WW3 Please SAY NO!

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am, on this exact page, expressing an opinion that does not mesh with either factional narrative about the two issues being discussed, Ivermectin and the war. I forgot that you know me so well, rando stranger.

I may not know you, but I can form a judgement about you based upon what you write and the views you espouse. In the Roberto Clemente thread, the Florida state law that makes it illegal for school children in Florida to be taught that blacks have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, is discussed. A few of my favorite quotes of yours from that thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

I would encourage you to read the law…

Originally Posted by G1911

In a perfect world we could all read everything; I completely understand people having opinions on 2,000 page budget bills they haven’t read because it’s so much work and designed to be confusing.

This one is short and direct. It takes 10 minutes at most to read. Those who have read it struggle to find anything specific to attack and still choose to follow op-ed claims instead that are demonstrably false, or to even go so far as to dismiss a reason based standard entirely because they cannot find what is unreasonable and actually in the bill. The only giveaway that this was written by Republicans instead of Democrats is the “any race”; only that there’s no carve out to not protect whites like every other race.

Originally Posted by G1911

… There is little excuse for the confusion, as it takes less than 10 minutes to read and the people outraged continue to be unable to actually find anything in the bill to object too. So much so, that a reason based standard itself has to be dismissed in order to toe the party line here. …

Even though this law clearly makes it illegal to discuss the fact that black people have been discriminated against solely because of their skin color, you cannot find anything wrong with it. To support the view that there is nothing wrong with the law as written, you misrepresent what it actually says. Some more favorite quotes from the thread:

Originally Posted by G1911

It does not, in any way, “force schools and libraries to remove literature about people of color or with LGBTQ themes.” … this a complete lie, …
… Obviously, a book celebrating Roberto Clemente is not banned, unless it argues that Clemente was morally superior to others because of his skin color (what we would call racist if it was about a white male). It’s a smart move to do this though, people are by and large not going to read the actual bill or do any research whatsoever, they’ll just follow whatever articles that preach their views to them say without any inquiry. Announcing they’re pulling an unobjectionable book that obviously is not banned by this law is just optics politics. It’s rage bait for their base, regardless of how absurd it is on even cursory inspection. …

Originally Posted by G1911

This claim that these books were banned appears to be completely false. Furthermore, anyone who has read the short law would know that such books are not banned from school libraries whatsoever, and that the law very explicitly requires the achievements of and problems experienced by African Americans to be taught to children. This is just fake rage bait for people who are unable or unwilling to to put even 1 minute into checking if it’s true, or reading the law.

Originally Posted by G1911

This is my problem with the narratives against it - almost nobody can object to the actual content in the bill, because it's very explicit in every clause about not allowing discrimination between the races and sexes. It is difficult to see what, exactly, the left is so angry about with the bill and why they will not tackle the bill itself but only their media and political narratives. …

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm trying to understand what is problematic. My liberal self is unable to see it reading the bill. … I have posted both the full text and the portion containing what is banned, seems good to me.

It was not long ago that the left would have loved this bill, because it treats the races and sexes the same and bans discrimination, while specifically stipulating that African American achievement be taught. But now, because it bans advocating racism in the classroom towards any race without a carve out for a particular race, it is wrong and terrible.

Originally Posted by G1911

… the actual law is pretty hard to object too because you have to endorse teaching open racism to do so.

Governors lie. The media lies. Go to the source and don’t play the rage bait game. Somebody saying something doesn’t make it true.

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's only because it bans teaching racism against ANY race that there is a public outcry and anger. …
If we are fine with all other (or most) such bills though - how is this one different and objectionable? Nobody can ever answer this question without using political statements and op-eds filled with falsehoods that have nothing to do with the actual law.

Originally Posted by G1911

I think I'm more convinced the law is a good idea, as no real argument against the law as it is actually written is ever put forth. … I fail to see why we would want to teach racism against any race in school, or which of the 8 very direct and specific points is bad policy, nor can anyone state an argument against any of them, apparently.

Originally Posted by G1911

I get some people are really upset by this law, but dealing with what it actually says makes for a much better argument than making blatantly false claims about the text.

Yes, it's rage bait for both sides. The left media gets to completely lie about the text to feed it's rage machine and stir up their base…

When you write that there is nothing wrong with the simple, short bill, you are either misrepresenting the bill or are in agreement that school kids should not be taught about the discrimination blacks faced simply because of their skin color. If it’s the latter, then that definitely shows that you are in a certain camp. If it’s the former, then let me quote you again:

Originally Posted by G1911

… I cannot fathom why anyone would put culture war points over actual fact. I do not understand why people have adopted such a tribalist mentality that they must attack or make false claims about anything anyone outside of their political tribe has passed. …

Since you are making false claims about the law in order to attack a certain camp, you must be in the other camp.

One last quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

… It's the normal path of the ideologue, judgement before reading what is in question, then being unable to cite their claims in the document in question, the dismissal of reason and a reason standard itself because that doesn't find what they want to find, until the anger and ad hominem are all that's left.

Another path of the ideologue is to ignore what is actually contained within the document in question, make false claims about what the document says, and say anyone who has a problem with the document does so purely on unreasoned political grounds.

So yes, your words regarding the Florida law clearly puts you in one camp versus the other.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

And also all good responses. Well done.

[frankbmd]

If WW3 is really on the horizon, expect Beckett to blow SGC and PSA out of the water. The strength of their slabs will defend against any attacks on our dead ball players better than their competition. Living ball players will be saved as well and our collections will live forever.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Awesome post, responding to 14 different quotes. May be a record?

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didn’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didn’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

As we discussed, I think we basically agreed, with perhaps some nuance of difference about one or two clauses, that the text of the law read literally was fairly neutral. Where we differed was that I placed more emphasis on, and had more concern about, context and likely misapplication to practices I thought should be left alone.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As we discussed, I think we basically agreed, with perhaps some nuance of difference about one or two clauses, that the text of the law read literally was fairly neutral. Where we differed was that I placed more emphasis on, and had more concern about, context and likely misapplication to practices I thought should be left alone.

That we did. An example of a reasoned debate.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

That we did. An example of a reasoned debate.

The law was passed to promote support from the base of one party with a governor of that party having presidential aspirations. It has had its intended effect. Laws passed when a super majority controls all branches of a house are typically not intended to be neutral and I think the governor of Florida would not say otherwise.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

He will, of course, be unable to show anywhere in the law where it criminalizes recognizing that blacks have been discriminated against. He clearly didnÂ’t read the part of the law that actually stipulates it *must* be taught. False claims about the law indeed!

222 (4)(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of
223 race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to
224 subject any student or employee to training or instruction that
225 espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such
226 student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

.
.
.

233 3. A person's moral character or status as either
234 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
235 race, color, national origin, or sex.

.
.
.

258 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
259 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger
260 course of training or instruction, provided such training or
261 instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement
262 of the concepts.

Saying a person's status as oppressed is determined by his/her color is a concept as defined by the law. That concept cannot be endorsed. A book saying Roberto Clemente was discriminated against because he was black is endorsing a concept that is forbidden by the law.

Now, in regards to your other comment, it is true, I have not read "the part of the law that actually stipulates it [discrimination against black people] *must* be taught."

But that's only because there is nothing in the law that stipulates that discrimination against blacks must be taught. Talk about "False claims about the law indeed."

What does the law actually stipulate be taught? The history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society. I don't see anything in that that is the equivalent to discrimination against blacks must be taught. Unless of course you think discriminating against blacks is part of the contributions blacks made/make to society. Post slavery, the only thing that is stipulated to be taught about blacks is their contributions. If I missed something, please point it out because I do not see anything stipulating that the history of discrimination against blacks should be taught.

[G1911]

A guy with a username I don't even recognize raging over things I wrote (which, from the quoted portions, is mostly statements that one should read the bill text) weeks ago in another thread is one of the weirder Net54 interactions I've seen, but I'll bite.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

222 (4)(a) It shall constitute discrimination on the basis of
223 race, color, national origin, or sex under this section to
224 subject any student or employee to training or instruction that
225 espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such
226 student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:

.
.
.

233 3. A person's moral character or status as either
234 privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her
235 race, color, national origin, or sex.

.
.
.

258 (b) Paragraph (a) may not be construed to prohibit
259 discussion of the concepts listed therein as part of a larger
260 course of training or instruction, provided such training or
261 instruction is given in an objective manner without endorsement
262 of the concepts.

Saying a person's status as oppressed is determined by his/her color is a concept as defined by the law. That concept cannot be endorsed. A book saying Roberto Clemente was discriminated against because he was black is endorsing a concept that is forbidden by the law.

Notes line 258-262 there. It is perfectly legal to teach blacks were discriminated against. The verbiage says that the teacher just cannot endorse the discrimination (which would, you know, be racist). Yes, it bans teachers from being racist and teaching that a persons status is because of their skin color. Note the present tense. I would think that is a good thing.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Now, in regards to your other comment, it is true, I have not read "the part of the law that actually stipulates it [discrimination against black people] *must* be taught."

But that's only because there is nothing in the law that stipulates that discrimination against blacks must be taught. Talk about "False claims about the law indeed."

What does the law actually stipulate be taught? The history of African peoples before the political conflicts that led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the enslavement experience, abolition, and the contributions of African Americans to society. I don't see anything in that that is the equivalent to discrimination against blacks must be taught. Unless of course you think discriminating against blacks is part of the contributions blacks made/make to society. Post slavery, the only thing that is stipulated to be taught about blacks is their contributions. If I missed something, please point it out because I do not see anything stipulating that the history of discrimination against blacks should be taught.

I am such a nice guy, that I looked up the law by Googling for it and reading because it is not my memory but the text that is law. This took me a few minutes because I am slow and stupid fellow. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil.../?Tab=BillText.

(h)
360 The history of African Americans, including the
361 history of African peoples before the political conflicts that
362 led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the
363 enslavement experience, abolition, and the history and
364 contributions of African Americans of the African diaspora to
365 society. Students shall develop an understanding of the
366 ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on
367 individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a
368 responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of
369 encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and
370 for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.
371 Instruction shall include the roles and contributions of
372 individuals from all walks of life and their endeavors to learn
373 and thrive throughout history as artists, scientists, educators,
374 businesspeople, influential thinkers, members of the faith
375 community, and political and governmental leaders and the
376 courageous steps they took to fulfill the promise of democracy
377 and unite the nation. Instructional materials shall include the
378 vital contributions of African Americans to build and strengthen
379 American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of
380 African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult
381 circumstances. Instructional personnel may facilitate
382 discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate
383 manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been
384 infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
385 racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the
386 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial
387 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and
388 how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust
389 laws. However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be
390 used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point
391 of view inconsistent with the principles enumerated in
392 subsection (3) or the state academic standards. The department
393 shall prepare and offer standards and curriculum for the
394 instruction required by this paragraph and may seek input from
395 the Commissioner of Education's African American History Task
396 Force.

There you go. Now you have. Enjoy your evening.

[Republicaninmass]

Shouldnt be surprised, he ("austin"Mike) is (likely) one more strike away from being banned for political posts.

Must be tough being in Austin, TX I'd gather.

Kind of like me in Massachusetts, but in reverse. Then I moved to NYC. I'm a glutton for punishment!


For the record, I'm just fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


We are here to talk cards though...right?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Shouldnt be surprised, he ("austin"Mike) is (likely) one more strike away from being banned for political posts.

Must be tough being in Austin, TX I'd gather.

Kind of like me in Massachusetts, but in reverse. Then I moved to NYC. I'm a glutton for punishment!


For the record, I'm just fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


We are here to talk cards though...right?

You are aware that Austin Texas is one of the most liberal cities in the US, correct?
A liberal living in Austin is not the opposite of a Republican in MA or NYC.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Shouldnt be surprised, he ("austin"Mike) is (likely) one more strike away from being banned for political posts.

Must be tough being in Austin, TX I'd gather.

Kind of like me in Massachusetts, but in reverse. Then I moved to NYC. I'm a glutton for punishment!


For the record, I'm just fiscally conservative but socially liberal.


We are here to talk cards though...right?

Thanks for the laugh Ted. Complaining about political posts with your handle being what it is. Nothing political there, right "Republican"inmass?

But hey, I get that you're sensitive about political posts. So, you might want to stop reading because I'm going to post some more political talk.

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Pretty strange that "Hunter was a director on the board of Burisma - a Ukrainian-owned private energy company while his father was the Obama administration's pointman on US-Ukrainian relations. Hunter was one of several foreigners on its board."
- per BBC

Just another coincidence

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

A guy with a username I don't even recognize raging over things I wrote (which, from the quoted portions, is mostly statements that one should read the bill text) weeks ago in another thread is one of the weirder Net54 interactions I've seen, but I'll bite.



Notes line 258-262 there. It is perfectly legal to teach blacks were discriminated against. The verbiage says that the teacher just cannot endorse the discrimination (which would, you know, be racist). Yes, it bans teachers from being racist and teaching that a persons status is because of their skin color. Note the present tense. I would think that is a good thing.



I am such a nice guy, that I looked up the law by Googling for it and reading because it is not my memory but the text that is law. This took me a few minutes because I am slow and stupid fellow. https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bil.../?Tab=BillText.

(h)
360 The history of African Americans, including the
361 history of African peoples before the political conflicts that
362 led to the development of slavery, the passage to America, the
363 enslavement experience, abolition, and the history and
364 contributions of African Americans of the African diaspora to
365 society. Students shall develop an understanding of the
366 ramifications of prejudice, racism, and stereotyping on
367 individual freedoms, and examine what it means to be a
368 responsible and respectful person, for the purpose of
369 encouraging tolerance of diversity in a pluralistic society and
370 for nurturing and protecting democratic values and institutions.
371 Instruction shall include the roles and contributions of
372 individuals from all walks of life and their endeavors to learn
373 and thrive throughout history as artists, scientists, educators,
374 businesspeople, influential thinkers, members of the faith
375 community, and political and governmental leaders and the
376 courageous steps they took to fulfill the promise of democracy
377 and unite the nation. Instructional materials shall include the
378 vital contributions of African Americans to build and strengthen
379 American society and celebrate the inspirational stories of
380 African Americans who prospered, even in the most difficult
381 circumstances. Instructional personnel may facilitate
382 discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate
383 manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been
384 infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
385 racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the
386 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial
387 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and
388 how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust
389 laws. However, classroom instruction and curriculum may not be
390 used to indoctrinate or persuade students to a particular point
391 of view inconsistent with the principles enumerated in
392 subsection (3) or the state academic standards. The department
393 shall prepare and offer standards and curriculum for the
394 instruction required by this paragraph and may seek input from
395 the Commissioner of Education's African American History Task
396 Force.

There you go. Now you have. Enjoy your evening.

That has to be one of the weirdest statutes I have ever seen.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by G1911

Notes line 258-262 there. It is perfectly legal to teach blacks were discriminated against. The verbiage says that the teacher just cannot endorse the discrimination (which would, you know, be racist). Yes, it bans teachers from being racist and teaching that a persons status is because of their skin color. Note the present tense. I would think that is a good thing.

I kind of get your point, but even with your interpretation, the law is still flawed. Based on your interpretation, school kids can't be taught that discrimination is still going on. A person of color is presently never denied the same interest rates a similar white person would be offered. Police don't randomly stop people based on their skin color. To discuss such a thing would make the teacher racist, in your interpretation of the law.

Originally Posted by G1911

381 ... Instructional personnel may facilitate
382 discussions and use curricula to address, in an age-appropriate
383 manner, how the individual freedoms of persons have been
384 infringed by slavery, racial oppression, racial segregation, and
385 racial discrimination, as well as topics relating to the
386 enactment and enforcement of laws resulting in racial
387 oppression, racial segregation, and racial discrimination and
388 how recognition of these freedoms has overturned these unjust
389 laws. ...

There you go. Now you have. Enjoy your evening.

Thanks for posting the above. I stand corrected. The law does say that past discrimination may be discussed.

You have a great day.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

A person of color is presently never denied the same interest rates a similar white person would be offered.

Banks bend over backwards to loan money to East Asians and at lower rates than they do to privileged whites. The reason has nothing to do with racism, the banks know they will get paid back.