ImageImageImageImageImage

Political Roundtable Part XXXI

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#261 » by Zonkerbl » Tue Jul 5, 2022 9:24 pm

Wizardspride wrote:
Read on Twitter
?t=hU-26j1fyoV9zpR4DGTcjQ&s=19


Remember when Lindsey Graham called up some political officials in Georgia to try to browbeat them into committing a felony? I'd forgotten about it.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#262 » by Zonkerbl » Tue Jul 5, 2022 9:25 pm

Read on Twitter
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#263 » by popper » Tue Jul 5, 2022 10:08 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:+1, i'm not offended by popper's posts, so much at frustrated at the lack of substance or argument. it's a lot of dancing around the subject.

at least Nate makes it known that he legitimately believes that fertilized eggs have souls or whatever.


I found this article to be interesting and substantive. Your thoughts?

https://unherd.com/2022/07/ideology-has-poisoned-the-west/


I think this is another example of you dancing around the subjects raised (DeSantis being bad, the SCOTUS decisions being bad, Republican platforms being bad, etc.).

I think the linked article is poorly written, poorly reasoned, and full of handwaved assumptions and assertions presented as fact.

Some specific criticisms:
- it's a disingenuous use of the word "ideology" to use it as a "technocratic" ideal that "transfer[s]... sovereignty from the body of citizens to an unelected overclass" because (a) having subject matter experts as "unelected" officials in a republic is not undemocratic - those officials are placed by democratically elected leaders; and (b) the entire point of having subject matter experts work on our behalf is not only demonstrably the better form of government but the central thesis of a republic, so that citizens don't have to take time away from their lives to be involved in the business of managing the government.

- I don't see how the author can square "schoolchildren are indoctrinated with identity politics" while also going off on the horrors of supporting diversity, equity, and inclusion. is the alternative of having professors who don't support diversity, overtly show favoritism to students based on race, gender, class, or ideology the preferred alternative? how does that combat students being indoctrinated? if borders are thrown open, then immigrants won't be "illegal" and what policy advocates for immigrants to enjoy privileges and benefits not extended to citizens? what is this person even talking about? where is the substance in these hypotheticals? what is the logic? the author simply states that "no sensible person would want to find out." I for one am curious what the f*ck he's talking about.

- It's disingenuous for the author to compare the state of modern liberalism with the atrocities of the holocaust and stalinist pogroms.

- re: mute coercion. "We see this today in the insistence that certain widely-shared opinions that were uncontroversial only a few years ago are so morally illegitimate that they do not deserve a hearing." And what opinions would that be? interracial marriage? gay marriage? boys will be boys, and sometimes grabs a p*ssy or two? say it out loud, author. what are you talking about?

"We see it in the fact that those who publicly voice such opinions are commonly smeared, hounded, denied financial services, investigated, and fired." Is this comparable to those who suffer those consequences, and worse, by the basis of their race and sexual orientation? Again, say it out loud, author. Who is he talking about? He links to 2 articles, one where an "independent news outlet" had its paypal account frozen for taking in money tax/fee-free under the guise of fundraising, and distributing it to its management's personal accounts, in violation of paypal's terms of service, and another where a princeton professor was fired for having an affair with one of his students. truly, a stifling of free speech.

- he stumbles across some examples of totalitarian regimes rejecting members of the learned class - Nazi's who who lost out on a quarter of their physicists due to them being Jews, Stalin firing, imprisoning, and executing biologists for being "bourgeois-capitalists" and Mao doing the same. This is in direct conflict with his central thesis that ideologies are used as a technocratic method of transferring power from the people to those with subject matter expertise, to the point, where I literally do not know what he's talking about.

- something something "gross incompetence" of the Biden administration, something something major disaster. Which again, I don't understand the author's point. He takes great lengths to say that the West is being poisoned by this, and yet also takes great lengths to demonize China, who are decidedly not the West. So what exactly is poisoning "the West?" A political philosophy that's been in place since before there was even an America? The idea that there shouldn't be subject matter experts in the halls of power? But there also should? But also Biden is bad. But the world's covid response is also bad because it takes the word of scientists and ignores the will of the people? No opinion (or facts cited) as to whether the will of the people to ignore the advice of scientists was actually a democratic majority or not?

It's just a jumbled mess of half-researched wikipedia regurgitations, and right wing rhetoric. Devoid of facts, figures, logic, or any other neutral measuring sticks of coherent argument.

In summary, I don't know what point Mr. Howland is trying to make. I really don't. I can guess at it, but i don't want to guess at it. The substance and logic of the arguments should be self-evident and stand on its own merits. I don't see any substance, or logic in this piece. I'm not even sure what the broad assertion is, even if not backed by substance or logic. Do you?

Postscript: Ah yes. I remember the University of Austin now. It's not an accredited University, only launched last year with approximately 80 students, no campus, no degrees offered, and is technically just a nonprofit and cannot brand itself as an actual institute of higher learning with a .edu web domain.


I appreciate the time you spent reading the article and responding. Same for Monte. And yes, I understood the author’s intent and I thought he achieved it with some significant inefficiencies. Stripping away much of the extraneous text, unnecessary political jabs, and lengthy examples my summary is;

Ideology is often used as synonym for political ideas – the author thinks that’s a corruption of language

Politics in ancient Greece and Rome were understood to mean “a collective determination of matters of common concern through public debate”

Aristotle taught politics consisted of citizens who exercise logos (intelligent speech), revealing among other things what is good and bad, just or unjust, etc. – thus binding citizens together for purposes greater than the individual self

Ideology on the other hand is incapable of achieving this binding together for a shared purpose

Ideologie was coined by a man named Tracy during the French Revolution – he believed that reason offered a way of uncovering general laws of social relations – and this new social science would inform the construction of a society governed by enlightened elite, whose technical expertise would justify their claim to rule

The author thinks that in some measure this “ideology” reveals itself in the West with the onset of Covid – he believes public life was subordinated to government employed scientific advisors and a transfer of sovereignty from citizens and their elected representatives to an unelected overclass – he also believes this action is inconsistent with liberty and individual dignity

“The political philosopher Raymond Aron defined ideology quite precisely as “the synthesis of an interpretation of history and of a programme of action toward a future predicted or hoped for”. In this synthesis, a theory about the historical origins of real or alleged social ills is pressed into the service of an imagined future in which those ills will be cured. The theory is not to be judged solely, or even primarily, by its adequacy in describing the historical record as it presents itself to an informed and inquiring mind. Rather, it is to be judged by the promised consequences of the programme of action it underwrites. Of course, ideological prophecy, appearing in times of organic or manufactured crisis when everything assumes an air of urgency, must be taken on faith”


The author believes that the implementation of an ideological programme is an experiment testing the hypothesis that a radiant future can be achieved if only political, social, and economic relations are radically restructured, a process that always involves the preliminary destruction of existing realities

The author states that that future is never concretely described and never actually arrives

This unscientific hypothesis is then tested on actual human beings almost always with devastating results

The author believes ideology is opposed to common sense

The author provides examples of the destructive nature of ideologies that seek to achieve a perfect society by eliminating the evil that stands in the way

The ideology of Russian Communism and German Nazism culminated with state sanctioned mass murder of their own citizens

Finally, the author draws three conclusions:

While humans naturally form social groups for common purposes, ideology assumes that organic associations cannot support a good society and so must be engineered from the top down – the author argues that this assumption is never sustainable

Ideology requires “mute coercion” citing widely shared opinions that were uncontroversial just a few years ago that now are so morally illegitimate that they don’t deserve a hearing

Ideology requires scapegoating and purging of opponents

The author provides this quote “it is not possible to remain intelligent under the spell of ideology”
and submits that intelligence is an ongoing attentiveness to reality that is inconsistent with willfulness and fantasy

Ideological regimes therefore must always lead to ineptitude.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#264 » by popper » Tue Jul 5, 2022 10:48 pm

pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.


I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,585
And1: 3,014
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#265 » by pancakes3 » Wed Jul 6, 2022 12:51 am

popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.


I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?


Expanding Stand Your Ground: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stand-your-ground-florida-could-be-expanded-under-desantis-anti-n1247555

Treating LGBTQ Poorly:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/desantis-moves-ban-transition-care-transgender-youth-medicaid-recipien-rcna31736

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/09/new-fla-guv-excludes-lgbt-people-from-non-discrimination-order/

Voter Suppression: https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-florida-voter-suppression-law-senate-bill-90

Energy: https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/local-florida-governments-cant-restrict-dirty-energy-usage-under-new-law-signed-by-desantis/
Bullets -> Wizards
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#266 » by Zonkerbl » Wed Jul 6, 2022 1:34 am

You can't love America and hate the 1st amendment. The Don't Say Gay law is an unpatriotic abomination that specifically targets LGBTQ+ *issues* and *people* for official government censorship - there's no other way to interpret it. It is as unamerican as you can possibly be without flying a confederate flag in front of your house.

Are only heterosexual fathers welcome for career day at school? Will Disney characters, who explicitly endorse heterosexual relationships, be forbidden on school lunchboxes? Will the Berenstain bears be censored for endorsing heterosexuality?

No, only homosexual relationships will be singled out for censorship. And that's evil.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 17,330
And1: 11,524
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#267 » by Wizardspride » Wed Jul 6, 2022 3:02 am

Read on Twitter
?t=Aw2fNNhmTjHp0sTO7eI4mA&s=19

President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.
dobrojim
RealGM
Posts: 16,879
And1: 4,078
Joined: Sep 16, 2004

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#268 » by dobrojim » Wed Jul 6, 2022 4:55 am

popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.


I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?


Why do you think don’t say gay is in any way worthy of support?
Kids have already demonstrated they are way smarter as well as more
aware of the issues this law thinks it is addressing? It seems supporters
think the reason there are too many young people in what they consider
undesirable groups ie LGBTQ, is because there is too much discussion
of these “issues” in too many places. If we can only protect our young
people from talking or learning about it, somehow we will get less
of what they clearly don’t like. It seems as though they object to
the notion that people from these marginalized groups are somehow
as deserving of respect or understanding or to decide for themselves
how they feel about who they are. What specifically is it about an
LGBTQ person that leads to the conclusion they must be treated differently?

They are people. Full stop. Let go of the fear and hatred. There are so
many more important issues for us to solve speaking of which, I have
zero faith that DeSantis will further the cause of anything having to
do with FL’s environment. Particularly if it were to cost a contributor
A single dollar. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits. That’s the
desired outcome of small govt libertarians.
A lot of what we call 'thought' is just mental activity

When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

Those who are convinced of absurdities, can be convinced to commit atrocities
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#269 » by popper » Wed Jul 6, 2022 1:14 pm

dobrojim wrote:
popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.


I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?


Why do you think don’t say gay is in any way worthy of support?
Kids have already demonstrated they are way smarter as well as more
aware of the issues this law thinks it is addressing? It seems supporters
think the reason there are too many young people in what they consider
undesirable groups ie LGBTQ, is because there is too much discussion
of these “issues” in too many places. If we can only protect our young
people from talking or learning about it, somehow we will get less
of what they clearly don’t like. It seems as though they object to
the notion that people from these marginalized groups are somehow
as deserving of respect or understanding or to decide for themselves
how they feel about who they are. What specifically is it about an
LGBTQ person that leads to the conclusion they must be treated differently?

They are people. Full stop. Let go of the fear and hatred. There are so
many more important issues for us to solve speaking of which, I have
zero faith that DeSantis will further the cause of anything having to
do with FL’s environment. Particularly if it were to cost a contributor
A single dollar. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits. That’s the
desired outcome of small govt libertarians.


I think the majority of FL parents think k-3 age children are too young for school directed discussions or exhibits having to do with sexual orientation or gender identity. For most, I doubt they're motivated by hate but quite possibly fear. I just happen to agree that it's too young to broach the subject.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#270 » by Zonkerbl » Wed Jul 6, 2022 1:49 pm

That's not all the legislation does, Popper
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#271 » by Zonkerbl » Wed Jul 6, 2022 2:13 pm

Seeing a *lot* of examples like this now

Read on Twitter
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#272 » by popper » Wed Jul 6, 2022 2:26 pm

pancakes3 wrote:
popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:the only credit i'm willing to give DeSantis is that he's not a climate denier. however, he is still pro-oil-and-gas industry, pro-fracking.*

re: gun control, he introduced a bill that would extend "stand your ground" to where you can pro-actively shoot people you believe are committing crimes against property, which is insane.

re: gay rights, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups rate him a literal 0.

re: voting rights, he's one of the most proactive governors in the country in taking steps towards voter suppression; unsurprising given that Florida is a notorious kingmaker swing state, and that DeSantis himself only won by a fraction of a percentage.

*I remember DeSantis passing a law that bans local jurisdictions from choosing where their sources of electricity comes from. Like, Orlando, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Miami, and other cities had voted, and wanted their electricity to come from renewable sources and DeSantis comes in and overrides it. It's undemocratic. It has no justification, other than to protect energy companies. It's bad policy and bad governance.


I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?


Expanding Stand Your Ground: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stand-your-ground-florida-could-be-expanded-under-desantis-anti-n1247555

Treating LGBTQ Poorly:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/desantis-moves-ban-transition-care-transgender-youth-medicaid-recipien-rcna31736


https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/09/new-fla-guv-excludes-lgbt-people-from-non-discrimination-order/

Voter Suppression: https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-florida-voter-suppression-law-senate-bill-90

Energy: https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/local-florida-governments-cant-restrict-dirty-energy-usage-under-new-law-signed-by-desantis/


I'm against "stand your ground" for property crime unless that property crime would likely lead to the death of innocent occupants.
For example someone is ready to throw a Molotov Cocktail into a building. A bystanders knows his child and other children are in the building. Should he use deadly force to save the kids? Seems like that might be the right thing to do. However if he's wrong, and the children have already exited the building, then his use of deadly force should lead to charges.

Regarding the LGBTQ bill, is discrimination against gay and LGBTQ covered under the "sexual orientation" text? If not then the bill should most definitely be amended to include those individuals

The transition care bill is beyond my ability to sort through it. If Sweden and Finland were among the first countries to engage in prescribing a broad range of transition-related care for transgender children, and they have severely curtailed it, I would want to learn the details and medical rationale

Regarding voter suppression, I think a better way to solve this problem is simply to have those voters who need help for any reason, simply sign up in advance with the government for assistance. I agree that every qualified voter that wants to cast a ballot should be able to and I would oppose any process that makes that prohibitively difficult.

Regarding state prohibitions against municipalities restricting certain types of energy sources from commercial providers, that's a tricky one. On the one hand I think they should be able to decide, on the other I think it would create a whole different set of issues and problems. So, I'm not sure.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#273 » by popper » Wed Jul 6, 2022 2:30 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:That's not all the legislation does, Popper


This snippet is what I read from the WP

What does Florida’s law do?

1. It bans instruction or classroom discussion about LGBTQ issues for kindergarten through third grade. For older students, discussion about gay and transgender issues has to be “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.”

The law is effectively a statement that classroom education about sexual orientation and gender shouldn’t start at an early age, and that parents should have final say about what their children learn and when. It aims to “reinforce the fundamental right of parents to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of their children,” according to the text of the legislation.

Edit - whoops, I see you're right, there are an additional two bullets I didn't notice

2. It empowers parents to sue the school district over teachings they don’t like. And the district will have to pay for it.

What impact that could have on students:

That could prompt schools to preemptively shut out teachings or conversations about LGBTQ issues. Some librarians across the country are accusing their schools of quietly removing race- and LGBTQ-related books from their shelves before it starts a fight, The Washington Post recently reported.

“Cash-strapped school districts can’t afford to test the bounds of a law like this,” Wolf said, citing reports that some schools in the state have started to peel off rainbow safe-space stickers from windows. “It’s the chilling effect that is a natural implication of this legislation.”

3. It requires schools to tell parents when their child receives mental health services.

What impact that could have on students:

It could take away a school’s ability to serve as a haven for students who might not feel comfortable talking to their parents about their gender orientation or sexuality.

But proponents say it would ensure parents are informed if their child is experiencing confusion over their identity. One of the advocates for the bill is a Florida mother who says her child’s school recognized her child’s gender identity as different from the one they recognized at home.
Zonkerbl
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,052
And1: 4,744
Joined: Mar 24, 2010
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#274 » by Zonkerbl » Wed Jul 6, 2022 2:41 pm

The bill is either poorly drafted or intentionally vague in ways that allow creative lawyers to significantly expand what the legislation actually forbids, and teachers have already drastically curtailed any mention of homosexuality anywhere in their school as a preemptive measure, meaning that the effect of the bill is to censor all mention of homosexuality at all grade levels.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-actually-says-rcna19929

"The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”"

This vague language means any discussion at any grade level could be illegal under this legislation, and the authors of the legislation intentionally did not provide clarifying examples of what they meant.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, you shouldn't believe anything Fox News says. Their business model is to lie. It's not a news organization. The talking point you repeated above is nowhere close to the truth, excuse my bluntness.
I've been taught all my life to value service to the weak and powerless.
popper
Veteran
Posts: 2,862
And1: 399
Joined: Jun 19, 2010

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#275 » by popper » Wed Jul 6, 2022 3:19 pm

Zonkerbl wrote:The bill is either poorly drafted or intentionally vague in ways that allow creative lawyers to significantly expand what the legislation actually forbids, and teachers have already drastically curtailed any mention of homosexuality anywhere in their school as a preemptive measure, meaning that the effect of the bill is to censor all mention of homosexuality at all grade levels.

https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/floridas-dont-say-gay-bill-actually-says-rcna19929

"The text states that teachings on sexual orientation or gender identity would be banned “in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”"

This vague language means any discussion at any grade level could be illegal under this legislation, and the authors of the legislation intentionally did not provide clarifying examples of what they meant.

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, you shouldn't believe anything Fox News says. Their business model is to lie. It's not a news organization. The talking point you repeated above is nowhere close to the truth, excuse my bluntness.


As I've said repeatedly, I don't watch Fox News. The post above from the WP was my source. Their article appears to end then continues after a page of annoying ads. When Zonk pointed out there was more, I went back and scrolled through the ads and sure enough there was. I agree with you after reading about lawsuits, etc. It's ridiculous.
queridiculo
RealGM
Posts: 17,931
And1: 9,312
Joined: Mar 29, 2005
Location: So long Wizturdz.
   

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#276 » by queridiculo » Wed Jul 6, 2022 3:33 pm

The guiding principle of conservative policies, ostrich syndrome.

If they pretend it doesn't exist it's not going to affect them.

Racism, homophobia, man made climate change, pandemics, deficit spending, education, it applies to everything.

Who needs debates and a public discourse when you can just subvert the system and legislate away.

Compromises and bi-partisanship are for pussies and losers.

Play by the rules, pussy.

Show empathy and attempt to create an inclusive environment, pussy.

Today's evangelicals would call Jesus a heretic and couldn't raise that cross quick enough.

The whole conservative movement is rotten to the core.

Mean spiritedness as a close second to sticking your head into the sand.
Wizardspride
RealGM
Posts: 17,330
And1: 11,524
Joined: Nov 05, 2004
Location: Olney, MD/Kailua/Kaneohe, HI
       

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#277 » by Wizardspride » Wed Jul 6, 2022 4:01 pm

Read on Twitter
?t=4Xj40bydyyXq8H0Not8LqQ&s=19

President Donald Trump referred to African countries, Haiti and El Salvador as "shithole" nations during a meeting Thursday and asked why the U.S. can't have more immigrants from Norway.
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,585
And1: 3,014
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#278 » by pancakes3 » Wed Jul 6, 2022 4:24 pm

Subjugation of millions of people and reducing their existence to that of tradeable commodities, perfectly acceptable school material for 2nd graders. Explaining why little Katie has 2 dads? Fireable offense.
Bullets -> Wizards
User avatar
pancakes3
General Manager
Posts: 9,585
And1: 3,014
Joined: Jul 27, 2003
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#279 » by pancakes3 » Wed Jul 6, 2022 5:10 pm

popper wrote:
pancakes3 wrote:
popper wrote:
I think you wanted me to respond to this. I'm not dancing around the issues, I just forgot. Assuming the above information is accurate

I think it's bad policy to extend "stand your ground" to property crime

I'm unaware of any policies other than the mislabeled "don't say gay," law (which I support) that impacts gay or LGBTQ+ individuals. Please advise if I'm missing some information in that regard.

I'm unaware of any policy that suppresses the vote in FL. Please advise.

I don't know the context in the energy issue you mention. Do you have a link?


Expanding Stand Your Ground: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/stand-your-ground-florida-could-be-expanded-under-desantis-anti-n1247555

Treating LGBTQ Poorly:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/desantis-moves-ban-transition-care-transgender-youth-medicaid-recipien-rcna31736

https://www.washingtonblade.com/2019/01/09/new-fla-guv-excludes-lgbt-people-from-non-discrimination-order/

Voter Suppression: https://www.lwv.org/newsroom/press-releases/federal-court-strikes-down-florida-voter-suppression-law-senate-bill-90

Energy: https://www.wfla.com/news/florida/local-florida-governments-cant-restrict-dirty-energy-usage-under-new-law-signed-by-desantis/


I'm against "stand your ground" for property crime unless that property crime would likely lead to the death of innocent occupants.
For example someone is ready to throw a Molotov Cocktail into a building. A bystanders knows his child and other children are in the building. Should he use deadly force to save the kids? Seems like that might be the right thing to do. However if he's wrong, and the children have already exited the building, then his use of deadly force should lead to charges.



1) If you carve out an exception for the protection of innocent life, then it's no longer about property crime, it's about saving innocent lives, so why bring up property rights at all? Property can be replaced, and even insured. A law that allows third persons to act in self defense on behalf of someone else is a much cleaner (still poorly written) law than the one proposed by DeSantis.

2) If Person A is allowed to kill person B to save person C, then it's no longer self-defense, it's giving the general public a license to kill. This allows for "good samaritans" to be mistaken in fact and still justified in exercising deadly force against a fellow citizen. It also creates a feedback loop where Person D is justified for shooting A to save Person B. And person E to shoot Person D. And Person F to... etc. This is not how the law should function.

3) Your hypothetical is also not what the bill says, it says protection of property rights, period. And really, this is what ultimately matters. If you vote DeSantis, and this bill gets passed as written, that's the law. A private citizen can legally shoot burglars and looters, even if they're burgling/looting property that doesn't belong to that private citizen. It's providing the death penalty as punishment for a crime against punishment, and without due process.

4) The shooter is then allowed due process, as you said, and "lead to charges" but if he's wrong, that looter's dead. Punished before adjudicated.

5) There's an entire parade of horribles that would result in this unprecedented law of allowing deadly force to protect property. Can I shoot someone in a fit of road rage if someone crashes into my car, or even swerves into my lane, claiming that I'm protecting my car as property? Can I shoot my neighbor for lighting fireworks too close to my house? Can I shoot graffiti artists?

Regarding the LGBTQ bill, is discrimination against gay and LGBTQ covered under the "sexual orientation" text? If not then the bill should most definitely be amended to include those individuals

The transition care bill is beyond my ability to sort through it. If Sweden and Finland were among the first countries to engage in prescribing a broad range of transition-related care for transgender children, and they have severely curtailed it, I would want to learn the details and medical rationale


Desantis's order doesn't include "sexual orientation" and goes out of his way to edit Scott's previous order that included sexual orientation.

And re: "I would want to learn the details and medical rationale" - you already admit that it's beyond your ability to sort through it. The article also states that the DeSantis bill "contradicted guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under President Joe Biden, and transgender rights activists and 300 state health care professionals accused Florida of cherry-picking evidence and performing incomplete research."

DeSantis's Surgeon general states: “While some professional organizations, such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Endocrine Society, recommend these treatments for ‘gender affirming’ care, the scientific evidence supporting these complex medical interventions is extraordinarily weak. The current standards set by numerous professional organizations appear to follow a preferred political ideology instead of the highest level of generally accepted medical science. Florida must do more to protect children from politics-based medicine.”

Which is entirely self-contradictory. He says that there is a level of "generally accepted medical science" but rejects the opinion of the federal HHS and multiple professional organizations. So where else does one obtain "generally accepted medical science?" It seems that there is a standard of generally accepted medical science, and Florida is the one rejecting it because of politics-based medicine.

I'm not a scientist or a doctor, but if there appears to be a scientific consensus, from both government and private practice experts, that seems to be "generally accepted medical science" to me. The same as there's generally accepted medical science re: masks, vaccines, and generally accepted climate science re: global warming and pollutants. I've said it a thousand times on these boards - I have no intrinsic political bias to believe in vaccines or climate change or any number of other highly technical issues. None of us should. These are non-political issues. However, Republicans are always the ones to reject these, and crying foul on Science, saying that it's part of a liberal agenda. It seems pretty obvious to me that Republicans are the ones who are politicizing the issue.

In terms of individual liberty and dignity, what business is it of yours that someone else's kid receives these treatments? You are still free to raise your children however you want. Why can't someone else - if there is consensus in the medical community that it's permissible? And that doesn't even address the non-medical treatments for transitioning, such as name changes, pronoun changes, haircut/clothes changes that Florida's Surgeon General has also come out against - despite those social treatments are decidedly not medical in nature.

Regarding voter suppression, I think a better way to solve this problem is simply to have those voters who need help for any reason, simply sign up in advance with the government for assistance. I agree that every qualified voter that wants to cast a ballot should be able to and I would oppose any process that makes that prohibitively difficult.


The voters are signing up in advance, and the governmental assistance provided is mail-in balloting.

And again, I've said this many times in this thread - if Republicans are really concerned about voter ID, then they need to pass legislation that issues voter ID's. You cannot rely on driver's licenses as a proxy. If the freedom to vote is universal and cannot be infringed upon, AND the government insists on having an ID requirement, then that ID needs to be provided without cost to every eligible voting citizen.

And not to mention gerrymandering. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/02/florida-redistricting-map-court-decision-00036740

Regarding state prohibitions against municipalities restricting certain types of energy sources from commercial providers, that's a tricky one. On the one hand I think they should be able to decide, on the other I think it would create a whole different set of issues and problems. So, I'm not sure.


If you can think of any, let me know. The only sets of issues and problems that I can see are those for fossil fuel produces in Florida, specifically natural gas providers. It may lead to higher energy prices, but the voice of the people have agreed that they are willing to pay higher prices, if it means cleaner means of energy production.


Bottom line, when I say "dance around the issues" I don't mean necessarily engaging in debate here on a basketball forum, I mean actual introspection as to what you believe, and how you square that with your vote. If you're willing to concede that these policies facially are bad, maybe reconsider how you vote. If you're willing to concede that you need to do more research to establish your position, maybe do that research.

And like I've said, I have conservative values. I was raised conservative, and identified as conservative for much of my life. I arrived at the decision to become liberal in opening my mind to assess the arguments on both sides in good faith. Republicans have not offered much in terms of substance. Liberals, though frustratingly ineffective, at least have proper arguments and goals that decrease human suffering. The old Republican standby of "we just can't afford it" has proven to be a sham, and the continually widening wealth gap and increasing federal budget/debt, even during Republican rule, exposes that sham. Republican ideals of personal choice and freedom also ring pretty hollow. It has proven to be the more authoritarian of the two parties, not less. People are less able to choose to live their lives how they choose under Republican policies. There are many more instances of censorship, voter suppression, codifying norms and codes of conduct under Republican policies than Democratic ones. Republicans have proven to be much more in the pocket of big business, especially the fossil fuel industry. Republicans reject expertise, and science that do not align with their preconceived ideologies. It is an unyielding, dictatorial party that seeks conformity, order, and preys upon the worst instincts and fears of the voting public to achieve their desired society.

What Democrats offer is a freer society, where people are free to raise their family in whatever way they so choose, allowing for a traditional set of norms, decided on a family-by-family basis, and enables those who are marginalized an opportunity to live the way that they choose. So what if a boy is wearing a skirt. So what if Tampa wants to run off renewable energy? Let them. If they don't like it, they can change accordingly. Those decisions are not the government's decision to make. The government taxes, enforces laws, deals with other sovereign nations, and regulates interstate commerce. It adjudicates disputes between citizens where the freedoms of one person interfere with the freedoms of another. it doesn't make decisions on how people should dress, who they marry, or how they plan their families.
Bullets -> Wizards
Pointgod
RealGM
Posts: 24,097
And1: 24,426
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: Political Roundtable Part XXXI 

Post#280 » by Pointgod » Wed Jul 6, 2022 10:48 pm

Wizardspride wrote:
Read on Twitter
?t=4Xj40bydyyXq8H0Not8LqQ&s=19


This is why the garbage about CRT should have been called out for what it is. Racist nonsense. This is the game here. Rewrite history into one that reinforces whiteness and there by create a pool of future and current voters that will reflexively be against anything that challenges that.

Return to Washington Wizards