• 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

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Nah, it's more likely they fear the American Government is listening to the bible when it said "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". Their ancestors made the bed and God is known for making subsequent generations sleep in it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,608
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This is one of the most powerful, straightforward, and prescient observations on the topic that I have ever seen.
Agree 100%. It is Word.
In fact it’s so on-point that I expect no response to it from the subjects referenced.
Which is why I think that your image:
View attachment 36950
Needs to be brought up again and again, so that they are least can't claim later they didn't see it, even if they can play idiot and pretend they didn't understand it.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,194
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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.

Except if it makes them uncomfortable they can claim the teacher is teaching they should be uncomfortable.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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.

Except if it makes them uncomfortable they can claim the teacher is teaching they should be uncomfortable.

They don't have to mention the word teaching because the law as it is written doesn't mention the word teaching.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,194
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?
People should feel uncomfortable about what happened. They just shouldn't be forced to feel guilty for the acts by others, and almost no teacher in the country has done that. Slavery, Trail of Tears, nuclear experiments on humans, our country has done some shady stuff, and we need to learn from that. The South (and Southern wannabes) just have this issue with truth, especially when it isn't convenient for them.

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

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

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,194
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
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?

Because it is a right wing issue:


Actually contains a surprise--55% of Republicans now support gay marriage.

(And look at the third chart--looks like much of the shift is demographic rather than political.)
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Gay marriage has entered the chat. From what I can see in the queue from here, Hitler is not in the line. Awe crap he's already here!
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,669
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Yes it does. It explicitly does, by saying anything that is deemed offensive or shameful is out of bounds. They don't create limits, they created a dubious and undefined standard that isn't black and white and can be easily used to take a school to court... something schools don't have money to do... to determine if whatever was taught was out of bounds. It is a form of legalized judicial harassment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,645
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
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?

Because it is a right wing issue:


Actually contains a surprise--55% of Republicans now support gay marriage.

(And look at the third chart--looks like much of the shift is demographic rather than political.)
Well I sure as hell haven't forgotten that all the "centrists" opposed my basic civil rights - marriage, employment, access to healthcare -until it became socially unpopular to do so. But if I point it out I'm a "radical progressive", so... there really are more than just two Americas, I suppose.

THAT SAID, sympathy and action are different things. Waffley though they may havew been on the issue, neither Clinton nor Obama proposed any legislation actively promoting the persecution of gay couples; that is, was, and continues to be a project of the political right-wing. That's no secret, neither.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
39,172
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.

The problem is simply teaching the truth can cause students to be uncomfortable because "my people" did that. I see this as being used to prohibit teaching the uncomfortable bits of history.
Part of me feels like that, but the other part makes me think this is nothing but an electoral ploy. We have an Aussie posting about the dangers of CRT in American schools, when CRT isn't remotely touched on in schools. It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
 

Gun Nut

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Messages
2,899
Location
Colorado
Basic Beliefs
None
The proposed legislation appears to prohibit religious instruction.

...providing that 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 specified concepts constitutes discrimination based on race, color, sex, or national origin...

Goodbye parochial schools and Bible Camp?
Doesn't look that way. I had to Google the whole law that this bill is an amendment to; it contains a subsection 9 (which this bill will renumber to subsection 10), that says:

(9) This section shall not apply to any religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which conditions opportunities in the area of employment or public accommodation to members of that religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society or to persons who subscribe to its tenets or beliefs.​
Wait... so what entity would such training apply to, if not "Education institutions.... providing public accomodation to members of that.... educational institution...
So, "Students" are excluded as subjects of "teaching"... "employees" are excluded as subjects of "employers".... Makes no sense.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
9,645
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,867
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
It's worse than that. They include trans stuff and Social Emotional Learning in what they label as "critical race theory." Giant scare tactic.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,608
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It is a danger that only the GOP can save us from.
Because they invented it.

(Not actual Critical Race Theory of course, but what they describe as "CRT" bears no relation to that concept aside from the very general topical similarity of being about race somehow).
It's worse than that. They include trans stuff and Social Emotional Learning in what they label as "critical race theory." Giant scare tactic.
Jesus fuck, they really are straight up evil. They want to attack teaching fucking EMPATHY?!?
 

prideandfall

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
2,118
Location
a drawer of inappropriate starches
Basic Beliefs
highly anti-religious agnostic
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?
there is no rewriting going on, you're just making the incredibly common mistake of wrongly assuming that Democrats are left wing.

Democrats are center-right as a party, and have been for at least the last 50 or 60 years. they are only "left" in contrast to the batshit fascist regressive theocratic oligarchy the Republican party has turned into over the same period.

Democrats will generally always opt for preservation of the status quo in all things, be they social/cultural or political/economic, with any sort of change to the law or the way of doing things only coming slowly and somewhat begrudgingly and only when insurmountable pressure to do so is coming out of the cultural zeitgeist.

so, anti-gay marriage IS in fact a right wing issue, your confusion is in thinking that Democrats aren't right wing when it fact they are*.
(*a rather insignificant number of Democrats have started espousing some vaguely left wing progressive ideals in the last 5-10 years but they are literally only a handful of people out of the entire apparatus of the federal government)
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,961
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.

Thousands of people are spamming the tip line set up by Virginia's new Republican governor to report public-school teachers over critical race theory, TikTok activists told Insider.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who assumed office earlier this month, announced an email address that parents could message to report teachers whom they believed were "behaving objectionably."

The move has prompted widespread criticism, including from the singer John Legend. James Fedderman, president of the Virginia Education Association teachers union, told Insider he believed the tip line was "designed to intimidate educators simply trying to do their jobs."

Now Gen Z is also mobilizing.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.
Can you point out any provision that creates such a gray area? It looks to me like the legislators did a pretty bad job of creating gray areas -- the lines between what you can teach and can't teach look to me pretty crisp and clear.

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.
Come again? Did you just say that no one shaming and some teachers are shaming and have gotten in trouble for it?

If what you intended to say was that not very many people are shaming races in the classroom, laws are usually against things not very many people are doing. If what you meant was that further punishment is unnecessary because those doing it already get punished to some degree, do you apply the same reasoning to upping the penalties against criminals by adding "hate crime" charges?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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:
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,251
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
F
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:
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
A better question is do you even read the comments to which you respond?

Whether something is actionable or not according to your interpretation of the law is not the issue. The issue is whether the law will embolden snowflakes to take action. Whether that action winnable is not relevant - it is the threat of action or the actual lawsuit that people are referring to. Most school districts do not have the resources to waste on dealing with lawsuits or community fallout from such actions.

But hey, don't let that stop your defense of these grandstanding laws designed to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards because it conforms with your "religious" views.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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 <expletive deleted>, just with the race concept instead of the religious concept.
Well then, can you point out the provision of SB 148 that vaguely protects students from having to feel bad about their racial background?

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.
Do you regard the fact that public school teachers are no longer allowed to teach their students Christianity is the One True Faith to be "censorship"? Do you believe that back when public school teachers taught that, it was not discrimination? Do you believe teaching them that Christianity is the One True Faith was conducive to honest study of the human condition?

If something is untrue, demonstrate that it is untrue and scientific consensus (and therefore scientifically informed pedagogy) will gradually move away from it.
If you mean to be suggesting that telling children they're the beneficiaries of "white privilege" and color-blind laws are "systemic racism" is scientific, show your work.

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.
Did you have a point? Was your point to insinuate that SB 148 is a law against talking about things that distress students? If that was your point, did you make that point because you sincerely believe that's what SB 148 is? If you sincerely believe that's what it is, why do you believe that? Did you read the bill? Did you even read the thread? See post #15.

Schools, whether public or private, do not enjoy the Constitutional protections of free speech in the first place.
Public schools don't enjoy the Constitutional protections of free speech in the first place because they're an arm of the state and the state does not have free speech rights. What makes you think private schools don't have Constitutional protections of free speech?

I am accusing censorship of being bad social policy.
Is public school teachers no longer being allowed to teach their students Christianity is the One True Faith "bad social policy"?

When legislators play at being scientists, what you get is politicized science and very little learning at all.
In what way are the Florida legislators playing at being scientists? Which of the concepts that SB 148 prohibits teachers from endorsing is a scientific concept?

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.
We're already in agreement that it's a bad law; the issue at hand is whether the specific charges people in this thread have made against it are correct.

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 school was being sued because of a false charge that a Muslim teacher had been preaching Islam at the children, the school might lose anyway in a courtroom populated by people inherently prejudiced against the defendant. Do you think that's a good reason to make it legal for public schools to preach Islam?

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.
That's scant protection if the school administrators share the teacher's faith in the teacher's religion and are every bit as in favor of telling white children they're oppressors as the teacher is.

This law is about politics, not the protection of children.
Certainly. A government attempting to have an established religion is an irreducibly political matter. Parents have an interest in not having their children indoctrinated in somebody else's religion regardless of whether being raised in the new faith would hurt the children or not. Children are not the property of the state or of any religion it establishes; the state has no right to bring up children in its own faith; when it tries to do so parents have every right to push back against it politically.

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.
Good thing then that SB 148 doesn't prohibit causing children to "feel shame".
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,961
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
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:
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
Enforcement of FL Statute 760
760.021 Enforcement.—
(1) The Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the laws of this state if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group:
(a) Has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as defined by the laws of this state; or
(b) Has been discriminated against as defined by the laws of this state and such discrimination raises an issue of great public interest.
(2) The Attorney General may file an action under this section in the circuit court of the county where the cause of action arises or in the circuit court of the Second Judicial Circuit, in and for Leon County.
(3) In any proceeding under this section, the respondent may request, before any responsive pleading is due, that a hearing be held no earlier than 5 days but no more than 30 days after the filing of the complaint, at which hearing the court shall determine whether the complaint on its face makes a prima facie showing that a pattern or practice of discrimination exists or that, as a result of discrimination, an issue of great public interest exists.
(4) The prevailing party in an action brought under this section is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
(5) Any damages recovered under this section shall accrue to the injured party.

History.—s. 2, ch. 2003-396.
What the hell good is making a law with no means of enforcement? Did you really think they would do such a thing?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.
...
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
Enforcement of FL Statute 760
760.021 Enforcement.—
(1) The Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the laws of this state if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group:
(a) Has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as defined by the laws of this state; or
(b) Has been discriminated against as defined by the laws of this state and such discrimination raises an issue of great public interest.
...
What the hell good is making a law with no means of enforcement? Did you really think they would do such a thing?
Hey, progress! You needed to show two things in order to back up your claim, and you've taken an important first step. You've shown that a discriminatory violation of the law is actionable. One down, one to go. Now all you'd need to do to prove you're right is quote a provision of SB 148 that defines saying anything that makes someone uncomfortable to be an act of discrimination.

:eating_popcorn:
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
...
...
... Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
A better question is do you even read the comments to which you respond?
The comment to which I responded claimed the bill allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law. It doesn't. Why do you object to me pointing that out?

Whether something is actionable or not according to your interpretation of the law is not the issue.
Ah, so when you asked if I even read the comments, it's because I responded to the comment and not to whatever you intuited the issue was. Got it.

The issue is whether the law will embolden snowflakes to take action. Whether that action winnable is not relevant - it is the threat of action or the actual lawsuit that people are referring to.
That's not what ZH's comment said it was referring to.

Most school districts do not have the resources to waste on dealing with lawsuits or community fallout from such actions.
And when we made hitting somebody's car actionable it emboldened scoundrels to lie about who caused an accident and to pretend major preexisting damage was caused by minor collisions; therefore tort law should be abolished? Laws aren't magic spells like Ariel's contract with Ursula -- they have no power to stop people abusing the court system by baselessly claiming something they don't cover is covered. The most we can demand of our legislators is that they be very clear about what is and isn't prohibited; after that we need to rely on judges to check whether the laws were followed. If you object to a law against X whenever somebody might potentially falsely claim it prohibits Y, then either you object to all laws, or else you're just special pleading.

But hey, don't let that stop your defense of these grandstanding laws designed to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards because it conforms with your "religious" views.
All legal prohibitions are intended to intimidate. These ones are intended to intimidate people in power from using their power to establish a state religion. The reason so many people object to these laws is because they anticipate that in the absence of such prohibition, the state religion that will be established is their own. But if the Florida public schools were in the habit of indoctrinating children with Mormonism, so the Florida legislature introduced a law banning teachers from promoting Mormonism in class, you guys would totally support it.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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. ...
You get the feeling that conservatives do not understand the difference between "being inferior" and "having unfair privilege", however.
Of course she gets that feeling, as do you. But your feelings aren't based on evidence.

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.
Have you considered the merits of reading a bill before you condemn it? SB 148 makes promotion of eight concepts actionable. Since you haven't read it, would you care to take a guess at how many of those actionable prohibitions were about feelings and emotions?


One.



It's much harder to prove that they didn't "make a child feel inferior for being White".
Since you haven't read it, would you care to take a guess at how many of those actionable prohibitions prohibited making a child feel inferior for being White?


Zero.

 
Last edited:

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.

Toni, the actual text of the legislation has been linked upthread!!! What the heck is going on in your mind to make you think telling us some third party's belief about what the legislation forbids is a substantive contribution to the discussion? We can all read the bill for ourselves. What, are we supposed to assume we're illiterate and we need a The Hill reporter to read it for us?
 
Last edited:

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The section naming "Unlawful employment practices".

57 3. An individual’s moral character or status as either
58 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
59 race, color, sex, or national origin.

Goodbye to discussing white privilege (It won't be missed) but the status of oppressed not necessarily being determined by race is a little too early for black people. The rest of yall will be just fine because ya know, yall didn't just exit centuries of government-sanctioned oppression.


6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex,
69 or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive
70 adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

And this one sounds like affirmative action is in trouble here in Florida (which I'm ok with), I'd be ok with that if it were not for the obvious AMERICA STILL HAS A LOT OF WORK TO DO revealed in the out-of-touch section mentioned previously.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
33,961
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
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.
...
So are you simply refusing to quote the provisions that would back up your claim "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."? Or are you under the impression that you already satisfied your burden of proof? You did not. Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has produced a shred of evidence that SB 148 makes uncomfortableness actionable. You appear to believe it only because it's endlessly repeated in the left-wing echo chamber.

But it's worse than that. The text of the bill has been linked upthread. Assuming for the sake of discussion that the law it's amending has a bunch of provisions it's too much trouble for you guys to bother citing, making various wrongdoings actionable that theoretically could have uncomfortableness added to their lists, you can't even point out a provision of SB 148 that might be adding uncomfortableness to some list of actionable wrongdoings. Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
Enforcement of FL Statute 760
760.021 Enforcement.—
(1) The Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the laws of this state if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group:
(a) Has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as defined by the laws of this state; or
(b) Has been discriminated against as defined by the laws of this state and such discrimination raises an issue of great public interest.
...
What the hell good is making a law with no means of enforcement? Did you really think they would do such a thing?
Hey, progress! You needed to show two things in order to back up your claim, and you've taken an important first step. You've shown that a discriminatory violation of the law is actionable. One down, one to go. Now all you'd need to do to prove you're right is quote a provision of SB 148 that defines saying anything that makes someone uncomfortable to be an act of discrimination.

:eating_popcorn:
That's not what I said. I said "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."

This is the legal codification of SLAPP suits.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Welp folks, Florida libraries & Barnes Noble better start burning Frederick Douglass & W. E. B. DuBois books. May as well warn the publishers while you're at it.

Edit: Not claiming this proposed or current law requires it but it is next in line, so better too soon than too late.
 
Last edited:

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Meanwhile, on the anti-semitic front, Desantis agrees (along with me) that the following is unlawful

3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real
71 or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or
72 group, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non
73 Jews.

Yet unlike me, Desantis is ok with signing into law a statute to prevent an entirely imagined wrongdoing committed by a single person, group &/or US State because he doesn't see the black plight in a similar light as the Jewish one. Can I as a black man self-identify too? Pretty please? Cause I really find it annoying when I talk about myself and my experiences and I get people yelling "Blue Lives Matter", "black on black crime" & the obligatory"black people owned slaves too." :sneaky:
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,251
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law.
...
...
... Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?
A better question is do you even read the comments to which you respond?
The comment to which I responded claimed the bill allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law. It doesn't. Why do you object to me pointing that out?
You made a sweeping comment "Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?"
Whether something is actionable or not according to your interpretation of the law is not the issue.
Ah, so when you asked if I even read the comments, it's because I responded to the comment and not to whatever you intuited the issue was. Got it.
No, it is because your response indicated a complete lack of understanding (as does one above). Are you saying you did read it but are simply incapable of understanding it?
The issue is whether the law will embolden snowflakes to take action. Whether that action winnable is not relevant - it is the threat of action or the actual lawsuit that people are referring to.
That's not what ZH's comment said it was referring to.

Most school districts do not have the resources to waste on dealing with lawsuits or community fallout from such actions.
And when we made hitting somebody's car actionable it emboldened scoundrels to lie about who caused an accident and to pretend major preexisting damage was caused by minor collisions; therefore tort law should be abolished? Laws aren't magic spells like Ariel's contract with Ursula -- they have no power to stop people abusing the court system by baselessly claiming something they don't cover is covered. The most we can demand of our legislators is that they be very clear about what is and isn't prohibited; after that we need to rely on judges to check whether the laws were followed. If you object to a law against X whenever somebody might potentially falsely claim it prohibits Y, then either you object to all laws, or else you're just special pleading.

But hey, don't let that stop your defense of these grandstanding laws designed to intimidate teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards because it conforms with your "religious" views.
All legal prohibitions are intended to intimidate.
Nonsense.
These ones are intended to intimidate people in power from using their power to establish a state religion. The reason so many people object to these laws is because they anticipate that in the absence of such prohibition, the state religion that will be established is their own. But if the Florida public schools were in the habit of indoctrinating children with Mormonism, so the Florida legislature introduced a law banning teachers from promoting Mormonism in class, you guys would totally support it.
This law is an example of people in power using their power to establish a state religion. The law in question is preventing an imagined practice that will intimidate valid instruction.

I have to give you credit - I invited you to continue your silly defense of their (and apparently your) religious bigotry and you doubled down with a stupider ationale.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,867
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. That means there is a certain value to observing human suffering and tragedy in history...slavery, racism, holocausts, imperialism, nationalism, as well as a context that we have put into place improvements. The learning of facts associated with these terrible events may naturally produce feelings of discomfort, including sadness, shame, guilt, etc. A student of race X, religion Y, or national origin Z may have a feeling of discomfort on account of X, Y, or Z, but that feeling might not be a sufficient reason to eliminate the ability of the teacher to teach those historical facts...or in the case of books describing terrible events--to ban the books.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Right. The last century taught us not to judge/treat people by perceived group affiliation/membership. Let’s not do that again. Thanks.

Hell yeah brother!!! Now point me in the direction where CRT is an official part of the school curriculum, corporate hiring practices, or any other official capacity public or private so we can both march over there and effect change.

I'll wait.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,867
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
Trausti said:
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Right. The last century taught us not to judge/treat people by perceived group affiliation/membership. Let’s not do that again. Thanks.

So teachers ought not do student field trips to a Holocaust museum because it mistreats Nazis by making them feel bad.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Enforcement of FL Statute 760
760.021 Enforcement.—
(1) The Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the laws of this state if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group:
(a) Has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as defined by the laws of this state; or
(b) Has been discriminated against as defined by the laws of this state and such discrimination raises an issue of great public interest.
...
What the hell good is making a law with no means of enforcement? Did you really think they would do such a thing?
Hey, progress! You needed to show two things in order to back up your claim, and you've taken an important first step. You've shown that a discriminatory violation of the law is actionable. One down, one to go. Now all you'd need to do to prove you're right is quote a provision of SB 148 that defines saying anything that makes someone uncomfortable to be an act of discrimination.

:eating_popcorn:
That's not what I said.
I didn't say that's what you said. I told you, correctly, that that's what you'd need to do in order to prove you're right.

I said "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."
Exactly. And so far all you've done to back that up is quote at me the law that makes discrimination actionable. Phase 1 is making someone uncomfortable. Phase 3 is discrimination is actionable. What's Phase 2? How the bejesus do you figure discrimination being actionable means making someone uncomfortable is actionable unless you exhibit Phase 2, "SB 148 says making someone uncomfortable is discrimination." That's what you'd need to show in order for your entire argument not to fall to pieces like the South Park underpants gnomes' business plan.

This is the legal codification of SLAPP suits.
"Gnome: Phase 1 is steal underpants.
Stan: What's Phase 2?
Gnome: Phase 3 is profit!"​

Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
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 still can't get over how out of touch this is. I mean I read the whole thing, and I understand the purpose of the revisions. but I can't help but facepalm because when I was taught about the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade (AKA Black Holocaust), I felt guilt, anguish & all sorts of psychological distress on account of my race, but I know damn sure this law isn't there to protect me. What would that protection even look like? Ya gotta teach history right? But because some white people feel history is being used against them (for which there is no tangible evidence) we get Governor Desantis protecting white Florida residents from their own damn "feelings".
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,251
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Enforcement of FL Statute 760
760.021 Enforcement.—
(1) The Attorney General may commence a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the laws of this state if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group:
(a) Has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination as defined by the laws of this state; or
(b) Has been discriminated against as defined by the laws of this state and such discrimination raises an issue of great public interest.
...
What the hell good is making a law with no means of enforcement? Did you really think they would do such a thing?
Hey, progress! You needed to show two things in order to back up your claim, and you've taken an important first step. You've shown that a discriminatory violation of the law is actionable. One down, one to go. Now all you'd need to do to prove you're right is quote a provision of SB 148 that defines saying anything that makes someone uncomfortable to be an act of discrimination.

:eating_popcorn:
That's not what I said.
I didn't say that's what you said. I told you, correctly, that that's what you'd need to do in order to prove you're right.

I said "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."
Exactly. And so far all you've done to back that up is quote at me the law that makes discrimination actionable. Phase 1 is making someone uncomfortable. Phase 3 is discrimination is actionable. What's Phase 2? How the bejesus do you figure discrimination being actionable means making someone uncomfortable is actionable unless you exhibit Phase 2, "SB 148 says making someone uncomfortable is discrimination." That's what you'd need to show in order for your entire argument not to fall to pieces like the South Park underpants gnomes' business plan.

This is the legal codification of SLAPP suits.
"Gnome: Phase 1 is steal underpants.​
Stan: What's Phase 2?​
Gnome: Phase 3 is profit!"​

Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.
For the reading impaired (from the link)
"760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.

Not that that will stop the defenders of the imposition of their approved religious views on others.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
A better question is do you even read the comments to which you respond?
The comment to which I responded claimed the bill allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law. It doesn't. Why do you object to me pointing that out?
You made a sweeping comment "Did any of you folks even read the bill before you decided you knew what it allows to be actionable?"
But ZiprHead is hardly the only one who implied the bill makes uncomfortableness actionable. JH said '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.' Elixir offered as an objection to the bill, 'Even ultra-sensitive right wing snowflakes have no right to be protected from factual history, NO MATTER HOW IT MAKES THEM FEEL.' Politesse said '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".' So I used a plural "you" to address the purveyors of such comments. So sue me.

All legal prohibitions are intended to intimidate.
Nonsense.
Enlighten me. What legal prohibition is not intended to intimidate?

These ones are intended to intimidate people in power from using their power to establish a state religion. The reason so many people object to these laws is because they anticipate that in the absence of such prohibition, the state religion that will be established is their own. But if the Florida public schools were in the habit of indoctrinating children with Mormonism, so the Florida legislature introduced a law banning teachers from promoting Mormonism in class, you guys would totally support it.
This law is an example of people in power using their power to establish a state religion.
Quite possibly. For example,

124 (d) Flag education, including proper flag display and flag
125 salute.
...
134 .... American history...
136 ... shall be defined as the creation of a new nation
137 based largely on the universal principles stated in the
138 Declaration of Independence.
...
263 (t) In order to encourage patriotism, the sacrifices that
264 veterans and Medal of Honor recipients have made in serving our
265 country and protecting democratic values worldwide."​

But those are not the sort of provisions anybody here has so far shown an interest in debating. If you want to change the subject from the new state religion SB 148 is trying to disestablish and instead talk about the old state religion it's trying to reestablish, please yourself. But I doubt anybody here is going to argue for such reestablishment.

The law in question is preventing an imagined practice that will intimidate valid instruction.
I would see no reason to take for granted that Mormonism is not being promoted in Utah public schools merely on the say-so of a Mormon. Why would I give any more credence to your assurance that the practices SB 148 is preventing are "imagined", when you give every outward indication of being a believer?

As for whether it will intimidate valid instruction, it looks to me like the Florida legislators carefully drafted their bill in order to prevent that outcome.

79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.​

What more could they have reasonably done in that direction, other than to abandon the attempt entirely and permit public education to be used for preaching the new religion whenever its adherents in the public education system see fit?

I have to give you credit - I invited you to continue your silly defense of their (and apparently your) religious bigotry and you doubled down with a stupider ationale.
You have exhibited no examples of religious bigotry or stupidity on my part.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
79 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
80 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a course of
81 training or instruction, provided such training or instruction
82 is given in an objective manner without endorsement of the
83 concepts.

Pffftt, I disagree that the Civil rights movement is being taught in schools in an objective manner. It's been cleaned so much that even snowflakes won't melt (obviously because they haven't cried about it). I mean, why won't they tell Florida Students how far behind other states Florida was in the desegregation efforts? Hmm? I had to tell my children myself. So much for being objective.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
ZiprHead said:
I said "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."
Exactly. And so far all you've done to back that up is quote at me the law that makes discrimination actionable. Phase 1 is making someone uncomfortable. Phase 3 is discrimination is actionable. What's Phase 2? How the bejesus do you figure discrimination being actionable means making someone uncomfortable is actionable unless you exhibit Phase 2, "SB 148 says making someone uncomfortable is discrimination." That's what you'd need to show in order for your entire argument not to fall to pieces like the South Park underpants gnomes' business plan.

This is the legal codification of SLAPP suits.
"Gnome: Phase 1 is steal underpants.​
Stan: What's Phase 2?​
Gnome: Phase 3 is profit!"​

Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.
For the reading impaired (from the link)
"760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.

Not that that will stop the defenders of the imposition of their approved religious views on others.
That looks an awful lot like "Phase 3 is discrimination is prohibited.". If there's a Phase 2 lurking in there somewhere, maybe it would become more perceptible if you were to rewrite your post using complete sentences.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
22,251
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
ZiprHead said:
I said "This law allows truthful complaints of uncomfortableness to be actionable in a court of law."
Exactly. And so far all you've done to back that up is quote at me the law that makes discrimination actionable. Phase 1 is making someone uncomfortable. Phase 3 is discrimination is actionable. What's Phase 2? How the bejesus do you figure discrimination being actionable means making someone uncomfortable is actionable unless you exhibit Phase 2, "SB 148 says making someone uncomfortable is discrimination." That's what you'd need to show in order for your entire argument not to fall to pieces like the South Park underpants gnomes' business plan.

This is the legal codification of SLAPP suits.
"Gnome: Phase 1 is steal underpants.​
Stan: What's Phase 2?​
Gnome: Phase 3 is profit!"​

Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.
For the reading impaired (from the link)
"760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.

Not that that will stop the defenders of the imposition of their approved religious views on others.
That looks an awful lot like "Phase 3 is discrimination is prohibited.".
No one can make you reason if you don't want to.
If there's a Phase 2 lurking in there somewhere, maybe it would become more perceptible if you were to rewrite your post using complete sentences.
Tripling down on the dumb is not a convincing argument.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
16,669
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".
I think the sticking point for a lot of people who did not grow up with much economic advantage is the word 'privilege.' It's a sticking point with me, as well. Privilege is when you are given something above what people normally have. My problem is that what a lot of people refer to as white privilege (by which they mostly mean white, straight, Christian male privilege) is the setting we should all be on. No one should be subjected to extra scrutiny or extra policing because of the color of their skin or what's in their pants or where their grandmother went to church or where their grandfather was born. What is often described as white privilege should just be the normal--for everyone. I do realize that for those of us who have had this so called privilege or easier setting to have everyone treated as well as we have been can, for some, feel like they are losing something.

I think words matter and for me, calling it 'privilege' is something of a misnomer because to me, justice isn't privilege. It should be the normal state for everyone. Advantage is a word that I think is more accurately descriptive.

The other thing is that for all of the white people who did not grow up with very much, materially speaking, or even without a sound family structure, whose family might have struggled to maintain steady work, decent housing, food on the table, struggled with mental health or addiction issues or even chronic or catastrophic serious illness or injury, to be told that you are privileged seems like a terrible joke and horrifically unfair. Indeed, for those who have managed to create more stability for their family and their children than what they grew up with, it can be hard to see why everyone wasn't able to 'make it' if you could. Sometimes because people are just so plain exhausted by their efforts that they cannot see straight. Attributing whatever success they've fought for and worked hard for to the color of their skin seems as unfair to them as failing to recognize that the color of their skins/accents/gender/religion/ancestry has added one more very, very large roadblock to stability in the very same struggle for economic and familial stability, success, achievement.

If you want to argue that having a white skin gives people an advantage over those who are not white, I will agree. I am well aware of the struggles of my own family at least from the days of the Great Depression forward---and I'm aware enough to realize that whatever successes my siblings and I have achieved would have been much, much, much less likely if our skins had not been white. I'm pretty sure my father would have been lynched, if he were black, for speaking his own mind in half as mild a tone as he normally did while white. I'm not sure my father ever recognized that. Society, after all, was and still is largely segregated. There were no black kids in his school, no black families farming along side his father, or trading at the local store. So it was much harder to see that the economic struggles were the same PLUS the enormous disadvantage society imposed on the basis of skin color.

Just as 'defund the police' seems like wording that intends failure of the very noble and very, very necessary goals of changing policing, so does the term 'white privilege' seem like a term that intends to be misunderstood by the people who need to understand and recognize that however hard they had it, they did not have laws and customs surrounding their skin color set up to expressly compromise any chance they had for success.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
38,194
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Toni, the actual text of the legislation has been linked upthread!!! What the heck is going on in your mind to make you think telling us some third party's belief about what the legislation forbids is a substantive contribution to the discussion? We can all read the bill for ourselves. What, are we supposed to assume we're illiterate and we need a The Hill reporter to read it for us?
What you're missing is that this bill puts legitimate teaching about past wrongs into a fuzzy area--it could make a racist uncomfortable and thus be close enough to the line that teachers would be afraid to do it.

When a law does not provide a bright line between legal and illegal the real-world result is it acts as a damper on legal activity that's merely near the edge. That's the real purpose of this law.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
4,070
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
When America had laws designed to protect white people's feelings a Civil rights movement happened. Just saying.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Toni, the actual text of the legislation has been linked upthread!!! What the heck is going on in your mind to make you think telling us some third party's belief about what the legislation forbids is a substantive contribution to the discussion? We can all read the bill for ourselves. What, are we supposed to assume we're illiterate and we need a The Hill reporter to read it for us?
What you're missing is that this bill puts legitimate teaching about past wrongs into a fuzzy area--it could make a racist uncomfortable and thus be close enough to the line that teachers would be afraid to do it.

When a law does not provide a bright line between legal and illegal the real-world result is it acts as a damper on legal activity that's merely near the edge. That's the real purpose of this law.
See, this is exactly what I'm on about. On the one hand, I hear opinion after opinion like yours, telling me how gray and fuzzy the bill is when laws should provide a bright line. On the other hand, I read the text of the bill and see bright lines. On the one hand, I hear ninety-odd people telling me the bill authorizes, or somehow fuzzily invites, lawsuits for being made uncomfortable. On the other hand, I read the bill and see for myself that it authorizes nothing of the sort. I ask others to point out a specific passage in the bill that creates a gray area, and the replies are just one illogical argument after another. In that situation, why on earth would I trust the judgment of people who come off as deeply unreasonable over the evidence of my own eyes?

In what way are the charges you are making against SB 148 falsifiable? SB 148 appears to be an attempt by the legislative branch to prohibit the executive branch from having an established religion. As an infidel, I am philosophically sympathetic to the legislators' aim, however unsatisfying their expression of it was. (For example, you're quite right they shouldn't have deleted mental health from the curriculum.) I don't expect left-wingers here to share that philosophical sympathy, since they are believers, not infidels, and since the faith being established is their own; but you're a fellow infidel so I'd have expected you to sympathize with the legislators' aim. Assuming you're objecting to SB 148 because its shortcomings weigh heavily on your mind rather than because you agree with the religion it's forbidding schoolteachers to preach, how would you rewrite it? How should a law be written in order to stop the public schools from being used as de facto churches without creating the gray areas you perceive?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Quote the provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits.
For the reading impaired (from the link)
"760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.

Not that that will stop the defenders of the imposition of their approved religious views on others.
That looks an awful lot like "Phase 3 is discrimination is prohibited.".
No one can make you reason if you don't want to.
No one can make me see reason by failing to exhibit a reason. I know you aren't willing to hear this, especially from me, because taking it to heart would wound your pride, but the text you wrote:

760.08 Discrimination in places of public accommodation.—All persons are entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, handicap, familial status, or religion." allows for being made uncomfortable in a public school room under the interpretation that full and equal enjoyment of education.​

has two specific things wrong with it that make it fail to qualify as providing a provision of SB 148 that legally codifies SLAPP suits:

(1) It does not express a thought. It isn't grammatical English. It's word salad. You put a noun phrase, "full and equal enjoyment of education", in a context where English requires a clause: "under the interpretation that [clause]".

(2) It does not contain any provision of SB 148. Part of it is text from a different law; the rest is your own composition.

I know you, so I know you will feel a strong urge to reply to this with yet another ad hominem.

:eating_popcorn:

Tripling down on the dumb is not a convincing argument.
Don't worry, my irony meter is fine: it's steel-armored.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
7,036
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
I think words matter and for me, calling it 'privilege' is something of a misnomer because to me, justice isn't privilege. It should be the normal state for everyone.
Yes, exactly.

Advantage is a word that I think is more accurately descriptive.
That's no better. "Advantage" implies that injustice against black people benefits white people. It doesn't. People of all races are better off when injustices are not being inflicted on anyone.
 
Top Bottom