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

[prideandfall]

so there is a specific cabal of whining self indulgent shit posters on this forum who have spent at least the last 8 years spamming our board with their pearl clutching anal-fingering crying about 'snowflakes' and 'safe spaces' and how liberals are a bunch of soft-skinned cry babies.
and for that entire time i've laughed at how pathetic those posters are for their level of outrage juxtaposed against:
A. such an insanely minimal issue, such as college campuses having a single room for women to hang out in without dealing with men,
B. the fact that when it comes to thin-skinned cry baby "snowflake" material the right has that market cornered entirely and always has.

but, it was mostly academic as a social debate since it was always random private institutions, and you could debate intent and outcome and the philosophy behind it.
however we now have this yellow bellied cuck mentality being made into actual law, which will be actually enforced and mandated on the people, and surprise sur-fucking-prise....

Florida bill to shield people from feeling 'discomfort' over historic actions by their race, nationality or gender approved by Senate committee | CNN

A bill backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit Florida's public schools and private businesses from making people feel "discomfort" or "guilt" based on their race, sex or national origin received first approval Tuesday by the state's Senate Education Committee.

www.cnn.com

(CNN)A bill backed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis that would prohibit Florida's public schools and private businesses from making people feel "discomfort" or "guilt" based on their race, sex or national origin received first approval Tuesday by the state's Senate Education Committee.

i have been saying this for years and years and will continue to say this:
when liberals get bad ideas on how to fix problems, it's usually on the fringe of what you can consider "left" and it never makes it to the areas of power or impacts society on any measurable level.
when regressives get bad ideas on how to fix problems it is immediately launched from whatever subthread on 8chan where it started to being a legislative priority within a few weeks.

politics is universally stupid, but only one side of the power duo in this country is actually dangerous.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.

There is this continued false conflict out there by the right-wing. Often about school indoctrination, which has been decades upon decades of unsubstantiated BS, which has almost become common knowledge at this point, because the lie is told so often. And now it is about shaming. We see widely disseminated but very rarely occurring cases where a teacher does something real stupid and while not meant to be harmful, can be a bit traumatizing to students, when discussing race and history. But the reality is, most education in the classroom is about as uncontroversial as it gets. Including history. Guilt is not taught. Heck, many of us didn't even have family in the states around the Civil War. But we are expected to presume that it not only is true, but needs to be stopped by legislation.

That is Orwellian... and those supporting it are supporting draconian laws intent on changing our history. The legislation attempts to "protect" people from an ill-defined (and non-existent) problem, which means enforcement is grossly arbitrary and dependent on the enforcer.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

These draconian new laws seem to really be a backlash to the anti-racism movement and if you look at history, each time there has been movements against racism there has been a backlash. Fortunately, this isn't out in the street violence, but the draconian laws do restrict teachers and education, sometimes resulting in fines or maybe imprisonment could be possible, depending on the state. One of the things I have been saying since this began is that in _some_ of the states' legislation there is quite a bit of subjectivity allowed and that can easily turn into accusations and increases probability of deducing something is criminal when it isn't. I mean, these racists can simply claim they feel discomfort and already half the burden is met.

 

[Trausti]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

 

[prideandfall]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

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

 

[Metaphor]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

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 contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

 

[ZiprHead]

Here we go...

 

[prideandfall]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.
2. it's hilarious to me how the pack of dipshits who's entire cultural position is screaming about "snowflakes" until their vaginas prolapse who are so thoroughly embodying being snowflakes.

 

[Metaphor]

So, the contention that conservatives are hypocrites aside, do you have a problem with the legislation? If you do, what is it?

i wouldn't contend that conservatives are hypocrites, but rather that conservatives are delusional assholes.

my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.

But, whether the problem exists or not, do you have a problem with the contents of the legislation? For example, the bill prohibits an employer compelling employees to be subject to training that has the viewpoint that
"1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
national origin."

Do you think an employer should be able to compel employees to attend training that espouses the idea that members of one race are superior to members of another?

2. it's hilarious to me how the pack of dipshits who's entire cultural position is screaming about "snowflakes" until their vaginas prolapse who are so thoroughly embodying being snowflakes.

Apart from your misogynist framing, this sounds very much like you think they are hypocrites, on top of being 'delusional assholes'.

 

[Arctish]

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?

 

[Bomb#20]

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.​

 

[Bomb#20]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

Unless I missed a clause, it doesn't appear to be limited to government employees. So on its face it appears to violate the First Amendment rights of the owners of nonreligious private schools.

 

[Swammerdami]

my problem is two fold:
1. it's a law being made to handle an issue that doesn't actually exist, being wasteful and pointless legislation which IMO is antiethical to what should be the proper form and function of government.

But, whether the problem exists or not, do you have a problem with the contents of the legislation? For example, the bill prohibits an employer compelling employees to be subject to training that has the viewpoint that
"1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are
morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or
national origin."

Do you think an employer should be able to compel employees to attend training that espouses the idea that members of one race are superior to members of another?

While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them. You can bet that white supremacy will still be preached in Florida with no consequences.

The proposed legislation appears to prohibit religious instruction.
...
Goodbye parochial schools and Bible Camp?

Good luck getting a Florida prosecutor to go after white Christians!

 

[Metaphor]

While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them.

Well, the law does not say mere offense is enough, does it? It says teaching certain concepts in certain situations (like teaching that one race is inherently superior to another) is the offense, not 'causing offense'.

You can bet that white supremacy will still be preached in Florida with no consequences.

But the law does not prohibit the preaching of 'white supremacy', or anything, in general, but in particular situations and contexts. So it does not prohibit someone on the internet saying 'white people are superior', but it does prohibit an employer teaching that in a compulsory training course to her employees.

Do you have a problem with an employer being prohibited from teaching white supremacy to her employees?

 

[Bomb#20]

While such laws to address a non-existent problem are mostly for show, it will provide another tool for Republican prosecutors and Republican judges to persecute people they don't like. The nature of such laws is that the described offense is ambiguous. Just as gun murderers can claim self-defense if the victim was reaching for a cell-phone, so racists can claim that almost any discussion of race offends them.

People can claim anything; but it doesn't look like the law would back them up:

(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.​

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

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

And that should be funny, but it is spot on truth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Yeah, can we start objecting to "original sin"? I'm supposed to feel guilt over The Fall.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

He’s a link to the bill:https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/148/billtext/filed/pdf

What’s wrong with it?

I have a problem with line 186. I also have a problem with the gutting on page 9.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

You've got the wrong focus here. "constitutes discrimination" is what matters. They can compel belief in other situations, they just can't compel belief that something is discrimination.

I think you're misparsing the passage -- it has to be read as:

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...​

If you try to get "compel belief that something is discrimination" out of it by grouping the words differently, it will contain a "specified concepts constitutes ..." clause or some similar grammatical error. So I think Arctish's reading of it is correct -- the passage as written appears to rightly point out the reality that any Christian school teaching children that boys are superior to girls is in fact thereby discriminating against girls. (But, per the explicit subsection 9 exemption, the bill allows Christian schools to do that.)