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

[Metaphor]

First we have the usual suspects touting outright falsehoods - the USDA program excludes white farmers.

It does. In the link I posted multiple times:

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.-

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.

I read my own link. I did not claim that link said it was unconstitutional. That was a separate claim.

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,

The program excluded white farmers by race. I did not claim you supported it because you have made false statements about it. I think you support it because of what I know about you.

Makes one wonder why makes such posters so desperate to defend their beliefs that they have to resort to such dishonest or stupid claims.

You made the false claims, not me. And you are doubling down on the false claims.

 

[Metaphor]

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.

USDA will ‘forcefully defend’ debt relief for farmers of color after judge's order

The payments are aimed at chipping away at more than a century of unequal and discriminatory treatment under USDA programs.

www.politico.com

Why are you denying this?

Insight: Biden farm debt relief plan to exclude thousands of minority farmers

The latest version of the Biden administration’s plan to forgive billions of dollars in farm debt - initially targeted at farmers of color - will exclude thousands of its originally intended recipients because of a change in loan eligibility, according to government data reviewed by Reuters.

www.reuters.com

Toni, please explain to me what on earth your link has to do with the falsity of your claim that white farmers were not excluded from the $5bn USDA program?

 

[Metaphor]

The plan was only for farmers of colour. It beggars belief the amount of denial this simple fact is getting.

Insight: Biden farm debt relief plan to exclude thousands of minority farmers

The latest version of the Biden administration’s plan to forgive billions of dollars in farm debt - initially targeted at farmers of color - will exclude thousands of its originally intended recipients because of a change in loan eligibility, according to government data reviewed by Reuters.

www.reuters.com

I am posting the same link Toni posted. Though unlike Toni, I have read the link.

The administration first attempted to forgive $4 billion in debt for farmers of color through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in April. read more

The USDA sent letters to 14,120 farmers of color between May and September, promising $2.4 billion in debt relief, according to data from USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) obtained by Reuters through a Freedom of Information request.

But white farmers blocked the program in court, arguing its racial criteria made it unconstitutional. read more

The new program, included in the Build Back Better Act (BBBA) now being hashed out in the Senate, would make farmers eligible for debt relief according to their economic insecurity rather than race.

 

[Toni]

The plan was only for farmers of colour. It beggars belief the amount of denial this simple fact is getting.

Insight: Biden farm debt relief plan to exclude thousands of minority farmers

The latest version of the Biden administration’s plan to forgive billions of dollars in farm debt - initially targeted at farmers of color - will exclude thousands of its originally intended recipients because of a change in loan eligibility, according to government data reviewed by Reuters.

www.reuters.com

I am posting the same link Toni posted. Though unlike Toni, I have read the link.

The administration first attempted to forgive $4 billion in debt for farmers of color through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) in April. read more

The USDA sent letters to 14,120 farmers of color between May and September, promising $2.4 billion in debt relief, according to data from USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) obtained by Reuters through a Freedom of Information request.

But white farmers blocked the program in court, arguing its racial criteria made it unconstitutional. read more

The new program, included in the Build Back Better Act (BBBA) now being hashed out in the Senate, would make farmers eligible for debt relief according to their economic insecurity rather than race.

I did read the link. The program was an attempt to target loan forgiveness towards farmers of color who most need the loan forgiveness. But if you really read my link, you would find that such provisions have been stripped. Farmers if color are no longer targeted for loan relief and are back to nearly the same unequal footing they’ve found themselves struggling under for generations.

The program you complained about simply no longer exists.

If you missed it, try reading the last sentence of your quote out loud.

 

[Metaphor]

I did read the link. The program was an attempt to target loan forgiveness towards farmers of color who most need the loan forgiveness. But if you really read my link, you would find that such provisions have been stripped. Farmers if color are no longer targeted for loan relief and are back to nearly the same unequal footing they’ve found themselves struggling under for generations.

The program you complained about simply no longer exists.

If you missed it, try reading the last sentence of your quote out loud.

Yes, the program never delivered on its racist promises. The program existed and intended to discriminate against white farmers until it was stopped in court. The USDA fought it all the way because the USDA wanted to discriminate against white farmers.

I am glad the program was stopped, because it was racist, and I don't think the government should engage in systemic racism.

 

[Toni]

Reply

I did read the link. The program was an attempt to target loan forgiveness towards farmers of color who most need the loan forgiveness. But if you really read my link, you would find that such provisions have been stripped. Farmers if color are no longer targeted for loan relief and are back to nearly the same unequal footing they’ve found themselves struggling under for generations.

The program you complained about simply no longer exists.

If you missed it, try reading the last sentence of your quote out loud.

Yes, the program never delivered on its racist promises. The program existed and intended to discriminate against white farmers until it was stopped in court. The USDA fought it all the way because the USDA wanted to discriminate against white farmers.

I am glad the program was stopped, because it was racist, and I don't think the government should engage in systemic racism.

The program was intended to give relief to farmers who had faced many many years of discrimination, often at the hands of the USDA because they are not white.

I can see why you would oppose relief to those who suffered and continue to suffer from racism. No one deserves any kind of compensation for being targeted by laws that specifically favor white people instead of all people. That last sentence was sarcasm on my part but I know that there are plenty of people who agree with the statement as truth and not sarcasm.

Also, you are very very quick to claim that posters are writing falsehoods but you aren't very careful about your tenses in your own posts.

 

[TomC]

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.

Totally this.
In the internet age, you can't really restrict news and literature by age. If a kid has a device, he's got access. What's crucial is providing guidance and context. You can't do that while pretending that the material is off limits.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

First we have the usual suspects touting outright falsehoods - the USDA program excludes white farmers.

It does. In the link I posted multiple times:

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.-

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.

I read my own link. I did not claim that link said it was unconstitutional. That was a separate claim.

You most certainly did claim it was struck down as unconstitutional and gave the link as evidence.

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,

The program excluded white farmers by race.

It did not. White farmers could apply. Repeating your falsehood does not make it any truer.

Look, if you want to claim that the program made it harder for white farmers to get debt relief and that is racist, that has a basis in reality.

When you have to buttress a position with a falsehood, it makes that position look rather silly.

I did not claim you supported it because you have made false statements about it. I think you support it because of what I know about you.

As usual, your confidence in your knowledge is unfounded.

Makes one wonder why makes such posters so desperate to defend their beliefs that they have to resort to such dishonest or stupid claims.

You made the false claims, not me. And you are doubling down on the false claims.

Sure Jan. Did you get your irony meter from Bomb #20 because that broke every other kind in the universe.

 

[Toni]

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.

Totally this.
In the internet age, you can't really restrict news and literature by age. If a kid has a device, he's got access. What's crucial is providing guidance and context. You can't do that while pretending that the material is off limits.
Tom

You couldn't really do that before the digital age, either. I definitely read stuff that my parents would have been upset if they knew I was reading that content, or at least if they knew or remembered certain scenes. Of course there was that time one of my kids was over at his friend's house (unsupervised which was totally against the rules) and his friend knew about one of those telephone porn lines.

Parents can and do restrict their kids access to screens or to certain sites. It's possible to get around such parental controls, of course, It's always been possible to get around restrictions pre-digital age and now, when kids are often more sophisticated about the digital world than their parents.

 

[Elixir]

Why argue about the nuances and vagaries of the bill?
It is intentionally vague, and is intended only to expand the swampy territory of teaching unpleasant facts to innocent children. As long as it scares the shit out of teachers so they don’t let the kiddies know what heinous things their grandparents did, the bill is a success.

 

[Metaphor]

The program was intended to give relief to farmers who had faced many many years of discrimination, often at the hands of the USDA because they are not white.

I can see why you would oppose relief to those who suffered and continue to suffer from racism. No one deserves any kind of compensation for being targeted by laws that specifically favor white people instead of all people. That last sentence was sarcasm on my part but I know that there are plenty of people who agree with the statement as truth and not sarcasm.

Also, you are very very quick to claim that posters are writing falsehoods but you aren't very careful about your tenses in your own posts.

Your tense pedantry was a deliberate device to convey a falsehood. You knew exactly what program I was talking about.

The program did not and had no mechanism to give relief to farmers who were discriminated against. No investigation into discrimination was built in to the program. Past victims of discrimination were not contacted. The program was aimed solely at non-white farmers in debt, and because of its naked racist intent, it was struck down.

 

[Metaphor]

It did not. White farmers could apply. Repeating your falsehood does not make it any truer.

This is a falsehood. White farmers were not eligible for debt relief in the program. I don't know what you mean by 'white farmers could apply'. If you mean, they could apply and be rejected because they were white?

The Act defined who was eligible for debt relief, and I listed those ethnicities earlier.

Look, if you want to claim that the program made it harder for white farmers to get debt relief and that is racist, that has a basis in reality.

White farmers could not get debt relief under that specific program. Not 'harder'. Ineligible.

But yes, even if it made it harder that is also racist. It intended to treat farmers differently by race.

When you have to buttress a position with a falsehood, it makes that position look rather silly.

I did not claim you supported it because you have made false statements about it. I think you support it because of what I know about you.

As usual, your confidence in your knowledge is unfounded.

If you did not and do not support the act, I'm pleasantly surprised.

Makes one wonder why makes such posters so desperate to defend their beliefs that they have to resort to such dishonest or stupid claims. Click to expand... You made the false claims, not me. And you are doubling down on the false claims.

Sure Jan. Did you get your irony meter from Bomb #20 because that broke every other kind in the universe.

You made false claims and now you are tripling down. The text of the act defines who was eligible under it. White farmers were excluded.

 

[ZiprHead]

The text of the act defines who was eligible under it. White farmers were excluded.

Can you provide a link to the text of the act? Thanks.

 

[Toni]

The program was intended to give relief to farmers who had faced many many years of discrimination, often at the hands of the USDA because they are not white.

I can see why you would oppose relief to those who suffered and continue to suffer from racism. No one deserves any kind of compensation for being targeted by laws that specifically favor white people instead of all people. That last sentence was sarcasm on my part but I know that there are plenty of people who agree with the statement as truth and not sarcasm.

Also, you are very very quick to claim that posters are writing falsehoods but you aren't very careful about your tenses in your own posts.

Your tense pedantry was a deliberate device to convey a falsehood. You knew exactly what program I was talking about.

The program did not and had no mechanism to give relief to farmers who were discriminated against. No investigation into discrimination was built in to the program. Past victims of discrimination were not contacted. The program was aimed solely at non-white farmers in debt, and because of its naked racist intent, it was struck down.

I did know what program you were talking about and I knew you were wrong about the program which has undergone changes before it was ever implemented—something that you steadfastly refused to acknowledge, perhaps because you genuinely did not know—not unsurprising given your favorite news sources, or perhaps because it didn’t fit your narrative of outrage.

The rest of your post is drivel.

 

[Metaphor]

The text of the act defines who was eligible under it. White farmers were excluded.

Can you provide a link to the text of the act? Thanks.

Not the act text itself, but this is the USDA FAQ on the program:

FAQs on American Rescue Plan Debt Relief for Socially Disadvantaged Borrowers

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and...

www.usda.gov

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and Guaranteed Farm Loans and Farm Storage Facility Loans (FSFL).

If you are a Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, with one of the loans listed above, you are eligible for the loan payment. FSA is working hard to ensure that we provide this relief as expeditiously as possible to those who qualify.

 

[Metaphor]

The program was intended to give relief to farmers who had faced many many years of discrimination, often at the hands of the USDA because they are not white.

I can see why you would oppose relief to those who suffered and continue to suffer from racism. No one deserves any kind of compensation for being targeted by laws that specifically favor white people instead of all people. That last sentence was sarcasm on my part but I know that there are plenty of people who agree with the statement as truth and not sarcasm.

Also, you are very very quick to claim that posters are writing falsehoods but you aren't very careful about your tenses in your own posts.

Your tense pedantry was a deliberate device to convey a falsehood. You knew exactly what program I was talking about.

The program did not and had no mechanism to give relief to farmers who were discriminated against. No investigation into discrimination was built in to the program. Past victims of discrimination were not contacted. The program was aimed solely at non-white farmers in debt, and because of its naked racist intent, it was struck down.

I did know what program you were talking about and I knew you were wrong about the prigram which has undergone changes before it was ever implemented—

The program underwent changes because it was legally challenged, not because the powers that be decided it was wrong to discriminate by race.

something that you steadfastly refused to acknowledge, perhaps because you genuinely did not know—not unsurprising given your favorite news sources, or perhaps because it didn’t fit your narrative of outrage.

Of course I knew about the fate of it. It was changed because it discriminated by race, and not voluntarily by a newly enlightened USDA. No, the USDA fought the legal action so that it could continue to discriminate openly and systemically and explicitly by race.

The rest of your post is drivel.

Sure, Jan.

 

[ZiprHead]

The text of the act defines who was eligible under it. White farmers were excluded.

Can you provide a link to the text of the act? Thanks.

Not the act text itself, but this is the USDA FAQ on the program:

FAQs on American Rescue Plan Debt Relief for Socially Disadvantaged Borrowers

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and...

www.usda.gov

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and Guaranteed Farm Loans and Farm Storage Facility Loans (FSFL).

If you are a Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, with one of the loans listed above, you are eligible for the loan payment. FSA is working hard to ensure that we provide this relief as expeditiously as possible to those who qualify.

If you look at the FAQ:

Eligible Producers​

Question 1: Would you further explain the meaning of the "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher" designation? What are the criteria for meeting such a designation?

• The term “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” means a farmer or rancher who is member of a socially disadvantaged group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities, as defined by section 2501(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)).

So for loan forgiveness not only do they need to be a member of the group but to also have experienced raciarl or ethnic prejudice in the past.

 

[Metaphor]

The text of the act defines who was eligible under it. White farmers were excluded.

Can you provide a link to the text of the act? Thanks.

Not the act text itself, but this is the USDA FAQ on the program:

FAQs on American Rescue Plan Debt Relief for Socially Disadvantaged Borrowers

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and...

www.usda.gov

Earlier this week, we posted important information about the American Rescue Plan debt relief payments for socially disadvantaged producers. The American Rescue Plan includes provisions for USDA to pay up to 120% of loan balances, as of January 1, 2021, for Farm Service Agency (FSA) Direct and Guaranteed Farm Loans and Farm Storage Facility Loans (FSFL).

If you are a Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, with one of the loans listed above, you are eligible for the loan payment. FSA is working hard to ensure that we provide this relief as expeditiously as possible to those who qualify.

If you look at the FAQ:

Eligible Producers​

Question 1: Would you further explain the meaning of the "socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher" designation? What are the criteria for meeting such a designation?

• The term “socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher” means a farmer or rancher who is member of a socially disadvantaged group whose members have been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members of a group without regard to their individual qualities, as defined by section 2501(a) of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 2279(a)).

So for loan forgiveness not only do they need to be a member of the group but to also have experienced raciarl or ethnic prejudice in the past.

No. 'subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice because of their identity as members...' is a description of the category 'socially disadvantaged group'. If you are one of the ethnicities described, you qualify by definition.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

First thing, let's not pretend that SB 148 is a response to something that happened outside of some white people's feelings. There is absolutely no proof that CRT was/is being used in Florida Public Schools or Private businesses. So yes, its purpose is to protect some white people from their own feelings.

Just as a for-example, SB 148 prohibits subjecting any individual, as a condition of passing an examination, to training that espouses, promotes, advances, or inculcates that an individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. I.e., teachers aren't allowed to tell their classes affirmative action is a good thing. Are you seriously claiming that no Florida teacher ever told his class affirmative action is a good thing?

Consider this, what is in SB 148 that is not already being covered under the civil rights act (which also protects everyone)?

Most of it, as far as I can see. What do you see in it that was already covered under existing civil rights acts, and which civil rights acts do you have in mind?

If schools or corporations were actually doing any of the stuff SB 148 suggests then the Governor has failed to implement the law.

It sounds like you're conflating deeds that were already illegal, with espousing the deeds, which wasn't. For instance, it was already illegal for an employer to refuse to hire Chinese people. SB 148 makes it also illegal for an employer to require his employees to listen to his rants about what a bad idea hiring Chinese people is.

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

BTw - I'm not ignoring your question I just don't know what you mean by lines 44-78.

Sorry, I forgot how long ago it was that somebody linked to the law. Here it is again.

But the whole thing is legally discriminatory if you consider that everything it aims to legislate as unlawful is either already covered by the Civil Rights Act or only white people who are afraid of the CRT boogie man that doesn't exist in our schools or corporations are offered protection from said boogieman.

Well, in the first place, it bans teachers from blaming Japanese students for Pearl Harbor the same as it bans teachers from blaming white students for Jim Crow. And in the second place, legislators being motivated by having a particular group in mind doesn't make a law legally discriminatory as long as they write the law to cover everybody. For instance, when racial preferences were overturned in Texas colleges, the legislature reacted by passing a law that gave automatic admission to students in the top 10% of their high school classes. The entire point was to work around the ruling and get more black and Hispanic students admitted to top Texas colleges, but that didn't make it illegal.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

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

View attachment 37071

Are you seriously suggesting that the existence of a second meme accusing leftists' invective targets of being Nazis qualifies as evidence that the first meme's invective targets really are Nazis?