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

[Bomb#20]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

When America had laws designed to protect white people's feelings a Civil rights movement happened. Just saying.

 

[Bomb#20]

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]

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.

Tripling down on the dumb is not a convincing argument.

Don't worry, my irony meter is fine: it's steel-armored.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[Bomb#20]

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."

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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)]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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.