[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.