Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida

G1911 · #1 02-14-2023, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Strawman. Those are bumper stickers, not guidelines that can be used by teachers and administrators to make good faith decisions about what to teach. Curriculum guidance needs to be detailed enough that a random sample of educators would come to essentially the same decisions. This law doesn't do that. Quite the opposite, as we are seeing play out in real time. How should a bill affecting curriculum should be constructed. I would say that it isn't a list of what is disallowed, but rather an outline of what is allowed. For the topic of racial discrimination what are the subtopics that can be covered and what evidence introduced to illuminate those topics? Can current events be covered? Etc..

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I am not sure who you are responding to here, because it isn't me. I never said books were banned. I said that, faced with ambiguity, educators are erring heavily on the side of caution and pulling anything that could even result in some fired up parent wasting their morning complaining about CRT infiltrating the schools because a book points out Dixie Walker's role in the integration of the Brooklyn Dodgers.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

Textually, no. And I am certainly not advocating for an abridgement of the people's First Amendment rights, if that is what you are setting me up for here. What I am concerned about is that this bill makes all curriculum subject to the heckler's veto. At some point, you have to stop privileging ignorance. And a properly constructed and detailed curriculum is a good first step.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

One man's recitation of facts is another man's advocacy. Take my voter ID example.It is a demonstrable fact that Voter ID laws disenfranchise minority voters because those voters disproportionately do not have the required ID. That is just a statement of fact. And look at how that spun off into it's own argument. Now imagine how that plays out when it involves real educators and real parents, not just a bunch of baseball card collectors wasting time on a discussion board.

The law specifically protects a recitation of facts, or even of opinions. Advocacy is very different, and I am sure one can find an edge case, but this is taking it to ab absurdist level where we pretend the two things mean the same. They do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

This is exactly the type of absurdity I am talking about. Bull Connor was a racist. Racism is prejudice against a person because of their race. Bull Connor was white. Bull Connor was a white supremacist. Are educational outcomes actually improved by dancing around the obvious?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

And, to restate myself, the advocates should be less concerned about what it says and more concerned about how what it doesn't say can be used to strategically create chaos. Which is already happening.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

And, in my opinion, the right would be much better served when they realize that stunts like this bill aren't meant to solve a problem, but rather keep Ron DeSantis' name in the news and burnish his credentials as a culture warrior in advance of the 2024 GOP Presidential primary.

Don't disagree. It's a stunt. It seems to be working for him as he's getting the exact reaction intended, where the media does its thing and openly lies about the bill, which he then gets to spin to his base as more confirmation of their existing beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

If teaching about racism was solely about teaching that it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone because of their race, it would be a 30 second conversation. The history of racism in the US, though, is about racism coupled with control of the levers of power that enables someone to act on that prejudice under the color of law. And that is not a solved problem. To be sure, it is certainly better than it was in the 1860s and also the 1960s. But, it isn't solved. We still have to create a more perfect union. But, is it any less advocacy to teach the comfortable fiction that we have truly achieved a color-blind society?

This has nothing to do with the actual bill. It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society; it says you can't advocate racism in 8 specific ways it delineates, against any race. It then requires instruction in the history and achievement of multiple minority groups. I have said nothing that could possibly be construed as believing or promoting the belief that the US is color-blind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

In sum, I think we are each talking about a different topic. While you are talking about what is within the four walls of the bill, I am talking about what happens out in the wild as a result of the bill. You are asking "Does this sound reasonable?" and I am asking "how can someone abuse this bill in service to some other agenda?" I am not sure how we reconcile that.

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.

Carter08 · #2 02-14-2023, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

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

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.

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.

The law specifically protects a recitation of facts, or even of opinions. Advocacy is very different, and I am sure one can find an edge case, but this is taking it to ab absurdist level where we pretend the two things mean the same. They do not.

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.

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.

Don't disagree. It's a stunt. It seems to be working for him as he's getting the exact reaction intended, where the media does its thing and openly lies about the bill, which he then gets to spin to his base as more confirmation of their existing beliefs.

This has nothing to do with the actual bill. It does not at all mandate anyone to teach that we have achieved a color-blind society; it says you can't advocate racism in 8 specific ways it delineates, against any race. It then requires instruction in the history and achievement of multiple minority groups. I have said nothing that could possibly be construed as believing or promoting the belief that the US is color-blind.

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.

Florida is a rare state that has a superplex of republican control of the government - governor, both houses, most major offices. They pass what you think is a benign law regarding the content of books. The governor has presidential aspirations. Whether he would make a good or bad president I don�t know but to think this isn�t meant to cater to right leaning thinking in Florida and nationwide is naive. The banning of a Clemente book headline is what this was designed to do and it will increase his base support.

carlsonjok · #3 02-15-2023, 07:00 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with the actual bill.

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

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

G1911 · #4 02-15-2023, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

Have you ever read any other education bill? I'm guessing the answer is no. They are not usually 10,000+ page behemoths stipulating every single possible thing that can be said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

I'm amazed your second paragraph says it again after the first so angrily denies it and your original comment lol. These Jackie and Roberto books, the subject of this thread, were not banned. They were not removed by teachers. The district said they were never on the shelf in the first place. It is impossible to remove what is not there. You can just make things up as much as you want, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

School board meetings are unaffected in any way by this bill. That is an actual fact. This, of course, is why you cannot point to anything actually in the bill for this, and just screech a party narrative. This bill, factually, does not adjust school board meetings in any way, shape, or form. You appear to be working from a dictionary you have just completely made up lol. Did you actually read the bill? I might even agree with you on a bill proposing reforms to school board meetings, but this bill is not that bill and I cannot figure out how a reasonable person would think it is after reading the actual text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

"Person X is [insert bad thing] because of their race" is racist. My personal opinion is we should not teach that to children, because I think racism is illogical and as a liberal, immoral and reprehensible. If you want to argue that we should teach racism, or racism only against a specific race, as policy, do so. I have seen no evidence that a person possesses a particular idea or character trait because of their race and does not make their own decisions or have will. Bull Connor and many like him made their choice, others of all races made the opposite and fought for Civil Rights even when it wasn't their rights. If Connor was a terrible racist because of his race, then everyone white would have been a Bull Connor. The historical record makes clear they did not all make that same choice and this claim is absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

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.

Fathom this. Published yesterday.

Yet again, the bill does not bar a teacher from saying a bill is discriminatory, whatsoever. This is, for the 20th time or so, why you cannot cite anything in the bill when you make these things up and just throw a false claim out there as if it is true. I'm rather surprised there is apparently no counter-argument to this bill that is predicated on the actual content of the bill and not political fantasy.

This has nothing to do with race at all. According to this article, this book was removed after a complaint (which was not even actually filed) that it had a pornographic scene. Proponents of the book say it is a non-arousing rape scene. It's been a number of years since I've read it (I like Morrison), but incest, rape, and child molestation are an integral part of the story and its metaphor and I cannot fathom how it would be considered pornographic.

Pornography, what the article states is the reason, appears once in the bill:

320 1003.41. Instructional materials recommended by each reviewer
321 shall be, to the satisfaction of each reviewer, accurate,
322 objective, balanced, noninflammatory, current, free of
323 pornography and material prohibited under s. 847.012, and suited
324 to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material
325 presented. Reviewers shall consider for recommendation materials
326 developed for academically talented students, such as students
327 enrolled in advanced placement courses.

I see no way a reasonable person could read this book, consider it obscene pornography under 847, and thus subject to ban from a high school. The students protesting the ban will surely win out here, as the law clearly does not in fact ban this. I have no issue with the bill banning pornography from schools. I suppose it is good that of the 3 books named in this thread, 1 actually has been removed from a school and only 2 were complete fake news! This superintendent overreacted, clearly did not read the law, and will surely regret it.

carlsonjok · #5 02-16-2023, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok View Post
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.

I'm amazed your second paragraph says it again after the first so angrily denies it and your original comment lol. These Jackie and Roberto books, the subject of this thread, were not banned. They were not removed by teachers. The district said they were never on the shelf in the first place. It is impossible to remove what is not there. You can just make things up as much as you want, though.

I was warned that this moment would come and here it is. It is utterly incomprehensible that you can directly quote me and then insist I said the exact opposite. I am not sure how this happens, although I can think of a number of different explanations. None of them are particularly complementary.

G1911 · #6 02-16-2023, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I was warned that this moment would come and here it is. It is utterly incomprehensible that you can directly quote me and then insist I said the exact opposite.

The transcript speaks for itself. In 128 and on you have referred to these books (which a reasonable reader can only presume are the books in question we have all been talking about, as nothing else is named or referenced instead) as being removed. They were not removed. It is impossible to remove a book that wasn't there. It took 30 seconds to find the districts statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

I am not sure how this happens, although I can think of a number of different explanations. None of them are particularly complementary.

I don't doubt it. 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. I will leave the personal shit talk to our delightful ideologues. Happy collecting

carlsonjok · #7 02-16-2023, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

The transcript speaks for itself. In 128 and on you have referred to these books (which a reasonable reader can only presume are the books in question we have all been talking about, as nothing else is named or referenced instead) as being removed. They were not removed. It is impossible to remove a book that wasn't there. It took 30 seconds to find the districts statement.

You know, since you know more about what I mean than I do, perhaps you should just carry on both sides of the conversation yourself. That way you are sparring with your intellectual equal and, at the end, can congratulate yourself on your brilliance.

Carter08 · #8 02-16-2023, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carlsonjok

You know, since you know more about what I mean than I do, perhaps you should just carry on both sides of the conversation yourself. That way you are sparring with your intellectual equal and, at the end, can congratulate yourself on your brilliance.

Ha

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Roberto Clemente Banned in Florida	BobC	WaterCooler Talk- Off Topics	1	02-13-2023 02:03 PM
Sold: 1993 Florida Marlins Inaugural Yr Team Signed Official Florida Marlins Baseball	greenmonster66	Autographs & Game Used B/S/T	5	06-23-2021 12:07 PM
WTB: Roberto Clemente PSA 7/8's	fuzzybub	1960-1979 Baseball Cards B/S/T	1	02-06-2016 07:29 PM
FS: Roberto Clemente PSA 5's 56,67,70	bigfanNY	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	05-14-2015 10:48 PM
FS: 1962 Roberto Clemente PSA 6 1966 Clemente PSA 6	Mphilking	1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T	0	06-26-2010 12:41 PM