• 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

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,232
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.
The law you're quoting, HB 741, commands the Florida public education system to treat anti-semitism the same way it treats racial discrimination, and it adds religion to the list of characteristics public schools (and private schools that receive government funds) can't discriminate against -- a list that already included race. So in what way is DeSantis treating the black plight as different from the Jewish one? It seems like he was going to some effort to treat those plights the same.

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:
Well, it's legal for people to yell "The Jews run the banks" and "the Holocaust never happened" and "there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" and "Christ-killer" at Jewish people too, as long as they aren't Florida teachers on the job or receiving government funds when they say those things. And if Florida teachers yell racist stuff at you, that's already illegal.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,232
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
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.
I think the passage was intended to be parsed as "religious (corporation, association, educational institution, or society)" rather than as "(religious corporation), association, educational institution, or society". So it's not excluding all educational institutions, only religious educational institutions. At any rate the rule makes more sense when parsed that way.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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......
In your zeal to defend your religion, your ability to recognize reason is obscured.
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.
Now I see why you are so motivated to defend these fellow religionists - you are also a snowflake. If you dish out ad homs, you ought to be willing to take them.

You are incorrect on both counts. First, your inability or refusal to understand a written text does not mean it does not express a thought. Second, my response specifically refers to the link in Ziprhead's response and the text is from that link.


:eating_popcorn:

Tripling down on the dumb is not a convincing argument.
Don't worry, my irony meter is fine: it's steel-armored.
You should market it so that everyone else's is protected.
 
Last edited:

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
36,200
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.
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?
We see a fuzzy area in the made uncomfortable part.

People should be uncomfortable about some of the things in history. Combine this with the fact that slavery was perpetrated by the whites and you could easily make a racist uncomfortable about their heritage.
 

Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Contributor
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
11,636
Location
USA
Basic Beliefs
Nonpracticing agnostic
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?
We see a fuzzy area in the made uncomfortable part.

People should be uncomfortable about some of the things in history. Combine this with the fact that slavery was perpetrated by the whites and you could easily make a racist uncomfortable about their heritage.

You're right. Even more so, claims of discomfort can be unverifiable. But back to your point, here I listed out some of the spreadsheet complaints from Moms for Liberty republican front group where I am re-listing just some of the bulleted data:
  • Martin Luther King Jr. and The March to Washington. ... is part of a theme of complaints about both darkness and making white children feel guilty.
  • Ruby Bridges Goes to School. ... details says it "causes shame for young, impressionable white children."
  • The Story of Ruby Bridges. ... details say it "characterizes white people as mean, hateful, and oppressive." Since this is an historical account, it likely is showing specific white people who acted that way and the complainant is jumping to a broad generalization that doesn't exist because of the complainant's politics.
  • Thunder Rolling in the Mountains. Complaint reads that it is anti-white people. Again, this is an account that happened in history--this time of Indians suffering a defeat in war in 1877 to the US Army. So, this is another jumping of conclusions to the story being anti-white.
  • The River Between Us. The complaint reads in part that the book paints white people as evil. The time setting of this book is the Civil War. I took a look at online reviews and people loved this book. I didn't see any claims about reverse racialism.
It's saying right there that these conservatives are interpreting these things as causing discomfort on account of race exactly what the law is about. These bizarre Republican interpretations of historical memoirs and other histories can be taught to children by crazy parents. And opinionated conservative judges are also not beyond error in trying to judge something like this.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The law you're quoting, HB 741, commands the Florida public education system to treat anti-semitism the same way it treats racial discrimination, and it adds religion to the list of characteristics public schools (and private schools that receive government funds) can't discriminate against -- a list that already included race. So in what way is DeSantis treating the black plight as different from the Jewish one? It seems like he was going to some effort to treat those plights the same.

Your reply seems to be missing the part where CS/CS/HB 741 protects Jews from discrimination (which is awesome) while SB-148 protects white people from their own feelings. It also doesn't help that there is ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF that CRT (whatever that means to some white people) is/was being taught in Florida Schools or being utilized by private corporations.

With that said, has DeSantis signed any bills that can be remotely construed to be providing protection for antisemites against feeling discomfort, guilt & anguish about Jewish history?
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,039
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
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:
Well, it's legal for people to yell "The Jews run the banks" and "the Holocaust never happened" and "there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" and "Christ-killer" at Jewish people too, as long as they aren't Florida teachers on the job or receiving government funds when they say those things. And if Florida teachers yell racist stuff at you, that's already illegal.

You have a point here, however, I'd like to mention that bringing up "blue lives matter", "blacks owned slaves too" & "black on black crime" when someone is discussing certain aspects of the black experience doesn't have the same stigma attached to it as "The Jews run the banks" and "the Holocaust never happened" and "there's no such thing as an Israeli civilian" and "Christ-killer" when the topic of the Jewish experience is the subject. To be more specific, I haven't heard about people losing their government jobs over the former. Last I knew President Trump showed support for Blue Lives Matter and one state went as far as making attacking police a hate crime as a result of that "movement".

To my knowledge, there were no hate crime laws added in response to holocaust deniers to the benefit of holocaust denial (etc).
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
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.
The law does not prohibit causing students to be uncomfortable. It doesn't even prohibit causing them to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It doesn't even prohibit teaching material that causes students to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It prohibits teaching material that tells them they ought feel uncomfortable about their race.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
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.
The law does not prohibit causing students to be uncomfortable. It doesn't even prohibit causing them to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It doesn't even prohibit teaching material that causes students to be uncomfortable on account of their race. It prohibits teaching material that tells them they ought feel uncomfortable about their race.
Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable. This thread has provided real examples of such snowflake behavior.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable.
There is nothing pedantic about a plain reading of the law. In fact, such a reading is generally preferable.

Teaching somebody some historical facts is not teaching them they should feel uncomfortable on account of their race.

Even Catholics know that children have to be explicitly told to feel guilt for something they obviously did not do, by claiming they somehow are responsible anyway.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
Your pedantic interpretation ignores the real possibility that people may interpret teaching the facts is interpreted to mean they ought to feel uncomfortable.
There is nothing pedantic about a plain reading of the law. In fact, such a reading is generally preferable.

Teaching somebody some historical facts is not teaching them they should feel uncomfortable on account of their race.
Tell that to your ideological compatriots.
Even Catholics know that children have to be explicitly told to feel guilt for something they obviously did not do, by claiming they somehow are responsible anyway.
Nonsense.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).

Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).

Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.
So, if it "obviously" did not happen then you can "obviously" tell us why..

Say it plainly, why do YOU think it is "obvious" that "it did not happen"?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.
No. The "eloquence and insight" is not the reason I don't think it happened. The reason it obviously did not fucking happen was because it was a perfect 'just so' story, a modern 'The Emperor's New's Clothes', a virtue-signalling, brownie-point grubbing fantasia where the child is prop, not protagonist.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
Your inference was ludicrous. Saying something obviously did not happen (which it obviously did fucking not) is not the same as saying 'no nine year old could be insightful).
You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion . I feel real pity that your experience leads to such a jaw-dropping low opinion.
Your social media naivete is sad and a little bit scary.
Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .
Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for.
Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.
I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

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

It doesn't even matter who the origin of it was (it seems eloquent and I'm sure some people will attribute it rather to the parents).
I'm glad you recognise it was obviously in the 'Things that Never Happened' category.
You think a young child is incapable of such insight? Wow.
You think that is a reasonable implication of my statement? Wow.

I suppose you thought the end of Rocky IV, when the Soviets started cheering Rocky instead of their own boxer, was a documentary.
You wrote what you wrote. As usual, your projection is wrong.
To claim that it is "obvious" that something never happened, and the fulcrum of it "not happening" in Metaphor's world seems to be the fact that the person who is displaying it is a child given it's (eloquence and insight), then it is absolutely a clear implication that children "obviously" (cannot/do not have eloquence and insight) so as to display it.
No. The "eloquence and insight" is not the reason I don't think it happened. The reason it obviously did not fucking happen was because it was a perfect 'just so' story, a modern 'The Emperor's New's Clothes', a virtue-signalling, brownie-point grubbing fantasia where the child is prop, not protagonist.
So just to be clear, your belief that such things can be obvious insofar as you also believe it is NOT obvious that a known Republican with a documented track record of bad faith action is passing laws that look like bad faith in bad faith?

:rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl::rofl::rotfl:
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .
Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for
Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.
I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.
You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
So just to be clear, your belief that such things can be obvious insofar as you also believe it is NOT obvious that a known Republican with a documented track record of bad faith action is passing laws that look like bad faith in bad faith?
You'll have to translate this into coherent English.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .
Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for
Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.
I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.
You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.
I disbelieve this particular exchange happened as written precisely because of its timing, the framing, and the political leanings of the child's parents.

I'm also sorry to say your social media naivete seems quite powerful, though I imagine if there were a similar story, written by a conservative parent, with a message that you think would gladden conservative hearts, you'd detect the whiff of bullshit in the air.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
So just to be clear, your belief that such things can be obvious insofar as you also believe it is NOT obvious that a known Republican with a documented track record of bad faith action is passing laws that look like bad faith in bad faith?
You'll have to translate this into coherent English.
The fact that you can't understand it despite it being clear enough speaks volumes:

In this thread you impute intent and falseness based on what you judge to be bad faith.

In other threads you moan and scream and whinge about others imputing intent and falseness on what they judge to be bad faith.

It certainly appears to be hypocrisy in rank excess.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
You wrote what you wrote. I cannot help you disbelieve that it happened. Unless you know that particular young girl, it is a reasonable conclusion .
Yes, I wrote what I wrote, and your ludicrous inference is something you are responsible for
Not as scary as your disbelief that a child could have such an insight.
I did not say it and don't believe it. Next.
You think a child could have that insight, and the only reason you disbelieve this particular insight did happen is its timing and that there is no chance it did. Sorry, that is almost pathologically pathetic.
I disbelieve this particular exchange happened as written precisely because of its timing, the framing, and the political leanings of the child's parents.
Of course you do.
I'm also sorry to say your social media naivete seems quite powerful, though I imagine if there were a similar story, written by a conservative parent, with a message that you think would gladden conservative hearts, you'd detect the whiff of bullshit in the air.
I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
In this thread you impute intent and falseness based on what you judge to be bad faith.
No. I disbelieved an obviously fabricated story, and people who naively believed it because it touched them in all the special places accused me of disbelieving for qualities that it allegedly contains that did not cause my disbelief.

You yourself appear to understand that the story did not happen as it was portrayed, because you pre-emptively said that the source of the insight wasn't really that important. But now you want to defend the idea that I ought believe the story.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's got to be tiring lugging all those different standards around...
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.
I believe it could have happened. The laws of physics don't prevent it.

I just believe it did not happen as written. Your naivete would be touching on a 9 year old.
I believe it could have happened as you do. Does that mean your naivete would be touching to a 9 year old as well?
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.
I believe it could have happened. The laws of physics don't prevent it.

I just believe it did not happen as written. Your naivete would be touching on a 9 year old.
I believe it could have happened as you do. Does that mean your naivete would be touching to a 9 year old as well?
No. You believe it did happen and there's no good reason for people to be skeptical.

Honestly, the post so obviously ticked the obvious propaganda boxes that I am almost uncomfortable in the knowledge that so many people swallow such things hook, line (or 'like'), and sinker.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,801
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
In this thread you impute intent and falseness based on what you judge to be bad faith.
No. I disbelieved an obviously fabricated story, and people who naively believed it because it touched them in all the special places accused me of disbelieving for qualities that it allegedly contains that did not cause my disbelief.

You yourself appear to understand that the story did not happen as it was portrayed, because you pre-emptively said that the source of the insight wasn't really that important. But now you want to defend the idea that I ought believe the story.
No, I don't believe you ought to believe the story.

I think your imputement of intent is exactly what you bemoan about others doing whenever they impute intent on YOU for your use of misleading articles, your statements around the actions of Republican politicians, and most of your threads on trans people.

Yet here you are imputing intent.

You say there are reasons why people pass these laws beyond backhanded ways to discriminate and prevent education that our incredulity at your intent is misplaced. Yet you take the path of incredulity when a child apparently complains.

Must be difficult lugging all those extra standards around.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.
I believe it could have happened. The laws of physics don't prevent it.

I just believe it did not happen as written. Your naivete would be touching on a 9 year old.
I believe it could have happened as you do. Does that mean your naivete would be touching to a 9 year old as well?
No. You believe it did happen and there's no good reason for people to be skeptical.
Sorry, you cannot read minds. You do not know what I believe. It is fucking arrogant or delusional to claim otherwise. I think it could happen. I find your rationale for disbelief to be pathetic.
Honestly, the post so obviously ticked the obvious propaganda boxes that I am almost uncomfortable in the knowledge that so many people swallow such things hook, line (or 'like'), and sinker.
Your responses obviously ticked the obvious horsehit conservative propaganda boxes that I am almost sick in the knowledge that so many people will publicly spout them.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
You say there are reasons why people pass these laws beyond backhanded ways to discriminate and prevent education that our incredulity at your intent is misplaced. Yet you take the path of incredulity when a child apparently complains.
I am saying the laws do not say what people think they say, and a plain reading of the law confirms that. Then, to foment their own outrage at the law, people conjure imagined scenarios where well okay, the law doesn't actually say that but Republicans are so litigious and emotionally frail it's as if the law actually does say that.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
Logically, there is nothing preventing an insight from being evil. Of course, thinking her insight is evil is pretty effed up.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
Logically, there is nothing preventing an insight from being evil. Of course, thinking her insight is evil is pretty effed up.
It wasn't an 'insight' in any laudatory sense.

It was fucking evil nonsense. That the only reason a white person would feel 'bad', or 'mad', or 'uncomfortable' reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again.

Like, holy shit, what? The people who feel bad that people were enslaved are the ones who want to do it again? Does it not seem more obvious that the people who see nothing wrong with slavery at all would be far more likely to want to do it again?

It's not an 'insight', it's an inversion. I'd believe this child to be morally stunted if I believed for a second she ever said anything like it at all.

Can I ask the people who 'liked' the first post where this was posted: do you actually believe what the child (allegedly) said to be true?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
Logically, there is nothing preventing an insight from being evil. Of course, thinking her insight is evil is pretty effed up.
It wasn't an 'insight' in any laudatory sense.

It was fucking evil nonsense. That the only reason a white person would feel 'bad', or 'mad', or 'uncomfortable' reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again.

Like, holy shit, what? The people who feel bad that people were enslaved are the ones who want to do it again? Does it not seem more obvious that the people who see nothing wrong with slavery at all would be far more likely to want to do it again?

It's not an 'insight', it's an inversion. I'd believe this child to be morally stunted if I believed for a second she ever said anything like it at all.
She did not say anything that even remotely resembles your characterization that "the only reason would feel"bad", or "mad" or "uncomfortable" reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again". It is obvious that comment refers to those who are complaining.

Unsurprisingly, your interpretation is incredibly effed up.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this could have happened (unlike you) regardless of who wrote it. Your hypothetical "whataboutism" is pure bullshit.
I believe it could have happened. The laws of physics don't prevent it.

I just believe it did not happen as written. Your naivete would be touching on a 9 year old.
I believe it could have happened as you do. Does that mean your naivete would be touching to a 9 year old as well?
No. You believe it did happen and there's no good reason for people to be skeptical.
Sorry, you cannot read minds. You do not know what I believe.
Do you believe the post happened as written?
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,413
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Judgmental, much?

* I totally doubt that a 9yo actually said that.
* it triggered at least one RW extremist to jump to the usual righteous condemnations, so whether or not the kid said it, the meme works.
I would change “the only white people who feel…” to “the white people who most feel”.

Other than that … preach on about evil.
I think it is charming and childlike that you doubt that the evil resides with Trump, his ilk and his supplicants.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
Logically, there is nothing preventing an insight from being evil. Of course, thinking her insight is evil is pretty effed up.
It wasn't an 'insight' in any laudatory sense.

It was fucking evil nonsense. That the only reason a white person would feel 'bad', or 'mad', or 'uncomfortable' reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again.

Like, holy shit, what? The people who feel bad that people were enslaved are the ones who want to do it again? Does it not seem more obvious that the people who see nothing wrong with slavery at all would be far more likely to want to do it again?

It's not an 'insight', it's an inversion. I'd believe this child to be morally stunted if I believed for a second she ever said anything like it at all.
She did not say anything that even remotely resembles your characterization that "the only reason would feel"bad", or "mad" or "uncomfortable" reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again". It is obvious that comment refers to those who are complaining.
What? How is that obvious? She says nothing about people 'complaining'. She said (allegedly)

"I think the only white people who feel bad or mad or uncomfortable reading about the stuff that white people did in history are the people who want to do it again".

She has said it very obviously: if you feel uncomfortable reading about the evil stuff that white people did, you want to do the same evil stuff.

Unsurprisingly, your interpretation is incredibly effed up.
It's a plain reading of her words. That you think her words mean something other than they obviously mean is a sign of your political feelings but not your English comprehension skills.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Judgmental, much?

* I totally doubt that a 9yo actually said that.
Yes, but when I doubted the story, I was ridiculed for disbelieving it.
* it triggered at least one RW extremist to jump to the usual righteous condemnations, so whether or not the kid said it, the meme works.
I would change “the only white people who feel…” to “the white people who most feel”.
That is still an illogical inference. Feeling bad about past injustice usually means you would not want it to happen again.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,101
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
I think this precocious nine year old says it all:

View attachment 36950
Perhaps in a more appropriate subforum I'd like to do an against-the-text, critical reading of this post. I'm frightened that this appealed so easily to the leftists on this board that they thought what the child allegedly said was 'insightful'. Holy shit: what the child said was not insightful: it is downright evil.
Logically, there is nothing preventing an insight from being evil. Of course, thinking her insight is evil is pretty effed up.
It wasn't an 'insight' in any laudatory sense.

It was fucking evil nonsense. That the only reason a white person would feel 'bad', or 'mad', or 'uncomfortable' reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again.

Like, holy shit, what? The people who feel bad that people were enslaved are the ones who want to do it again? Does it not seem more obvious that the people who see nothing wrong with slavery at all would be far more likely to want to do it again?

It's not an 'insight', it's an inversion. I'd believe this child to be morally stunted if I believed for a second she ever said anything like it at all.
She did not say anything that even remotely resembles your characterization that "the only reason would feel"bad", or "mad" or "uncomfortable" reading about past injustices are the people who want to inflict the injustice again". It is obvious that comment refers to those who are complaining.
What? How is that obvious? She says nothing about people 'complaining'. She said (allegedly)

"I think the only white people who feel bad or mad or uncomfortable reading about the stuff that white people did in history are the people who want to do it again".

She has said it very obviously: if you feel uncomfortable reading about the evil stuff that white people did, you want to do the same evil stuff.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with your contention that this "insight" is the work of left-leaning parents. I wonder if you are resorting to pedantry to hide this flip-flop. I have read that the inability to read in context is a sign of autism.


Unsurprisingly, your interpretation is incredibly effed up.
It's a plain reading of her words. That you think her words mean something other than they obviously mean is a sign of your political feelings but not your English comprehension skills.
Your explanation is inconsistent with your belief that left-leaning parents composed that comment, but it is a sign of your effed up feelings and lack of intellectual consistency.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,413
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Feeling bad about past injustice usually means you would not want it to happen again

Current Nazis don’t feel bad about past atrocities (what RW Nazi apologists call injustices)

They feel afraid of people finding out what they did last time before they can do it again.

That’s why they are banning books, period.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your interpretation is inconsistent with your contention that this "insight" is the work of left-leaning parents. I wonder if you are resorting to pedantry to hide this flip-flop. I have read that the inability to read in context is a sign of autism.
Stop deflecting. The plain meaning of the words are the plain meaning of the words. The fact that leftists like you have to introduce ideas outside the text (the child did not mean people who read about it and feel bad about it, the child meant people who complain about reading about it) is a problem with the leftists who staged this, not a problem with me.

Oh, by the way, nice ableist coda you have there. Apparently it's a sign of autism to 'not share the leftist mindset of interpreting leftist propaganda in the most generous way possible, inferring as granted attitudes from outside the text and ignoring the unsavoury implications of the plain and unmmistakeable words of the text'.

It's like hearing bible stories when you are outside the faith and saying, in response, 'that sounds unbelievable', and the Christians calling you autistic for not understanding.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Current Nazis don’t feel bad about past atrocities (what RW Nazi apologists call injustices)

They feel afraid of people finding out what they did last time before they can do it again.

That’s why they are banning books, period.
I'm not a RW Nazi apologist, but your continued defense of an idiotic meme that you don't even believe happened, that spouts an evil 'insight', is noted.
 

Metaphor

Sjajna Zvijezda
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
10,836
Location
Slouching towards Bethlehem
Your explanation is inconsistent with your belief that left-leaning parents composed that comment, but it is a sign of your effed up feelings and lack of intellectual consistency
The plain reading of the words is not inconsistent that the child's parents concocted the propaganda and used their daughter as a prop on their sleazy social media stage. It is consistent with her parents preaching to a closed coterie of like-minded believers who will take away the intended message (and like and share) without parsing the actual meaning of the words as written, borne aloft as they are on a gentle current of their own smugness.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,413
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
What is evil about the insight, Meta?
Maybe show me on a doll where it hurts?
 
Top Bottom