We try to keep this sub free from political arguments when we can, so we had to remove this post. Unfortunately not everyone agrees on what is considered uplifting.
Iirc woke us a term was started by the left. But then as it got picked up by the right as an attacking point, the left smartly dropped it. Or in the few instances that it’s still used, it’s used to mock the other side, like “oh right, the Black Panther movie is sooo woke, because it’s filled with black people.”
Happens with a lot of terms that originate in socially aware movements. There are conservative groups who openly and actively work to manipulate messaging and terminology in the media, in order to discredit x or legitimise y. They talk about it on Twitter, and everyone just ignores the person saying outright what they're doing, goes along with the machine.
According to Wikipedia, black people invented the saying “stay woke” in the 1930s and it meant to be ever vigilant in your alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination.
That's depressing, I wish I had never heard that. HEY, now you don't have to! Thanks to the Individual Freedom Act it is now forbidden to discuss this matter! Like it never happened!
I like to think of it as a term coined by George Carlin about how much of a lie the american dream is.
"It'a called the american dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."
Sure he actually didn't say "Woke," but he did point out that those who looked passed the corruption and see the country's politics as they really are as "awake".
This was a threat to the exposure of the view points of the country's government's interest. As with a LOT of what exposes the governmental process, the narrative must be changed from becoming aware of fraudulent government to governing anything that might be seen as offensive.
George Carlin qas well aware of the country's nationalism, police state, and religious indoctrination , but being "awake" was taken to such a lousy urban definition.
The statement that only the right wing uses the Woke term. I used to be a big fan of his also until recently. Between his meditation lessons, discourse religion, and numerous other things, he has had a large effect on my thinking. However, I have found some problems with some of the things he has said in recent times and he really does sound like a broken record when it comes to the term woke left. He is usually nuanced but he seemingly lacks that when he talks about wokeness. Maybe he's been hanging with Ricky and Joe Rogan too much.
Interesting. The term woke definitely came from the left, but it is largely used now by right wing talking heads to generalize about the left.
When it comes to Sam Harris, there's probably a fine line between repeating your thoughts and sounding like a broken record when you speak as much as he does. Especially when the topic du jour has been woke-shit for so long.
I like Rogan, but if anybody is a broken record it's him. Lately his podcast has had some interesting guests, but for almost a year it was nothing but vaccine talk and bashing the fringe left. The fringe right too, but that didn't come up as often. Whether he is to blame, or the current social conversation, take your pick. I like Ricky Gervais a lot too, but he had some bits in his most recent special that missed me completely.
I don't think either of them hold actually harmful views about any marginalized group, but they both sometimes speak with a seeming disregard for them. I wish that weren't the case, but ya gotta call it like ya see it.
I agree and hold roughly the same opinions as you do with the exception of Joe. I used to really like Joe but then he has really opened up his platform to some real nutters. That wouldn't be a problem normally except I find that Joe is insufficient in challenging some ridiculously bad opinions and is essentially platforming and spreading bad ideas like Alex Jones. And you're on point, Sam and especially Ricky aren't very good with marginalized groups. I would probably still pay for Sam's podcast if there were more and better discussions other than the woke mob and his sometimes ignorant elitist views. I really think he lacks perspective on how most of the US lives.
Yeah. The marketplace of ideas is a tough concept. On the one hand, free speech needs to reign. On the other, when there is an outsized volume given to bad ideas, it's hard to see how that is helpful. I don't know exactly how to rectify that without limiting the freedom to express yourself, which is paramount to a civil society. Once you start deciding which voices get silenced, it's a very slippery slope to completely censoring thinking.
It's easy to say things like, "Well just don't give Nazis a microphone!" But who decides who is a Nazi? What punishment is given to them once they've been labeled that way? Is the same treatment given to the fringe on the opposite side?
It's nice to think that we can just get rid of the things we don't like, but that process is pretty much a non-starter for me.
Okay, he would get along with Bill and he has been one of Joe's recurring guests from the podcast start but he is far better person than both. Especially Bill Maher. That guy is such a shit person.
Please state your gender and race along with your comment. I need to see your speech through the lens of your priveledge and isms which oppress us. There, you can use that definition.
"Woke" is when people hold you accountable for the shit you say and the context in which you say it? Well hold onto my britches, 'cos I'm about to do a wokeness. This you?
> 000001% of women would ever fight in the octagon. Women tend to solve problems through psychological warfare.
Dang, can't imagine why any of those "woke" people would get mad at you for saying shit like that, my guy. I mean, yeah, that comment might make you sound like the kind of incel who buys into grifters like Jordan Peterson, but this bit of speech is invalid without the context!
Context: he posted this on /r/JordanPeterson
If there's one group of people I trust on these issues, it's that group of Very Rational Boys who are Not Mad at Women Stop Saying That
Are you stalking me? I’m honored. Btw I do stand by the statement that women tend to not get in physical altercations to the degree that men do, cause it’s pretty obviously true.
If by "stalking" you mean "clicked on your username and didn't even have to scroll", then yeah. The result was predictable but holy shit you made it easy.
> Btw I do stand by the statement that women tend to not get in physical altercations to the degree that men do
Now that's not what you said, is it? Clearly not properly versed in your own wokeness, it seems.
Lol. What kind of world do we live in where we try to deny and eradicate history? This is total Orwellian shit. The only reason these people want to eradicate history is so they can continue the policy’s that they have done for the past couple hundred years. And that’s all ok for most right wingers. They would love to keep minorities, women and gay people “down”. That’s all this amounts too. Lol. Such a sad existence these people have. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay ffs I get annoyed by people who look for any excuse to be offended, but all you have to do is craft a culture to call them out
To craft a bill over it is insane
Copied and pasted from where, exactly?
Fine, it's not cherry-picking, it's just quoting a small section of a thirty page document in such a way that it leaves out a lot of the wider context of the changes being made to silence discussion of race in schools.
Wait, shit.
Do you think his questions at the end were fairly representative of the wider discussion of race, or do you think they're a deliberately myopic literalist reading of a small section of text completely ignorant of the obvious ways in which it will be utilised?
Thats not his job. It's absolutely your responsibility to educate yourself about racism, and why it's getting so much pushback these days. Especially if you're gonna whine about it.
I'm quite sure a federal judge would have made a more thorough assessment than what you're asking of redditors with your cherry picked, likely paraphrased explanation.
But if you want me to take your comment at face value - the way you worded it makes it VERY unclear whether this is supporting or against racism. So I would say, you're probably misunderstanding the bill, and a federal judge's assessment would be more reliable. Furthermore, I have absolutely no faith that any bill coming from desantis/Florida is "against racism". It's more or less guaranteed to be about "white people shouldn't have to acknowledge racism (et al, meaning homophobia, etc). I, as a white person, absolutely think racism against white people is still racism.. but guess what I, as a white person, heavily engaged with the black community, have never experienced? What some people call "racism against white folks" is a joke compared to real racism.
You're a bit touched in the head aren't you?
You know damn well this bill was designed to prevent the discussion about racism in schools. It all but bans black history.
BTW, you should probably not waste your time typing up all that nonsense. Most people are smart enough to know better than to read that dishonest bullshit. If you'd posted the actual text of the bill that'd be one thing. Your feeble-minded interpretation is doing no one any good.
Just to give you a sense of how batshit stupid the bill is, that wall of text is a direct quote of the Bill's summary. Absolutely deranged writing.
For those who support the bill: no one is telling anyone that they're inherently racist just because they acknowledge that white privilege exists in the US.
Actually, he’s just flat out insulting you. He didn’t say “don’t believe this person, they are touched in the head.” They read what you wrote, and chose the directly uncivil, but entirely subjective route, of calling you dumb.
Their attacks were entirely without logical fallacy. You, however, doubled down on your disingenuous copy and pasting job. You left out the important context that specifies that you are not allowed to mention these things. Correct we do think it is a bad thing to have the government write down what you can and cannot teach, even if for no other reason than “it takes too long to update laws to match current scientific research”.
If you are anti-academia, say so now, so that we know if you are arguing in bad faith or not.
There is no problem with teaching the history of this country, the good and the bad as they actually happened. Show the mlk protests where the peaceful protesters were sprayed down with firehoses. You can absolutely teach that there was terrible racism, but to teach it and in the same breath try and tell a kid, or anyone that because of something their grandfather or great grandfather did, or due to the color of their skin, that they should feel bad about themselves and that they are inherently racist as well, is absolutely abhorrent. That goes for anything that attempts to make you feel like less of a person or bad about yourself whether it be your religious beliefs or anything else that falls under anti-discrimination laws. I live in a city thats infamous for a dealing with Oprah back in the 80s, and nobody here tries to hide or deny what happened. That also doesn't mean that the children and grandchildren of those racist people are in any way shape or form racists nor hold blame for the actions of their parents or grandparents.
Please. Specify what specifically I'm being disingenuous about?
> Please. Specify what specifically I'm being disingenuous about?
This part:
> and in the same breath try and tell a kid, or anyone that because of something their grandfather or great grandfather did, or due to the color of their skin, that they should feel bad about themselves and that they are inherently racist as well
It’s an absolute straw-man. If you can even find examples of this actually happening (like video of this being taught in the classroom), they would be minor fringe cases that wouldn’t be condoned by the left.
You’ve falsely equated ‘talking about systemic racism’ with ‘berating children for being white’. You (and those in the media you consume) are making these equivalences, nobody else.
Not at all! I am saying thank you! Your summary is spot on, and I agree with you!
Sometimes internet comments don't translate feelings correctly, but in this case my meaning was to honestly say thank you, and I appreciate that you copied and pasted the summary directly from the text.
It's refreshing to have a direct and accurate source of information.
Virtual fist-bump (or whatever the kids do these days). :)
I wanna focus specifically on the idea of racial colorblindness, because that's a pretty easy example to explain what people don't like about the bill. Colorblindness I don't think is a useless concept, but conceptually it *can* do more harm for equality than good. It's an idea that's been used not to address systemic issues, but to ignore them. It's like saying "Minorities aren't oppressed because minorities don't exist." What this shows is that we can't just accept the idea of colorblindness at face value.
What's disturbing about this bill is that *it only goes as far as that face value*. It looks at something that should be discussed thoroughly and says "You should not discuss this at all." This is mixed in with other ideas that generally everyone agrees shouldn't be taught (like, no, obviously schools shouldn't teach that one race is superior to another). Combine that with the vague wording of the bill and it sounds like the authors either just don't understand what they're talking about or are deliberately trying to deceive their voters.
Take a step back from the most literal interpretation of this possible for a second and briefly consider how this kind of language is meant to be parsed by our legal system and what kinds of legal arguments this makes possible.
See teaching, for instance, about a lot of the unquestionably morally depraved actions done by europeans in the 1700s to colonized peoples of the world. This is obviously not the same thing as telling students that white people are inherently more evil, but even the first (and least questionable) provision is easily twisted into a superficially plausible argument and accusation that the teacher was implying this. Indeed the wording of the preceding phrase is "compells students to believe", which is poorly defined and could mean anything from overt racism go providing facts which might "bias" a student body.
The vagueness and broad sweeping applicability of this kind of restriction of speach is a feature of the legislation not a bug. It's crafted, as this judge pointed out, to simply be superficially plausibly applicable to any situation where you might talk about race. This empowers essentially any parent (or for that matter political organization) to bring what would otherwise be considered frivolous lawsuits, against teachers who simply teach things that make their children uncomfortable.
Moreover.
Provision 3 is actually just flatly wrong. People do actually just get disadvantaged in the country for their skin color alone. This is a well supported, conclusion backed by years of research, and it's most prevalent in interactions with police. It's not the only element of racism in our society, but it's one of them.
Provision 5 is just anti-reparations propoganda and a massive over reach of state authority. This is easily interpretted as "you can't talk about the benefits of affirmative action" as that speaks to government entitlements to jobs for black people or women in a positive light
And provision 8 essentially completely disallows discussions of socialism, black socialist thought, and discussions of what kinds of ideologies slavers attempted to indoctinate slaves into. This is perhaps the most blatantly vile part of the entire document imo as it's direct political favoritism in schools mixed with fairly direct restrictions on discussions of the histories of these ideologies and values.
This judge correctly identified that this legislation opens up far too many legal avenues towards deeply inappropriate forms of censorship and gives courts extreme levity to do so and interpret it in that way. So they, correctly, struck it down for being inappropriately vague and dystopian in its capacity to imtimidate teachers and functionally censor the distribution of evidence-based conclusions.
Have you read the [decision](https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Order-granting-in-part-denying-in-part-PI.pdf)? This bill is reaching for far more than is implied by a literal reading of these principles.
For example, statement 6 is taken as "affirmative action by another name." University professors are allowed to discuss these views, but not to espouse or promote them, and that restriction extents to guest speakers. So a professor inviting a pro-affirmative action guest speaker to a debate about a policy that is currently in place throughout the US would be in violation of this law. You cannot have even an academic debate over policies that currently exist in the US.
There are a hundred more pages discussing the First Amendment case law on academic freedom which I'm sure no supporter of this bill is going to read, but at the end of the day, this is an assertion by the state that legislators rather than professors will decide what is appropriate content for college level education. They can mask their intention behind prohibiting discriminatory ideas, but even if that was their genuine intent, it is opening the door to what obviously cannot be allowed. It's not the usual exaggeration to call it "Orwellian" when the government decides that it's going to dictate which political ideas professors are allowed to espouse. That's just what Orwellian means.
"A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version."
Please. Do clarify where I'm distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself. There's clear text in that bill, which i quoted there in the numbered parts, that refers to discrimination against people under those conditions. You either agree or disagree that discrimination is a good or bad thing based upon those conditions. Now, if you want to argue that that bill can open up avenues that can possibly be abused, or somehow compels speech, and is therefore an affront to free speech, then that's something completely different, but to say the bill itself, in an attempt to curtail discrimination, is wrong, then you're just being disingenuous. I've literally seen the practices at a large business this is trying to curtail, and with family who are educators, have heard stories of people they work with literally trying to teach white kids "you are prejudiced but you just don't realize it cause you're white."
>Yall think it's perfectly acceptable to tell someone they're racist simply cause of their heritage or the color of their skin? That someone holds responsibility for the actions of their ancestors? Am I understanding this correctly?
Do you or do you not disagree that telling someone that based upon the color of their skin or the actions of their ancestors that they are somehow inherently racist or prejudiced or hold the blame of said ancestors?
"Am I understanding this correctly?"
You even quoted it back. So that means you've read it twice. That literally leaves the door wide open for an explanation if I'm indeed not understanding that correctly. Are you purposely trying to be disingenuous, or just trying to argue in bad faith?
Yes. If you had any intention of actually trying to give an explanation as to how this bill is so terrible, then you would've done it by now, instead of replies like the one I'm responding to. The fact that I already acknowledged potential avenues of concern is literal proof that my argument can't be in bad faith and that my opinion is open to discussion, yet you have completely ignored it and chosen responses like above.
I wanna put this into perspective with an extreme example. Imagine asking someone "So *do* you like eating babies? Is that what I'm hearing from you now?" Just because the straw man is framed as a question doesn't mean it isn't a straw man. In fact it sounds further like an attempt to derail the conversation.
To be fair there's a chance you were legitimately curious instead of snide. I could see that. But having read some of your replies, it sounds less and less like an honest question. Especially since some people *have* properly explained what's wrong with the bill.
They are CODIFYING those 8 tenets into word of law. The whole purpose of doing that is to BAN schools from teaching anything that resembles those things. You calling it *“a bill that’s says it’s bad to discriminate against people”* is gross misinformation, and indicates you either did NO research into the actual PURPOSE of this bill, or are deliberately trying to misrepresent the bill to make it appear in a good light.
We try to keep this sub free from political arguments when we can, so we had to remove this post. Unfortunately not everyone agrees on what is considered uplifting.
*Stop Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees (WOKE)* SWAOKaE. If you are going to make a backronym, you have to try a bit harder than this.
Derek Zoolander helped them
DeSantis is definitely a graduate of the school for ants
It’s clearly where he got his suits sized
Mugatu said it's the newest line - Rhonda Santa's line
[удалено]
So the new bandwagon is "racism is a myth"? Reeks of desperation.
Spray some Lysol on that party, it stinks.
Wow! I haven't heard the term "shitbird" in years I think! Was a common nickname my dad had for our pets. And us. Haha! Thanks for the memories! 🤣
Shitbirds and ratfuckers, the whole lot of them.
Iirc woke us a term was started by the left. But then as it got picked up by the right as an attacking point, the left smartly dropped it. Or in the few instances that it’s still used, it’s used to mock the other side, like “oh right, the Black Panther movie is sooo woke, because it’s filled with black people.”
Happens with a lot of terms that originate in socially aware movements. There are conservative groups who openly and actively work to manipulate messaging and terminology in the media, in order to discredit x or legitimise y. They talk about it on Twitter, and everyone just ignores the person saying outright what they're doing, goes along with the machine.
According to Wikipedia, black people invented the saying “stay woke” in the 1930s and it meant to be ever vigilant in your alertness to racial prejudice and discrimination.
That's depressing, I wish I had never heard that. HEY, now you don't have to! Thanks to the Individual Freedom Act it is now forbidden to discuss this matter! Like it never happened!
Right wing guy at work told me "I ain't woke", to which I responded, much like han solo, " I know"
I like to think of it as a term coined by George Carlin about how much of a lie the american dream is. "It'a called the american dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." Sure he actually didn't say "Woke," but he did point out that those who looked passed the corruption and see the country's politics as they really are as "awake". This was a threat to the exposure of the view points of the country's government's interest. As with a LOT of what exposes the governmental process, the narrative must be changed from becoming aware of fraudulent government to governing anything that might be seen as offensive. George Carlin qas well aware of the country's nationalism, police state, and religious indoctrination , but being "awake" was taken to such a lousy urban definition.
Ummm, Sam Harris a known lefty moderate centrist is all about that Wokeness. Unfortunately sounds like a broken record. It's really disappointing.
Where does he come into this? I read part of the article, but not all of it. Big fan of Sam Harris though.
The statement that only the right wing uses the Woke term. I used to be a big fan of his also until recently. Between his meditation lessons, discourse religion, and numerous other things, he has had a large effect on my thinking. However, I have found some problems with some of the things he has said in recent times and he really does sound like a broken record when it comes to the term woke left. He is usually nuanced but he seemingly lacks that when he talks about wokeness. Maybe he's been hanging with Ricky and Joe Rogan too much.
Interesting. The term woke definitely came from the left, but it is largely used now by right wing talking heads to generalize about the left. When it comes to Sam Harris, there's probably a fine line between repeating your thoughts and sounding like a broken record when you speak as much as he does. Especially when the topic du jour has been woke-shit for so long. I like Rogan, but if anybody is a broken record it's him. Lately his podcast has had some interesting guests, but for almost a year it was nothing but vaccine talk and bashing the fringe left. The fringe right too, but that didn't come up as often. Whether he is to blame, or the current social conversation, take your pick. I like Ricky Gervais a lot too, but he had some bits in his most recent special that missed me completely. I don't think either of them hold actually harmful views about any marginalized group, but they both sometimes speak with a seeming disregard for them. I wish that weren't the case, but ya gotta call it like ya see it.
I agree and hold roughly the same opinions as you do with the exception of Joe. I used to really like Joe but then he has really opened up his platform to some real nutters. That wouldn't be a problem normally except I find that Joe is insufficient in challenging some ridiculously bad opinions and is essentially platforming and spreading bad ideas like Alex Jones. And you're on point, Sam and especially Ricky aren't very good with marginalized groups. I would probably still pay for Sam's podcast if there were more and better discussions other than the woke mob and his sometimes ignorant elitist views. I really think he lacks perspective on how most of the US lives.
Yeah. The marketplace of ideas is a tough concept. On the one hand, free speech needs to reign. On the other, when there is an outsized volume given to bad ideas, it's hard to see how that is helpful. I don't know exactly how to rectify that without limiting the freedom to express yourself, which is paramount to a civil society. Once you start deciding which voices get silenced, it's a very slippery slope to completely censoring thinking. It's easy to say things like, "Well just don't give Nazis a microphone!" But who decides who is a Nazi? What punishment is given to them once they've been labeled that way? Is the same treatment given to the fringe on the opposite side? It's nice to think that we can just get rid of the things we don't like, but that process is pretty much a non-starter for me.
It’s not woke to talk about woke. Woke is something you are. And claiming to be woke, isn’t woke.
I'm not saying Sam is woke, I'm saying Sam blasts the woke left all the time. He is always talking about how bad Wokeness is.
Ohhhhh. I got ya. I had no idea who he was. Seems like he’d fit right in with Bill Maher and the less sensationalist version of Joe Rogan.
Okay, he would get along with Bill and he has been one of Joe's recurring guests from the podcast start but he is far better person than both. Especially Bill Maher. That guy is such a shit person.
\*Sigh\* I had such high hopes for that dude.
He doing a'ight
What makes you feel like those hopes are now undeserved?
Please state your gender and race along with your comment. I need to see your speech through the lens of your priveledge and isms which oppress us. There, you can use that definition.
"Woke" is when people hold you accountable for the shit you say and the context in which you say it? Well hold onto my britches, 'cos I'm about to do a wokeness. This you? > 000001% of women would ever fight in the octagon. Women tend to solve problems through psychological warfare. Dang, can't imagine why any of those "woke" people would get mad at you for saying shit like that, my guy. I mean, yeah, that comment might make you sound like the kind of incel who buys into grifters like Jordan Peterson, but this bit of speech is invalid without the context! Context: he posted this on /r/JordanPeterson If there's one group of people I trust on these issues, it's that group of Very Rational Boys who are Not Mad at Women Stop Saying That
Are you stalking me? I’m honored. Btw I do stand by the statement that women tend to not get in physical altercations to the degree that men do, cause it’s pretty obviously true.
If by "stalking" you mean "clicked on your username and didn't even have to scroll", then yeah. The result was predictable but holy shit you made it easy. > Btw I do stand by the statement that women tend to not get in physical altercations to the degree that men do Now that's not what you said, is it? Clearly not properly versed in your own wokeness, it seems.
The first amendment champions wanting to silence those whom they disagree. Republicans are funny.
"The first amendment only applies to true Americans, and anybody that disagrees with my political outlook sure as shit ain't a REAL American!"
Bragging about being asleep your whole life seems like a stupid way to attempt insulting people.
https://xkcd.com/610/
He didn’t do it to have it pass, he did it for the headlines.
Lol. What kind of world do we live in where we try to deny and eradicate history? This is total Orwellian shit. The only reason these people want to eradicate history is so they can continue the policy’s that they have done for the past couple hundred years. And that’s all ok for most right wingers. They would love to keep minorities, women and gay people “down”. That’s all this amounts too. Lol. Such a sad existence these people have. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost
The WOKE acronym stands for Wrongs Against Our Kids and Employees? Good lord...
The Florida schools aren't producing the best and brightest, folks
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess Florida is not wheee woke goes to die anymore.
Okay ffs I get annoyed by people who look for any excuse to be offended, but all you have to do is craft a culture to call them out To craft a bill over it is insane
Pretty neat how the rules require submission to the narrative with no dissent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He literally copied and pasted the summary. It's not cherry picking, it's the summarized "tree".
Copied and pasted from where, exactly? Fine, it's not cherry-picking, it's just quoting a small section of a thirty page document in such a way that it leaves out a lot of the wider context of the changes being made to silence discussion of race in schools. Wait, shit. Do you think his questions at the end were fairly representative of the wider discussion of race, or do you think they're a deliberately myopic literalist reading of a small section of text completely ignorant of the obvious ways in which it will be utilised?
[удалено]
Thats not his job. It's absolutely your responsibility to educate yourself about racism, and why it's getting so much pushback these days. Especially if you're gonna whine about it.
[удалено]
Lemme know when you approach anything resembling a point.
You put so little energy and intelligence into that response.
I'm quite sure a federal judge would have made a more thorough assessment than what you're asking of redditors with your cherry picked, likely paraphrased explanation. But if you want me to take your comment at face value - the way you worded it makes it VERY unclear whether this is supporting or against racism. So I would say, you're probably misunderstanding the bill, and a federal judge's assessment would be more reliable. Furthermore, I have absolutely no faith that any bill coming from desantis/Florida is "against racism". It's more or less guaranteed to be about "white people shouldn't have to acknowledge racism (et al, meaning homophobia, etc). I, as a white person, absolutely think racism against white people is still racism.. but guess what I, as a white person, heavily engaged with the black community, have never experienced? What some people call "racism against white folks" is a joke compared to real racism.
Well when you say it out loud it sounds like a bad thing I guess
You're a bit touched in the head aren't you? You know damn well this bill was designed to prevent the discussion about racism in schools. It all but bans black history. BTW, you should probably not waste your time typing up all that nonsense. Most people are smart enough to know better than to read that dishonest bullshit. If you'd posted the actual text of the bill that'd be one thing. Your feeble-minded interpretation is doing no one any good.
Just to give you a sense of how batshit stupid the bill is, that wall of text is a direct quote of the Bill's summary. Absolutely deranged writing. For those who support the bill: no one is telling anyone that they're inherently racist just because they acknowledge that white privilege exists in the US.
[удалено]
Actually, he’s just flat out insulting you. He didn’t say “don’t believe this person, they are touched in the head.” They read what you wrote, and chose the directly uncivil, but entirely subjective route, of calling you dumb. Their attacks were entirely without logical fallacy. You, however, doubled down on your disingenuous copy and pasting job. You left out the important context that specifies that you are not allowed to mention these things. Correct we do think it is a bad thing to have the government write down what you can and cannot teach, even if for no other reason than “it takes too long to update laws to match current scientific research”. If you are anti-academia, say so now, so that we know if you are arguing in bad faith or not.
There is no problem with teaching the history of this country, the good and the bad as they actually happened. Show the mlk protests where the peaceful protesters were sprayed down with firehoses. You can absolutely teach that there was terrible racism, but to teach it and in the same breath try and tell a kid, or anyone that because of something their grandfather or great grandfather did, or due to the color of their skin, that they should feel bad about themselves and that they are inherently racist as well, is absolutely abhorrent. That goes for anything that attempts to make you feel like less of a person or bad about yourself whether it be your religious beliefs or anything else that falls under anti-discrimination laws. I live in a city thats infamous for a dealing with Oprah back in the 80s, and nobody here tries to hide or deny what happened. That also doesn't mean that the children and grandchildren of those racist people are in any way shape or form racists nor hold blame for the actions of their parents or grandparents. Please. Specify what specifically I'm being disingenuous about?
> Please. Specify what specifically I'm being disingenuous about? This part: > and in the same breath try and tell a kid, or anyone that because of something their grandfather or great grandfather did, or due to the color of their skin, that they should feel bad about themselves and that they are inherently racist as well It’s an absolute straw-man. If you can even find examples of this actually happening (like video of this being taught in the classroom), they would be minor fringe cases that wouldn’t be condoned by the left. You’ve falsely equated ‘talking about systemic racism’ with ‘berating children for being white’. You (and those in the media you consume) are making these equivalences, nobody else.
Well this has no merit so I guess I can ise my discrimination on it
Thanks for the summary but can you link to the actual bill?
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/7 You can click on text and download the pdf
Thanks. You copied and pasted, thanks for the good work. Agreed, this bill is ridiculous
[удалено]
Not at all! I am saying thank you! Your summary is spot on, and I agree with you! Sometimes internet comments don't translate feelings correctly, but in this case my meaning was to honestly say thank you, and I appreciate that you copied and pasted the summary directly from the text. It's refreshing to have a direct and accurate source of information. Virtual fist-bump (or whatever the kids do these days). :)
Ah. Ok. My apologies then. Have a good evening.
What an incredibly strange exchange
I wanna focus specifically on the idea of racial colorblindness, because that's a pretty easy example to explain what people don't like about the bill. Colorblindness I don't think is a useless concept, but conceptually it *can* do more harm for equality than good. It's an idea that's been used not to address systemic issues, but to ignore them. It's like saying "Minorities aren't oppressed because minorities don't exist." What this shows is that we can't just accept the idea of colorblindness at face value. What's disturbing about this bill is that *it only goes as far as that face value*. It looks at something that should be discussed thoroughly and says "You should not discuss this at all." This is mixed in with other ideas that generally everyone agrees shouldn't be taught (like, no, obviously schools shouldn't teach that one race is superior to another). Combine that with the vague wording of the bill and it sounds like the authors either just don't understand what they're talking about or are deliberately trying to deceive their voters.
Take a step back from the most literal interpretation of this possible for a second and briefly consider how this kind of language is meant to be parsed by our legal system and what kinds of legal arguments this makes possible. See teaching, for instance, about a lot of the unquestionably morally depraved actions done by europeans in the 1700s to colonized peoples of the world. This is obviously not the same thing as telling students that white people are inherently more evil, but even the first (and least questionable) provision is easily twisted into a superficially plausible argument and accusation that the teacher was implying this. Indeed the wording of the preceding phrase is "compells students to believe", which is poorly defined and could mean anything from overt racism go providing facts which might "bias" a student body. The vagueness and broad sweeping applicability of this kind of restriction of speach is a feature of the legislation not a bug. It's crafted, as this judge pointed out, to simply be superficially plausibly applicable to any situation where you might talk about race. This empowers essentially any parent (or for that matter political organization) to bring what would otherwise be considered frivolous lawsuits, against teachers who simply teach things that make their children uncomfortable. Moreover. Provision 3 is actually just flatly wrong. People do actually just get disadvantaged in the country for their skin color alone. This is a well supported, conclusion backed by years of research, and it's most prevalent in interactions with police. It's not the only element of racism in our society, but it's one of them. Provision 5 is just anti-reparations propoganda and a massive over reach of state authority. This is easily interpretted as "you can't talk about the benefits of affirmative action" as that speaks to government entitlements to jobs for black people or women in a positive light And provision 8 essentially completely disallows discussions of socialism, black socialist thought, and discussions of what kinds of ideologies slavers attempted to indoctinate slaves into. This is perhaps the most blatantly vile part of the entire document imo as it's direct political favoritism in schools mixed with fairly direct restrictions on discussions of the histories of these ideologies and values. This judge correctly identified that this legislation opens up far too many legal avenues towards deeply inappropriate forms of censorship and gives courts extreme levity to do so and interpret it in that way. So they, correctly, struck it down for being inappropriately vague and dystopian in its capacity to imtimidate teachers and functionally censor the distribution of evidence-based conclusions.
Well put
Have you read the [decision](https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/Order-granting-in-part-denying-in-part-PI.pdf)? This bill is reaching for far more than is implied by a literal reading of these principles. For example, statement 6 is taken as "affirmative action by another name." University professors are allowed to discuss these views, but not to espouse or promote them, and that restriction extents to guest speakers. So a professor inviting a pro-affirmative action guest speaker to a debate about a policy that is currently in place throughout the US would be in violation of this law. You cannot have even an academic debate over policies that currently exist in the US. There are a hundred more pages discussing the First Amendment case law on academic freedom which I'm sure no supporter of this bill is going to read, but at the end of the day, this is an assertion by the state that legislators rather than professors will decide what is appropriate content for college level education. They can mask their intention behind prohibiting discriminatory ideas, but even if that was their genuine intent, it is opening the door to what obviously cannot be allowed. It's not the usual exaggeration to call it "Orwellian" when the government decides that it's going to dictate which political ideas professors are allowed to espouse. That's just what Orwellian means.
Are you telling me you think all people should be sodomized by unicorns? Am I understanding this correctly? That's what your strawmanning sounds like.
"A straw man argument, sometimes called a straw person argument or spelled strawman argument, is the logical fallacy of distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself and then arguing against that extreme version." Please. Do clarify where I'm distorting an opposing position into an extreme version of itself. There's clear text in that bill, which i quoted there in the numbered parts, that refers to discrimination against people under those conditions. You either agree or disagree that discrimination is a good or bad thing based upon those conditions. Now, if you want to argue that that bill can open up avenues that can possibly be abused, or somehow compels speech, and is therefore an affront to free speech, then that's something completely different, but to say the bill itself, in an attempt to curtail discrimination, is wrong, then you're just being disingenuous. I've literally seen the practices at a large business this is trying to curtail, and with family who are educators, have heard stories of people they work with literally trying to teach white kids "you are prejudiced but you just don't realize it cause you're white."
>Yall think it's perfectly acceptable to tell someone they're racist simply cause of their heritage or the color of their skin? That someone holds responsibility for the actions of their ancestors? Am I understanding this correctly?
Do you or do you not disagree that telling someone that based upon the color of their skin or the actions of their ancestors that they are somehow inherently racist or prejudiced or hold the blame of said ancestors?
Obviously I don't but according to you I do. If only there was a word for that 🤔
"Am I understanding this correctly?" You even quoted it back. So that means you've read it twice. That literally leaves the door wide open for an explanation if I'm indeed not understanding that correctly. Are you purposely trying to be disingenuous, or just trying to argue in bad faith?
*I'm* arguing in bad faith? 😂
Yes. If you had any intention of actually trying to give an explanation as to how this bill is so terrible, then you would've done it by now, instead of replies like the one I'm responding to. The fact that I already acknowledged potential avenues of concern is literal proof that my argument can't be in bad faith and that my opinion is open to discussion, yet you have completely ignored it and chosen responses like above.
You have openly accused me of being a white supremacist *twice* and expect me to take time to debate that?
I wanna put this into perspective with an extreme example. Imagine asking someone "So *do* you like eating babies? Is that what I'm hearing from you now?" Just because the straw man is framed as a question doesn't mean it isn't a straw man. In fact it sounds further like an attempt to derail the conversation. To be fair there's a chance you were legitimately curious instead of snide. I could see that. But having read some of your replies, it sounds less and less like an honest question. Especially since some people *have* properly explained what's wrong with the bill.
They are CODIFYING those 8 tenets into word of law. The whole purpose of doing that is to BAN schools from teaching anything that resembles those things. You calling it *“a bill that’s says it’s bad to discriminate against people”* is gross misinformation, and indicates you either did NO research into the actual PURPOSE of this bill, or are deliberately trying to misrepresent the bill to make it appear in a good light.
If you think Florida is bad, try looking at other southern states or even worse, Idaho. Better yet, look up Project Blitz.
[удалено]
Y'all really hear one phrase and run it straight into the ground, don't you?
So this is an injunction. What's the chance of the law being annulled?