If DeSantis wins

[Ag3ma]

‘I’m not wanted’: Florida universities hit by brain drain as academics flee

Ron DeSantis’s slew of laws attacking teaching of race and gender issues sees state’s colleges struggle to fill faculty posts

www.theguardian.com

Shocker. Turns out if you start making a hostile environment for workers, existing ones tend to leave your state and new ones are less willing to come.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

‘I’m not wanted’: Florida universities hit by brain drain as academics flee

Ron DeSantis’s slew of laws attacking teaching of race and gender issues sees state’s colleges struggle to fill faculty posts

www.theguardian.com

Shocker. Turns out if you start making a hostile environment for workers, existing ones tend to leave your state and new ones are less willing to come.

This is the goal. When you get rid of everyone who can speak the truth, you get to invent your own, and indoctrinate the children with it.

 

[Trunkage]

Australia also uses $ as the symbol for its currency. Last I recall the Aus$ was worth in the region of 60-80% of the US$, so Aus$500K is somewhere in the region of US$300-400K. Contextually, this is similar to UK house prices (~£280k average).

Not sure what the average houshold income for Australia is, but chances are the mean is lower but the median higher than the USA (because the US rich are really extraordinarily rich, larger wealth gap). Then, as a general rule, prices tend to be higher in other developed countries too, because most other developed countries impose more regulations and taxes. Although this can be very variable depending on good/service in question.

In terms of houses, there are then issues with where you want - or need - to live. An advantage of the USA is that because it's very large there are relatively unfashionable places with modest house prices but which still have lots of opportunities. In many other smaller countries, because they cannot support so many key social and economic hubs, often the less costly places are just a bit... shit.

Median Australian wage is around $75k
Mean around $90/100k
Top ten % around 130k
I put the last one in because I thought it was $115/120k. I must have looked it up in 2020 last time

 

[Ag3ma]

Median Australian wage is around $75k
Mean around $90/100k
Top ten % around 130k
I put the last one in because I thought it was $115/120k. I must have looked it up in 2020 last time

Is that household income or individual salary? It looks to me like household income, or Australia is much richer than I thought.

 

[tstorm823]

This is the goal. When you get rid of everyone who can speak the truth, you get to invent your own, and indoctrinate the children with it.

Alternatively, when you get rid of all the liars, the truth remains.

 

[Gordon_4]

Is that household income or individual salary? It looks to me like household income, or Australia is much richer than I thought.

Sometimes the stats can get thrown off for individual areas. Canberra - the city where Parliament actually sits - has a very high median and mean income because 90% of the head offices of our civil services are located here along with their department heads. And their salaries trend towards $800,000k or so.

 

[Ag3ma]

Sometimes the stats can get thrown off for individual areas. Canberra - the city where Parliament actually sits - has a very high median and mean income because 90% of the head offices of our civil services are located here along with their department heads. And their salaries trend towards $800,000k or so.

Australian civil servants appear to be extraordinarily well paid compared to the UK: bar a handful of positions where there have to be market adjustments, UK civil service salaries top out around £200k. (Equivalent level private sector jobs would have salaries in the millions.)

 

[Gordon_4]

Australian civil servants appear to be extraordinarily well paid compared to the UK: bar a handful of positions where there have to be market adjustments, UK civil service salaries top out around £200k. (Equivalent level private sector jobs would have salaries in the millions.)

I think I actually got it wrong (sort of). It looks like there's their salary and then there's further remuneration that tops it up. Given the strength of the Pound against the Aus Dollar, the gap is somewhat smaller (200k pounds gets almost $400k AUD)

But if you're interested at all, their current packages are listed here.

 

[Trunkage]

Is that household income or individual salary? It looks to me like household income, or Australia is much richer than I thought.

Minimum wage is like $45k ($23/hr.) So it's not that much higher. There was a 10% increase stipulated by the government as wages have stagnanted for a decade

Most cheap houses in Australia are about 500k unless you go rural. Average house $1m

I'll note that I was suprised at some house prices in America. Way lower than I ever expected. This was comapring rural houses in both countries.

There is some wiggle room in this conversation as we arent as confident with each countries stats

 

[Trunkage]

Alternatively, when you get rid of all the liars, the truth remains.

One of the things I've learnt over the years is that the opposite of a liar isn't necessarily the truth

It can just be another lie

 

[Ag3ma]

Donald Trump to appear in court over attempt to overturn 2020 US election

Former US president, who faces four conspiracy and obstruction counts, will have bail conditions set on Thursday

www.theguardian.com

And now Trump has another trial for four more charges, covering conspiracy and obstruction over the 2020 election result.

Busy year he's got coming up.

We're also expected to hear from Georgia in August regarding whether he will be charged for a crime over trying to persuade election officials to overturn the result there.

 

[Baffle]

And now Trump has another trial for four more charges, covering conspiracy and obstruction over the 2020 election result.

Busy year he's got coming up.

It's always nice to have something in the diary.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Most cheap houses in Australia are about 500k unless you go rural.

I feel seen.

 

[Schadrach]

This is the goal. When you get rid of everyone who can speak the truth, you get to invent your own, and indoctrinate the children with it.

And that truth is *checks notes*:

Espousing, promoting, advancing, inculcating, or compelling a student to believe:

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

Just feel like whenever that law gets mentioned, it's always just kind of handwaved what specifically it prohibits and treated as though it's a lot more vague and broad than it actually is.

To put it another way, what truth do you feel like they are getting rid of people who can speak, and which of those 8 things are you required to promote in order to speak that truth?

 

[Silvanus]

And that truth is *checks notes*:

Espousing, promoting, advancing, inculcating, or compelling a student to believe:

1. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.
2. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
3. An individual's moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is necessarily determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.
4. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect to race, color, sex, or national origin.
5. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.
7. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin.
8. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin.

Just feel like whenever that law gets mentioned, it's always just kind of handwaved what specifically it prohibits and treated as though it's a lot more vague and broad than it actually is.

To put it another way, what truth do you feel like they are getting rid of people who can speak, and which of those 8 things are you required to promote in order to speak that truth?

Pro-tip: when a law like this comes into play, after looking at the exact wording, look at the effect it has, and how it has been utilised.

Teachers were never teaching anybody that "such virtues as merit, excellence, and fairness are racist", yet there's a highly specific provision against it in the bill. In fact there are numerous provisions there targeting completely ridiculous things which never happened and are not an issue. Why? Well, lets have a look at how it's been used......Ah, to target classes that talk about race and sex in other, broader ways. Of course.

As another example, look at the infamous Section 28 in Britain. The law banned "promotion" of homosexuality by local authorities. If you look at the exact wording, and ignore the context and the impact, one could conclude it's fine because no sexuality should be "promoted" by local authorities. Except... of course, this was used as a cudgel to prevent any mention at all, except in negative terms. And that was always the point.

 

[Trunkage]

Pro-tip: when a law like this comes into play, after looking at the exact wording, look at the effect it has, and how it has been utilised.

Teachers were never teaching anybody that "such virtues as merit, excellence, and fairness are racist", yet there's a highly specific provision against it in the bill. In fact there are numerous provisions there targeting completely ridiculous things which never happened and are not an issue. Why? Well, lets have a look at how it's been used......Ah, to target classes that talk about race and sex in other, broader ways. Of course.

As another example, look at the infamous Section 28 in Britain. The law banned "promotion" of homosexuality by local authorities. If you look at the exact wording, and ignore the context and the impact, one could conclude it's fine because no sexuality should be "promoted" by local authorities. Except... of course, this was used as a cudgel to prevent any mention at all, except in negative terms. And that was always the point.

Remember when the 15th amendment was supposed to give all citizens voting rights....

Except that somehow didn't applied to women. And if you read the Amendment, there was no clear indication that women were banned from voting. It was implied.

So, in 1972 women tried to vote and they were fined. One of the women handed the judges ass to him, showing him what the amendment said

 

[tstorm823]

So, in 1972 women tried to vote and they were fined.

1872?

 

[Trunkage]

1872?

Yes, sorry. Wrong century. 50 years too late, rather than 50 years too early

 

[Ag3ma]

6. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

Okay, let's imagine in a class the topic of affirmative action comes up.

This provision of the law essentially leaves teachers free to let a classroom discussion go against affirmative action, but puts them legally in peril to let it go in favour. Let's say the teacher wanted to encourage healthy debate: the class was generally against, so the teacher decided to put forward arguments supporting as counterpoint: that could put him or her at risk of disciplinary action. It has thus biased how that topic could be discussed in a classroom.

I concur with Silvanus's point (#1075), that the impact of a law can go well beyond the technical wording. The simple threat of disciplinary action is inevitably going to have an impact on many teachers' willingness to go anywhere near certain topics, because it's more trouble than it's worth. Even if they technically abided by the law, the process of complaints and investigation may result in anything from reprimands to dismissal anyway, and most won't want to risk the stress and reputational damage even if the law eventually decides in their favour.

 

[Avnger]

Okay, let's imagine in a class the topic of affirmative action comes up.

This provision of the law essentially leaves teachers free to let a classroom discussion go against affirmative action, but puts them legally in peril to let it go in favour. Let's say the teacher wanted to encourage healthy debate: the class was generally against, so the teacher decided to put forward arguments supporting as counterpoint: that could put him or her at risk of disciplinary action. It has thus biased how that topic could be discussed in a classroom.

I concur with Silvanus's point (#1075), that the impact of a law can go well beyond the technical wording. The simple threat of disciplinary action is inevitably going to have an impact on many teachers' willingness to go anywhere near certain topics, because it's more trouble than it's worth. Even if they technically abided by the law, the process of complaints and investigation may result in anything from reprimands to dismissal anyway, and most won't want to risk the stress and reputational damage even if the law eventually decides in their favour.

Just to back you and Silvanus up, US Constitutional legal theory has a standard term for such effects beyond a law's strict textual language called the chilling effect