If DeSantis wins

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,912
1,776
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Because that's literally the point.

The point of laws like this to create a climate of legal uncertainty around what topics are permitted, and thus to shut down any discussion at all.

Like, if I argue that white people in countries where white people are the majority are unconscious beneficiaries of cognitive racial biases and are thus always incentivized to protect the racial privilege they enjoy, have I said that white people are inherently racist? Well, obviously not. The idea of anyone being "inherently racist" is extremely stupid, it's so stupid it doesn't even need to be rebuked in an academic context because it's a blatant misunderstanding of the meaning of inherency. Any critical discussion on race is takes place under the baseline principle that race is not inherent, let alone racism.

But, maybe the person I'm talking to is too stupid or too divorced from the conventions of intellectual discussion to understand the point and thinks that's what I've said is that white people are inherently racist. Or, maybe they're so fragile and easily offended that they immediately leap to the assumption that this is just a coded way of saying that all white people are inherently racist.

Then there's this issue of promotion, and there's a reason they use four different words, because the point is to make it extremely vague as to what actually counts as promoting a belief.

The wording of this law is fucking meaningless. It's painfully obvious that it's written by people who don't understand the subjects they're attempting to regulate, and as written it's entirely unnecessary because the positions it criminalizes are absurd. However, what it actually does (and what the point is) is to remind people that any nuanced or contextually specific discussion they might have in a teaching context can be deemed illegal if the stupid, illiterate people who write these laws find it offensive.
 
Last edited:

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,379
809
118
Country
United States
DeSantis is a wet paper blanket. Current Joe Biden could out-debate him easily by just mentioning Social Security cuts.

Past Joe Biden who debated, and won against Paul Ryan could debate circles around him. Trump is a better debater than DeSantis. Even as an Asian, I hope they replace Kamala with literally anyone in the Dem party. Kamala Harris should have been the AG, and someone like Pete or Whitmer should have debated Pence as the VP candidate.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,520
2,184
118
DeSantis is a wet paper blanket. Current Joe Biden could out-debate him easily by just mentioning Social Security cuts.
I'm not sure that it he's bad at debating, so much as nobody likes him. I mean, Trump is despicable, but he has an insight into people and what gets them going, and a certain sort of charisma. De Santis just comes across as an arrogant, self-important arsehole.

Although I think you are right he's not good at debating. I'm just not sure that he's that smart generally. He got to the Florida governorship by apeing Trump, and then when he got more ambitious ideas in his head, it turned out there was nothing else there. Presidential campaigns can be cruel for exposing people's weaknesses.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,701
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
DeSantis is a wet paper blanket. Current Joe Biden could out-debate him easily by just mentioning Social Security cuts.

Past Joe Biden who debated, and won against Paul Ryan could debate circles around him. Trump is a better debater than DeSantis. Even as an Asian, I hope they replace Kamala with literally anyone in the Dem party. Kamala Harris should have been the AG, and someone like Pete or Whitmer should have debated Pence as the VP candidate.
They'd probably replace Harris with Pelosi
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,701
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I'm not sure that it he's bad at debating, so much as nobody likes him. I mean, Trump is despicable, but he has an insight into people and what gets them going, and a certain sort of charisma. De Santis just comes across as an arrogant, self-important arsehole.

Although I think you are right he's not good at debating. I'm just not sure that he's that smart generally. He got to the Florida governorship by apeing Trump, and then when he got more ambitious ideas in his head, it turned out there was nothing else there. Presidential campaigns can be cruel for exposing people's weaknesses.
Here's my hot take for the day, Trump has better politics than DeSantis
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
1,990
355
88
Country
US
Remember when the 15th amendment was supposed to give all citizens voting rights....
As in this one?
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
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.
Women weren't banned from voting federally. Never have been. Because basically every question regarding how elections are run is handled at the state level, later having restrictions and limits on how states are allowed to do so added by various amendments and federal legislation (such as 15th amendment, VRA, etc) - for example, this is why states are allowed to set restrictions on voting related to criminal incarceration or even criminal history to use an example that still applies in some states as no federal law or constitutional amendment prohibits them from doing so. So prior to the 19th Amendment, women's suffrage was up to the individual states and like anything else up to the individual states was patchwork and all over the place depending on exactly where you were. By the time the 19th amendment was passed preventing the states from restricting the right to vote based on sex, women had at least partial suffrage (often with local, state and federal elections having different rules) in most states.

If you want to play the "Women didn't get the right to vote until all women had the right to vote in all elections" game then by that standard white men didn't have the right to vote until almost the Civil War, as suffrage for all adult white males spread throughout the country mostly during the first half of the 19th century. There was even at least one state where this actually cost women the right to vote as the previous restrictions (which included a property requirement but no sex or race restrictions, and yes there were records of women and free blacks voting there) were replaced with extending the franchise to all adult white males. It's also noteworthy that since this was under couverture that the women voting were necessarily single, as the only women who legally held property were femme sole, whereas when married the husband took on legal ownership of all property and all debts in the union (and liability for many sorts of crimes if committed by the wife or any children, but that's not really relevant to property requirements for voting).

I'd be curious what was in those lessons that Florida deemed violated the law. Surely they supplied more to the College Board about what issues they had with the course than "lol no".
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
2,055
2,045
118
Country
United States
As in this one?




Women weren't banned from voting federally. Never have been. Because basically every question regarding how elections are run is handled at the state level, later having restrictions and limits on how states are allowed to do so added by various amendments and federal legislation (such as 15th amendment, VRA, etc) - for example, this is why states are allowed to set restrictions on voting related to criminal incarceration or even criminal history to use an example that still applies in some states as no federal law or constitutional amendment prohibits them from doing so. So prior to the 19th Amendment, women's suffrage was up to the individual states and like anything else up to the individual states was patchwork and all over the place depending on exactly where you were. By the time the 19th amendment was passed preventing the states from restricting the right to vote based on sex, women had at least partial suffrage (often with local, state and federal elections having different rules) in most states.

If you want to play the "Women didn't get the right to vote until all women had the right to vote in all elections" game then by that standard white men didn't have the right to vote until almost the Civil War, as suffrage for all adult white males spread throughout the country mostly during the first half of the 19th century. There was even at least one state where this actually cost women the right to vote as the previous restrictions (which included a property requirement but no sex or race restrictions, and yes there were records of women and free blacks voting there) were replaced with extending the franchise to all adult white males. It's also noteworthy that since this was under couverture that the women voting were necessarily single, as the only women who legally held property were femme sole, whereas when married the husband took on legal ownership of all property and all debts in the union (and liability for many sorts of crimes if committed by the wife or any children, but that's not really relevant to property requirements for voting).



I'd be curious what was in those lessons that Florida deemed violated the law. Surely they supplied more to the College Board about what issues they had with the course than "lol no".
From the sound of it, the issue is AP Psychology discussing sexual orientation and gender identity at all, because it is possible for a high school student to take an AP Psychology course, and the law forbids that subject matter being taught to anyone under the age of 18. To quote NBC News on the subject:

"The College Board added that Florida will allow superintendents to offer the college-level psychology class for high schoolers if they exclude LGBTQ topics.

However, the College Board argued that excluding the lessons — which it describes as teachings on "how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development" — "would censor college-level standards."

It added that lessons regarding sexual orientation and gender identity have been included in AP Psychology since the course was created 30 years ago.

The group said that more than 28,000 Florida students took AP Psychology in the prior academic year."
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,209
1,710
118
Country
4
I'd be curious what was in those lessons that Florida deemed violated the law. Surely they supplied more to the College Board about what issues they had with the course than "lol no".
....


The college board said the AP course asks students to “describe how sex and gender influence socialization and other aspects of development”. That element of the course isn’t new, the board said. “Gender and sexual orientation have been part of AP Psychology since the course launched 30 years ago,” it wrote in its statement.

....

In the letter, the state reminded the organization about its new law banning instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in all but health courses from which parents can opt out of sending their children.

The letter asked the College Board to audit its course material and modify any content that did not comply with state law or rules set by the state board of education.

The College Board responded in June that modifying its courses in such a way would make them ineligible for college credit and would also violate academic standards, and reaffirmed that decision on Thursday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ag3ma

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,520
2,184
118

Good, good. Education in action...

To be clear, Shakespeare has not been banned from the top, but evidently some schools have decided a risk-averse strategy may be wise for some texts.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,675
3,588
118
Just the sex bits? Not going to cut out what happens to Macbeth after he takes power from the rightful leader using illegal means?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
6,509
930
118
Country
USA

Good, good. Education in action...

To be clear, Shakespeare has not been banned from the top, but evidently some schools have decided a risk-averse strategy may be wise for some texts.
I'm skeptical of this reporting as well. Once again, all the actual quotes in the article are the contradictions to what they are reporting. They have no primary source for the claim that they were cutting out the sexual bits, they only things they can put a quote around are:

"Students will still have the physical books to read excerpts in class.

"Curriculum guides are continually reviewed and refined throughout the year to align with state standards and current law."

If they were afraid of getting in trouble for having the sexual parts of Shakespeare, they wouldn't be providing the physical books with the full plays. If they think that content violates that specific law, they would have cut it out of the schools entirely. Instead, they say how curriculum is constantly being updated, as though this is a much more normal thing, rather than is specific response to a controversial law.

Here's another article:


" The district told the Times that past English classes required students to read two complete novels or plays, but that it was switching to one novel and excerpts from five to seven different books that could appear on the state competency exam based on a list included the new Benchmarks for Excellent Student Thinking. "

It seems to me that the law they are catering to is new testing standards.
 

CastletonSnob

Elite Member
Apr 24, 2020
475
222
48
Country
United States
Just think, if even half of the 100,585 Floridians who voted "Other" in 2018 voted for Gillum, DeSantis would be just another also-ran.

Fuck third party voters.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,115
5,836
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, fuck your broken system.
There's plenty of room to be angry at both: the broken system that brings about such ridiculous binary options, and the voters who choose to allow that system to empower the worse of the two.