[carlsonjok]

Originally Posted by G1911

They are very literally the legal guidelines. I am still struggling to find the clause you think is too vague.

I've stated it several times and will state it several more in this post. The bill purports to set curriculum, but it provides no detail about what is in the approved curriculum beyond chapter headings.

Your post is quoted right before the comment. I will quote again: "And it is that lack of specificity that is causing local schools to over-react and pull things off the shelves that rational people can agree should be there". I don't know what this is in reference too, because the books in this thread were not pulled off the shelves or banned. Again, nobody can cite any evidence these books have. What Jackie Robinson book has been pulled from the shelves? The one claimed in this thread turned out to be easily debunked fake news.

I am sitting here absolutely amazed. Not only are you telling me I am saying something I am not saying, you actually provided a direct quote from me that doesn't say what you say it does. I believe you are engaging in good faith, so I have to believe there is a fundamental disconnect here. In a possibly apocryphal story, Vince Lombardi once gathered his team together after a particularly bad loss, held up a ball and said "Gentlemen, this is a football. Stop me if I am going too fast." I feel like I need to be a bit pedantic here.

A ban is an "official or legal prohibition." A ban says *these* books cannot be in your classroom. What we are seeing is educators, because they have no clear guidance, voluntarily (albeit reluctantly) pulling anything even tangentially related to the topic off the shelf.

It does not allow hecklers or gunny ass parents to veto any curriculum whatsoever. I'm confident you are well aware of this now that you have read it.

Here again, you seem to be working from a completely different language than I am. Heckler's veto:

In the United States, a heckler's veto is a situation in which a party who disagrees with a speaker's message is able to unilaterally trigger events that result in the speaker being silenced. For example, a heckler can disrupt a speech to the point that the speech is canceled.

In the legal sense, a heckler's veto occurs when the speaker's right is curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is the termination of a speech or demonstration in the interest of maintaining the public peace based on the anticipated negative reaction of someone opposed to that speech or demonstration.

What dancing? It's fine to say Bull Connor was white. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a racist. It's fine to say Bull Connor was a white supremacist. None of what you said is impacted by this bill. You just can't say, again, "Bull Connor was a white supremacist because he was white", or any other person of any race. It only bans advocating racism, that a person is X, Y, Z because of their skin color.

Bull Connor wasn't a white supremacist because he suffered from male pattern baldness. He was a white supremacist because he was white. Writing a law that makes stating the obvious legally untenable is absurd and I struggle to understand how you can't see that.

I think what a bill actually, in real actual fact, does is far more important than the often factually wrong and absurdist ideological statements made around it by any faction.

Out here in the real world what this bill is doing is creating confusion, controversy, protest and, in a not-too-distant day, lawsuits. I mean look at what it is doing here where it is just a throwaway conversation between a bunch of bored greyheads. Out in real schools, it is a rolling disaster.

This has nothing to do with the actual bill.

But everything to do with the actual topic that the bill purports to address.

It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society;

Woe be unto the first teacher that points out how various laws that are being passed today (probably even in Florida) are de facto racially discriminatory. Their life is about to get a whole lot more complicated.

Yes, I am talking about the actual bill and not peoples fantasies. The law is the actual text, not what people feel or what people claim or what people think their political enemies might claim. Reality of the law > political narratives of that law that are not in the law in actual fact. 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, even before reading it, and will put their 'side' over reason. A person should use reason, not conspiracy theories of abuse they or op-ed writers of similar political leaning have imagined in their head and have nothing to do with the law and are not actually enabled by it. People always have the choice to use the great gift of reason, of stepping back and looking at actual fact instead of political narratives. These are minority views that I have.

Fathom this. Published yesterday.