WW3 Please SAY NO!

[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.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

You do know every city or town In MA isnt not necessarily blue but surrounded by a sea of ot. Similar to Austin being surrounded by a sea of red.. "dont you...dont.you" ???


Wrf is that?? Time for your coping cocktail buddy

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

You do know every city or town In MA isnt not necessarily blue but surrounded by a sea of ot. Similar to Austin being surrounded by a sea of red.. "dont you...dont.you" ???


Wrf is that?? Time for your coping cocktail buddy

Nonsensical

[irv]

Remember when the left and their herd of sheep called the previous president a Nazi and that he'd start WW-3?

Ironic, don't you think, the current president is playing/toying with that scenario and his follows are now all Nazi sympathizers.

[ALR-bishop]

Austin is liberal ?

I lived there 85-90. Starting in 88 the banks went bust, the market caved, oil tanked, the Cowboys sucked and we had neighbors walk away from their homes and mortgages in the middle of the night. But we enjoyed our time there.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Austin is liberal ?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've been to Austin. I wouldn't exactly call it liberal compared to, say, Ann Arbor.

Wasn't expecting pushback on the statement that Austin is liberal. It has been voting heavily Democratic for decades, and has become increasingly more so. In the 2020 Presidential election Travis County (where the vast majority of Austin is located) voted for Biden by 72% vs. 27% for Trump.

The Mayor has been Democratic for many years and the Council, which has ten other members, is all Democrats except one (Mackenzie Kelly). Though it should be noted that the Austin City Council is officially nonpartisan.

Governor Rick Perry famously called Austin the "blueberry in the tomato soup" of Texas politics. Now of course, most major metropolitan areas in Texas and the country in general lean democratic in Presidential and other major elections.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wasn't expecting pushback on the statement that Austin is liberal. It has been voting heavily Democratic for decades, and has become increasingly more so. In the 2020 Presidential election Travis County (where the vast majority of Austin is located) voted for Biden by 72% vs. 27% for Trump.

The Mayor has been Democratic for many years and the Council, which has ten other members, is all Democrats except one (Mackenzie Kelly). Though it should be noted that the Austin City Council is officially nonpartisan.

Governor Rick Perry famously called Austin the "blueberry in the tomato soup" of Texas politics. Now of course, most major metropolitan areas in Texas and the country in general lean democratic in Presidential and other major elections.

You're right, Austin is liberal. Has been as long as I've been here in 1972. Although I don't think it's as liberal as it was in the past. Too many Californians moving here.

I saw a t-shirt for sale 10 to 15 years ago at the ACL Music Fest that depicted Austin as a blue oasis in a red landscape. I always wish I had gotten it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by ALR-bishop

Austin is liberal ?

I lived there 85-90. Starting in 88 the banks went bust, the market caved, oil tanked, the Cowboys sucked and we had neighbors walk away from their homes and mortgages in the middle of the night. But we enjoyed our time there.

Banks went bust, the market caved, and oil tanked everywhere in the late 80s to early 90s, not just Austin. Being a Cowboys hater since the mid to late 70s, I like it when they suck.

Although I don't get to SA very often, it is a great place to visit.

[irv]

Stand with Ukraine!!!

https://www.tiktok.com/@world.peace...._t=8dcrN0eL1ru

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

I've been to Austin. I wouldn't exactly call it liberal compared to, say, Ann Arbor.

[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.