the overall drift of this discussion that the above quoted clause in SB 148,

"71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.",​

is in need of some context. For example, if the clause in context reads:

"There shall be a cause of action against a school for the effect of a teacher's speech if as a result of it,
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",​

then that provision means some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc. But if, on the other hand, the clause in context reads:

"(8)(a) 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 any of the following concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin under this section:
1. ...
7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. ...",​

then that provision doesn't give anyone a cause of action to screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc., unless the teacher told the class that they should feel bad on account of their race, etc.

Reading this thread, it's as though a number of posters' eyes saw the context of the quoted clause and yet somehow their brains saw a completely different context.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.
The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,736
Location
Northwest
Gender
Who/Whom
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.
The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".

To conclude that you’d actually have to read the bill, which for some is hard to do.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,075
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Well, in the first place, Plessy v Ferguson is no longer in force. ...

As a black man, It makes me feel discomfort, guilt & anguish that I wasn't there to help stop the injustice.
:rofl: :notworthy:

And in the second place, you appear to be taking for granted that oppressing some implies privileging the rest. That's not how it works -- oppression is not a zero sum game. When a white mother was barred from having her mixed-race children ride in the same rail car with her, that law oppressed her too.

While it's true that the white mother was oppressed it is also true that she was not the intended target.
True; but that doesn't make Politesse's argument any better.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So, just to clarify, were you just making a general comment about what laws shouldn't be passed, or did you intend to imply that SB 148 'vaguely protects students from having to "feel bad about their religious background"'? If it was the latter, can you point out the provision that does this?
No, they do the same kind of vague bullshit, just with the race concept instead of the religious concept. Regardless of the target, the point is that censorship neither truly protects anyone from discrimination nor is conducive to any honest study of the hman condition. If something is untrue, demonstrate that it is untrue and scientific consensus (and therefore scientifically informed pedagogy) will gradually move away from it. This won't happen because Congress passes a law against talking about things that "distress" students, and the costs of such a paradigm therefore swiftly outweigh any benefits.

And, just to clarify, when you say 'any law censoring education', were you expressing your agreement with me that SB 148 would be a bad law because it unconstitutionally restricts free speech in private schools?
Schools, whether public or private, do not enjoy the Constitutional protections of free speech in the first place. I am accusing censorship of being bad social policy. Whether it is bad social policy that also violates the first amendment somehow is an interesting question but my argument doesn't rest on it. Again, I don't think legal inertia should be the determining basis of the curriculum in the first place. When legislators play at being scientists, what you get is politicized science and very little learning at all.

then that provision doesn't give anyone a cause of action to screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble if he feels bad on account of his race, etc., unless the teacher told the class that they should feel bad on account of their race, etc.
If the argument is that a teacher would win a court case on the basis that they never literally instructed anyone to feel anguish, that's likely true, but that doesn't make this good law. I also don't think it's a given that this would be the case in the biased context of a courtroom populated by people inherently prejudiced against the defendant, nor that holding such a case in the first place would be valid. If a teacher is causing measurable harm to the mental wellbeing of their students, no censorship laws are required to dismiss them from their post anyway, a school district already has the power to dismiss an employee if they are demonstrably harming their students. This law is about politics, not the protection of children. If it's actually about protecting children, it's redundant and far too extreme. Because "feeling shame" is not a good, neutral measure of whether someone is being harmed by an instructor in the first place.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,075
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
Your example is far from equivalent to what is going on here. Your complainer is lying.
Not necessarily -- plenty of Christian chauvinists would sincerely perceive a factual description of another religion unaccompanied by a disclaimer about Jesus warning us against false profits to be proselytizing for the other religion. And your complainer is also likely to be lying. When his parents explore suing because his feelings were hurt, their lawyer is going to ask him what the teacher said to make him feel bad, and then if what the teacher actually said isn't prohibited the lawyer will point that out, and then if the matter isn't dropped on the spot the kid will probably either make up something extra for the teacher to have said, or else be coached to do so.

This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
Quote the provision that allows that.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,589
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.
The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".
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.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,079
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
The other points aside, the bill does not protect anyone from teaching or being exposed to "factual history".

Your weasel word salad aside* ,
* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL

* that’s ALL it does. That it can’t be explicit doesn’t obscure its intent. What other purpose could it serve?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your weasel word salad aside* ,
* It's pointless
* It's harmful
* It's entirely for show
* It distracts from REAL problems
* It further incites right wing extremist ignoramuses to do stupid and harmful things, and perhaps most importantly,
* Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history,
NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL

* that’s ALL it does. That it can’t be explicit doesn’t obscure its intent. What other purpose could it serve?
It does not do what people claim it does. Repeating falsehoods about it doesn't make the falsehoods true.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,079
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
It does not do what people claim it does. Repeating falsehoods about it doesn't make the falsehoods true.

Yet you keep doing it, and in that trademark right wingnut manner.
b’bye
Guess I’ll see ya ‘round the quote fields.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,822
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
71 7. An individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or72 any other form of psychological distress on account of his or73 her race, color, sex, or national origin.
So some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels".
Some snot nosed snowflake right wing kid can already screw up the entire class and get the teacher in trouble for "feels" by falsely accusing the teacher of preaching Islam at him when all the teacher said was Muhammad started a religion that expanded out of Arabia and now has 1.8 billion followers. Do you think that's a reason we should make it legal for public school teachers to preach their own respective religions at the captive audiences the government supplies them with?
Your example is far from equivalent to what is going on here. Your complainer is lying.
Not necessarily -- plenty of Christian chauvinists would sincerely perceive a factual description of another religion unaccompanied by a disclaimer about Jesus warning us against false profits to be proselytizing for the other religion. And your complainer is also likely to be lying. When his parents explore suing because his feelings were hurt, their lawyer is going to ask him what the teacher said to make him feel bad, and then if what the teacher actually said isn't prohibited the lawyer will point that out, and then if the matter isn't dropped on the spot the kid will probably either make up something extra for the teacher to have said, or else be coached to do so.

This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
Quote the provision that allows that.
There is no provision in this law for court and punishment. That's in the law it's amending.
A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to individual freedom; amending s. 3 760.10,
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida: 37 38 Section 1. Present subsections (8), (9), and (10) of 39 section 760.10, Florida Statutes, are redesignated as 40 subsections (9), (10), and (11), respectively, and a new 41 subsection (8) and subsection (12) are added to that section, to 42 read:
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
35,727
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,079
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
I'm just going to be honest here: When I read the title of the thread, I was kind of hoping for pictures of actual blizzards, white outs, school cancelations, etc.
Just put this pic from the back deck in the lounge, but I'll leave a copy here just for you, snowflake :D
1643064547578.png
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I'm just going to be honest here: When I read the title of the thread, I was kind of hoping for pictures of actual blizzards, white outs, school cancelations, etc.
Just put this pic from the back deck in the lounge, but I'll leave a copy here just for you, snowflake :D
View attachment 36908
Thank you. It's lovely.

Here's a photo from my facebook timeline. The gentleman pictured is not anyone I know. Photo taken by and posted by a professional photographer. Taken on the northern shores of Minnesota, along Lake Superior.

wall of iceciles harmon photo jan 2022.jpg

Here's another one, same photographer: north shore harmon photo jan 2022.jpg
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,079
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Love the bottom one. Top one gives me the creeps... so dangerous. Looks like hundreds or thousands of pounds of ice spears directly above they guy... might be an illusion, but gives me the creeps.
(the shot off the deck is a few minutes ago... always changing)
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Love the bottom one. Top one gives me the creeps... so dangerous. Looks like hundreds or thousands of pounds of ice spears directly above they guy... might be an illusion, but gives me the creeps.
(the shot off the deck is a few minutes ago... always changing)
I did not realize that you were actually on a cruise. How cool! (Oh, I heard it after I typed it.) I forgot that you lived in the mountains. How beautiful. (When you wrote deck, I imagined the deck off of a ship)
 
Last edited:

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.
I've had some great teachers, and I've had some really bad teachers and most of my teachers were bang on average. I cannot imagine a teacher telling anyone that white students should feel inferior because they are white.

Note: I've hear teachers (really, the same teacher) say something very similar about girls/women being inferior to men or at least that they should behave as though they were inferior and opine in some depth about the importance of a woman to marry a man who is smarter than she is. I've had teachers say some things that were....racially insensitive in class. Actually, directly to me, about another child who was black, in first grade when I attended a school with a small minority of black students. I've had teachers discuss The Bell Curve and its implications about race, albeit very quietly. Certainly it was extremely common for girls to be told, very openly, that they were not well suited towards mathematics or science, or shop or mechanics or any stereotypically male field back when I was in school. Fun times.

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white. I actually agree: No student should be made to feel bad about his or her race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation or any other characteristic that is inborn and not a choice. Any non-malignant teacher would not do this to any student.

The fact that there is a history in the US of some teachers being abusive to students because of their race, religion, gender, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation, often with the blessing of the local school board and even state board of education and legislators. Of course, those being abused were not white and generally not male, so it was ok.

I do understand why some would fear that there might be a racial comeuppance if the actual facts of the US history of slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, and the treatment of Asian Americans, Jews and other people considered 'not white' were openly discussed. Honestly, if one reads what some very famous, very revered men wrote about Africans, it would be very hard to continue to revere them or hold them in such high esteem as they generally enjoy.

But I've seen no evidence that there is any such intention or any likelihood that white students would be taught that they were inferior. Being taught that you are equal when society is built around the assumption that you are, in fact, superior, is not the same thing as being taught that you are inferior. Being explicitly taught what white people did to people who were not white is not the same thing as telling you that white people are or were bad. Any decent teacher would be able to teach facts, and also discuss what led to (some) people in the Americas believing so strongly that people whose ancestry was not European were justifiably treated as inferior and in some cases, sub-human.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.
I've had some great teachers, and I've had some really bad teachers and most of my teachers were bang on average. I cannot imagine a teacher telling anyone that white students should feel inferior because they are white.

Note: I've hear teachers (really, the same teacher) say something very similar about girls/women being inferior to men or at least that they should behave as though they were inferior and opine in some depth about the importance of a woman to marry a man who is smarter than she is. I've had teachers say some things that were....racially insensitive in class. Actually, directly to me, about another child who was black, in first grade when I attended a school with a small minority of black students. I've had teachers discuss The Bell Curve and its implications about race, albeit very quietly. Certainly it was extremely common for girls to be told, very openly, that they were not well suited towards mathematics or science, or shop or mechanics or any stereotypically male field back when I was in school. Fun times.

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white. I actually agree: No student should be made to feel bad about his or her race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation or any other characteristic that is inborn and not a choice. Any non-malignant teacher would not do this to any student.

The fact that there is a history in the US of some teachers being abusive to students because of their race, religion, gender, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation, often with the blessing of the local school board and even state board of education and legislators. Of course, those being abused were not white and generally not male, so it was ok.

I do understand why some would fear that there might be a racial comeuppance if the actual facts of the US history of slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, and the treatment of Asian Americans, Jews and other people considered 'not white' were openly discussed. Honestly, if one reads what some very famous, very revered men wrote about Africans, it would be very hard to continue to revere them or hold them in such high esteem as they generally enjoy.

But I've seen no evidence that there is any such intention or any likelihood that white students would be taught that they were inferior. Being taught that you are equal when society is built around the assumption that you are, in fact, superior, is not the same thing as being taught that you are inferior. Being explicitly taught what white people did to people who were not white is not the same thing as telling you that white people are or were bad. Any decent teacher would be able to teach facts, and also discuss what led to (some) people in the Americas believing so strongly that people whose ancestry was not European were justifiably treated as inferior and in some cases, sub-human.
You get the feeling that conservatives do not understand the difference between "being inferior" and "having unfair privilege", however. There's a reason these bills focus so much on feelings and emotions; it's easy to prove that someone did not say that Whites are an inferior race. It's much harder to prove that they didn't "make a child feel inferior for being White".
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You get the feeling that conservatives do not understand the difference between "being inferior" and "having unfair privilege", however. There's a reason these bills focus so much on feelings and emotions; it's easy to prove that someone did not say that Whites are an inferior race. It's much harder to prove that they didn't "make a child feel inferior for being White".
I know the difference between someone telling me that 'some white people in America owned slaves' and 'you should feel guilty about the actions of white people because you are white'.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
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?
The bill does not forbid white people being uncomfortable, nor does it say a teacher must tell them that they should not feel guilt. It forbids a teacher telling white people they should feel inferior because they are white.
I've had some great teachers, and I've had some really bad teachers and most of my teachers were bang on average. I cannot imagine a teacher telling anyone that white students should feel inferior because they are white.

Note: I've hear teachers (really, the same teacher) say something very similar about girls/women being inferior to men or at least that they should behave as though they were inferior and opine in some depth about the importance of a woman to marry a man who is smarter than she is. I've had teachers say some things that were....racially insensitive in class. Actually, directly to me, about another child who was black, in first grade when I attended a school with a small minority of black students. I've had teachers discuss The Bell Curve and its implications about race, albeit very quietly. Certainly it was extremely common for girls to be told, very openly, that they were not well suited towards mathematics or science, or shop or mechanics or any stereotypically male field back when I was in school. Fun times.

I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.

At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white. I actually agree: No student should be made to feel bad about his or her race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation or any other characteristic that is inborn and not a choice. Any non-malignant teacher would not do this to any student.

The fact that there is a history in the US of some teachers being abusive to students because of their race, religion, gender, sex, ethnicity and sexual orientation, often with the blessing of the local school board and even state board of education and legislators. Of course, those being abused were not white and generally not male, so it was ok.

I do understand why some would fear that there might be a racial comeuppance if the actual facts of the US history of slavery, treatment of indigenous peoples, and the treatment of Asian Americans, Jews and other people considered 'not white' were openly discussed. Honestly, if one reads what some very famous, very revered men wrote about Africans, it would be very hard to continue to revere them or hold them in such high esteem as they generally enjoy.

But I've seen no evidence that there is any such intention or any likelihood that white students would be taught that they were inferior. Being taught that you are equal when society is built around the assumption that you are, in fact, superior, is not the same thing as being taught that you are inferior. Being explicitly taught what white people did to people who were not white is not the same thing as telling you that white people are or were bad. Any decent teacher would be able to teach facts, and also discuss what led to (some) people in the Americas believing so strongly that people whose ancestry was not European were justifiably treated as inferior and in some cases, sub-human.
You get the feeling that conservatives do not understand the difference between "being inferior" and "having unfair privilege", however. There's a reason these bills focus so much on feelings and emotions; it's easy to prove that someone did not say that Whites are an inferior race. It's much harder to prove that they didn't "make a child feel inferior for being White".
Oh, I think they DO understand the difference—and very much want to preserve the status quo, which just happens to give them some unfair advantage. I’m sure they disagree that their advantages are unfair or undeserved.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:


For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.

 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,589
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,589
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,060
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias the businesses of unrepublican persons to look for brothels?
There we go.


Edit: I tend to think that it is always necessary to say the quiet part out loud, loudly, in a way so as to clearly ridicule it. If I had an "I'm ridiculing that" light I would flash it whenever I say such quiet parts out loud. I'm such a "mind reader".

Like we didn't already have a committee on unamerican activities lead us on a witch hunt already.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

I agree that it shouldn't even be a law in the first place. Regrettably, neither you nor I am the only people living in America. It seems some Americans believe CRT is a clear and present danger to the American way of life and their proof is equivalent to the scrawlings on Glenn Beck's whiteboard. There is fuck all you or I can do to change their minds & they have the same power to influence our laws as we do. So if they are going to move forward with this mucus dangling from the ceiling law it had better be written in a way that represents all American's and not some Americans.

Sometimes the better tactic is to concede & help write captain obvious-styled legislation than outright reject and let idiots write it how they want knowing damn well that the Governor has a track record of signing bills that target specific groups. It's like Politicians have no issue putting work into swindling voters but won't use the same skills to swindle other politicians.

News title should read: Florida Democrats agree to Desantis' Anti CRT bill and suggested improving its protections to include all American's with the following amendment.


"An individual should not be made to do anything nor be held responsible for anything on account of his or her race."

Not only would that law make them "feel better" it will also not create gray areas that may prevent people from talking about critical moments in American History.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?
If it is restricted to "urban" pizzerias, I bet the majority of Republicans would already support the measure.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?

I agree that it shouldn't even be a law in the first place. Regrettably, neither you nor I am the only people living in America. It seems some Americans believe CRT is a clear and present danger to the American way of life and their proof is equivalent to the scrawlings on Glenn Beck's whiteboard. There is fuck all you or I can do to change their minds & they have the same power to influence our laws as we do. So if they are going to move forward with this mucus dangling from the ceiling law it had better be written in a way that represents all American's and not some Americans.

Sometimes the better tactic is to concede & help write captain obvious-styled legislation than outright reject and let idiots write it how they want knowing damn well that the Governor has a track record of signing bills that target specific groups. It's like Politicians have no issue putting work into swindling voters but won't use the same skills to swindle other politicians.

News title should read: Florida Democrats agree to Desantis' Anti CRT bill and suggested improving its protections to include all American's with the following amendment.


"An individual should not be made to do anything nor be held responsible for anything on account of his or her race."

Not only would that law make them "feel better" it will also not create gray areas that may prevent people from talking about critical moments in American History.
This can be a good strategy, but it is also perilous in its own way; laws can be amended easier than they can be abolished in most state legislatures, and you see a pattern in partisan politics where a compromise is reached, a law is passed... and a five or six year process of whittling down the law to trim away its most "controversial" (to the dominant party) clauses will begin.
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2001
Messages
3,400
Location
Silicon Valley, CA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?
Why does the anti gay marraige stance continue to be framed a "right wing" issue? You are rewriting history. It was a stance many Democrats had taken, including both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during their campaigns in 2008. It wasn't until the 2012 election year came near that BO declared his "views were evolving" on the issue. You will probably say he didn't really believe what he said, but what does it tell you about his Democrat base that he felt he had to lie about supporting gay marraige?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,589
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
The law would be better having never been considered in the first place. A bunch of white people have been whipped up into a frenzy against "CRT" and "white shaming", two things that have no venue in schools.

The goal is to make people angry and want to vote. CRT seems to be the new Gay Marriage Ban. The right-wing has done so little for the public, they again need to create fear of something in order to mobilize their voters. Between 2002 and 2006ish, it was gay marriage. Now it is CRT and white shaming.

How long until mandatory inspections of pizzerias to look for brothels?
Why does the anti gay marraige stance continue to be framed a "right wing" issue?
Really? Are you going to seriously play dumb on this one?
You are rewriting history. It was a stance many Democrats had taken, including both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during their campaigns in 2008. It wasn't until the 2012 election year came near that BO declared his "views were evolving" on the issue.
His view on "gay marriage" evolved zero. He said he was against it in 2008 to have a certain group of people vote for him. President Obama did nothing to inhibit gay marriage rights. Lots of Republicans did otherwise in the '00's.
You will probably say he didn't really believe what he said, but what does it tell you about his Democrat base that he felt he had to lie about supporting gay marraige?
It's politics, it is ALWAYS politics. Also a reminder that Obama wasn't a crazy far left-winger, and he'd compromise what he believed in to get elected.

But this is a distraction from the reality that same sex marriage ban Constitutional Amendments were used to turn out conservative voters.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
This can be a good strategy, but it is also perilous in its own way; laws can be amended easier than they can be abolished in most state legislatures, and you see a pattern in partisan politics where a compromise is reached, a law is passed... and a five or six year process of whittling down the law to trim away its most "controversial" (to the dominant party) clauses will begin.

Thus it's not a strategy It's a reality. Our leaders need to grow up and learn to fucking talk to each other since the average citizen won't do that with those they disagree with. Their job is to listen to each other and find common ground that works best for all parties. Then turn around and explain the concessions to their voters and get feedback to do it all again until we get to a place that an ineffective number of people wouldn't be able to change.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,146
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Their job is to listen to each other and find common ground that works best for all parties.
I appreciate your optimism, but very few sitting politicians have any self-interest in doing as you describe. In fact, it would be more likely to hurt their political careers than help them, to be seen as "consorting with the enemy" in this fashion. I agree that this is a childish and selfish attitude, but it seems unlikely to change in the near future. I don't think the common citizenry is actually as radical as all that, but the problem of our times is that radicals are controlling the outcome of votes in a predictable way. And it fills the legislatures with self-interested, wealthy do-nothings whose ideologies are a mask they put on in the morning.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds.
The bill does not say that.
The bill says making people's touchy feelies feel guilt, anguish, or responsible for acts on account of his/her race is out of bounds without being specific about what would cause the feeling of guilt, anguish or responsibility nor does it provide any specific acts. As such the word anything in the context in which Jimmy used it is fairly accurate.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds.
The bill does not say that.
The bill says making people's touchy feelies feel guilt, anguish, or responsible for acts on account of his/her race is out of bounds without being specific about what would cause the feeling of guilt, anguish or responsibility nor does it provide any specific acts. As such the word anything in the context in which Jimmy used it is fairly accurate.
The bill does not say that. I've already said why the bill does not say that more than once. The bill does not say it and I can't understand why people persist with the falsehood that it does.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
(f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

I'm still confused about this. Aren't those all natural reactions when learning about history involving human suffering? I feel all those ways about war crimes, conquests, the holocaust (the Jewish and the Trans Atlantic one), mass rape, genocide, and the list goes on. I think this law only protects people who don't care about all (or some) of that shit while appearing to violate the first amendment (if not come very close to it).

Edit: I think the law would be better written stating that no one should be made to do anything or be held responsible, not no one should be made to "feel".
Feeling discomfort and distress is natural when learning about human suffering.

Feeling discomfort or distress on account of your race, when leaning about human suffering, is taught.

But I agree that nobody should be taught to feel responsible, rather than in terms of what they 'feel' regardless of what was taught.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

Your meter is off tilt.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

Your meter is off tilt.
You...do not appear to understand basic reasoning.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,905
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Feeling discomfort or distress on account of your race, when leaning about human suffering, is taught.

Too bad the law isn't written that way. Hows about they actually write "no one should teach anyone to feel discomfort or distress on the account of their race". As written teaching is not a requirement to make someone feel distressed on account of their race because teaching is not mentioned at all.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,637
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
I've never heard any teacher, at any level, every suggest that white people were in any way inferior to people of any races, nor have I heard of any teacher doing such a thing.
They exist and they're on TikTok.
At least some legislation specifically forbids teaching of subject matter that might make white students feel bad about being white.
What legislation are you talking about?
Why do you believe that anyone on TikTok is who they claim to be? I mean, I could go on Tok Tok and claim to have all sorts of credentials I don’t have and could even sound credible if I stuck to something I know something about.

Here’s a link that describes legislation in Florida that forbids tracing anything that makes white students feel discomfort:

It doesn't do that. If you think it does that, quote the parts where you think it does that.

For reference, The Hill is generally considered to be a politically center news source. I personally find it a little right if center but that’s probably because I tend to be a little left of center.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken me for somebody who doesn't trust their own ability to discern bullshit from non-bullshit, or somebody who is so incoherent he trusts the rating of one website he has no reason to trust over another website he has no reason to trust.

Your meter is off tilt.
You...do not appear to understand basic reasoning.
lol
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,060
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).

The only reason to be uncomfortable with it is if there is something you like about what was done, because only liking it (or thinking there are positive aspects to such evil not accessible through not-evil) will generate the internal conflict that is "discomfort"
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom