Indiana Senate Bill 167: Holy crap, what a mess.

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,949
2,056
118
Australia
I mean, just look at the major political parties, one is dedicated to continuing offshore detention and the other is dedicated to continuing offshore detention but looking sad about it.
Yes, the shadow of Tampa looms long and large. I don’t think anyone in Federal Labour has forgotten it.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
I'm not upset at something which isn't happening being banned. I'm frustrated with fabricated accusations used to smear people for the political benefit of conmen and shysters.
Then you're on the wrong side of the argument! Stop believing false accusations that Republicans are trying to defend Nazis or slavery or are trying to ban the civil rights movement from history classes. Those are the fabricated accusations used to smear people here.
We... shouldn't call slavers slavers because that wouldn't be nice. Definitely can't say the slavers did the wrong thing...

Yeah, no. I'm absolutely fine calling slavers wrong for slaving people. As a white person who does not live at that time, it does not affect me one iota. Even if you use an Aussie example like the Stolen Generation. It was wrong and we as a soceity need to take responsibility for it. Not try and hide away from facts
You do get that you're just punching a strawman repeatedly, right? You're not actually arguing with anyone, nor actually addressing the bill, you're just attacking an imaginary enemy.
And it's never had the desired effect, which is hilarious.

If a teacher were teaching that modern conservatism was bad, what with government takeovers, militia groups, batshit insane conspiracy theories, violent assaults, targeted assassinations, failed fiscal policy, etc, etc, etc; would that be okay just because they said "but don't hate modern conservatives for all those terrible things they believed"?

And no dodging the point this time!
A) If teachers are teaching lies, that's a bad thing.
B) "Conservative" isn't a political affiliation. Pretending for a moment your conception of "conservative" is even remotely reasonable (it isn't, you don't know what words mean), you could say that some conservatives think crazy things and attacked the capital, etc, and it would not say a thing about me, because I'm not affiliated with them. Two people can share some beliefs without being affiliated. Conservatives are not all in the same party, liberals don't all like each other, communists have exterminated other communist parties. A political belief is not an affiliation. Or vice versa, there are many cases of people politically affiliated that have wildly different political beliefs. I'll take a stab in the dark, you like Bernie Sanders better than Joe Manchin. They have very different political beliefs, but they are politically affiliated. They are both Democrats. And in this bill, you can't teach that either is inherently better or worse than would otherwise be by virtue of being Democrats. Which I bet you agree with.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
A) If teachers are teaching lies, that's a bad thing.
B) "Conservative" isn't a political affiliation. Pretending for a moment your conception of "conservative" is even remotely reasonable (it isn't, you don't know what words mean), you could say that some conservatives think crazy things and attacked the capital, etc, and it would not say a thing about me, because I'm not affiliated with them. Two people can share some beliefs without being affiliated. Conservatives are not all in the same party, liberals don't all like each other, communists have exterminated other communist parties. A political belief is not an affiliation. Or vice versa, there are many cases of people politically affiliated that have wildly different political beliefs. I'll take a stab in the dark, you like Bernie Sanders better than Joe Manchin. They have very different political beliefs, but they are politically affiliated. They are both Democrats. And in this bill, you can't teach that either is inherently better or worse than would otherwise be by virtue of being Democrats. Which I bet you agree with.
So, as conservatism isn't a political affiliation, teachers can teach what they want? Or they can't teach what they want, because you don't personally accept their definition? Does that apply to other ideologies, or only the one you affiliate yourself with?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
So, as conservatism isn't a political affiliation, teachers can teach what they want? Or they can't teach what they want, because you don't personally accept their definition? Does that apply to other ideologies, or only the one you affiliate yourself with?
Teachers can teach what they want... with the exception of teaching that various aspects of an individuals identity make them inferior or worthy of discrimination.
That does apply to other ideologies. Like, we've already taught for generations about people in the south who were slavers or segregationists. School history lessons don't typically discuss them as Democrats, as that serves no real purpose other than to smear people by association.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
Teachers can teach what they want... with the exception of teaching that various aspects of an individuals identity make them inferior or worthy of discrimination.
That does apply to other ideologies. Like, we've already taught for generations about people in the south who were slavers or segregationists. School history lessons don't typically discuss them as Democrats, as that serves no real purpose other than to smear people by association.
So, yes: teachers can teach that modern conservatism is antithetical to human life, so long as they do not teach that the supporters of modern conservatism are not worthy of discrimination, and your only objection would be that you disagree with the former assessment.

If you want to teach that "communism"is evil, in whatever insane definition conservatives are using this week, then it goes both ways.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
So, yes: teachers can teach that modern conservatism is antithetical to human life.
To be precise, this bill would not prevent teachers from teaching that modern conservatism is antithetical to human life. Common sense and ethics would prevent them from doing so, but that is not what we are discussing.
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 25, 2020
1,659
222
68
Country
US
How in the gods names can you actually believe this?

Because, unless you think that the only way that people can get tripped up by this law is that they say it outright, which people aren't stupid enough to do, this law is pointless. Meaning that you think that the GOP are stupid. I dont think that they are stupid

It's written in a way that you could just about fit just about anything into that definition. THAT'S THE POINT
  1. That any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently superior or inferior to another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  2. That an individual, by virtue of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously.
  3. That an individual should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  4. That members of any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation should not attempt to treat others without respect to sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  5. That an individual's moral character is necessarily determined by the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  6. That an individual, by virtue of the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  7. That any individual should feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of the individual's sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
  8. That meritocracy or traits such as hard work ethic are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation to oppress members of another sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
Nothing in this chapter may be construed so as to exclude the teaching of historical injustices committed against any sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.
It's a specific list of things, not some vague nebulous notion of "do not bring up race or discrimination." As far as I can tell, you're suggesting that my example would violate 6 or 7?

But, to use my example, anything short of saying that current Germans are responsible for the Holocaust or should feel guilt, etc for the Holocaust having happened doesn't violate those items. If you describe what the Germans did in the past but don't suggest that current Germans should hold responsibility or guilt for it that wouldn't violate the law in question.

As far as saying it outright, look at Brauer college in Australia being ahead of the curve and requiring all male students to apologize to all female students on account of their being male and thus bearing responsibility for things done by other men. So, yeah, it doesn't seem like a completely insane thing to think someone might try short of it being banned

Yeah, no. I'm absolutely fine calling slavers wrong for slaving people. As a white person who does not live at that time, it does not affect me one iota.
Stop right there. Hey look, you just did that thing you said was definitely a violation but clearly isn't as the law is written. Discussing slavery (whether the Atlantic slave trade or any of the other cases of slavery throughout history) is not the same as saying that any current person is responsible for or should feel guilt/anguish/whatever for being a member of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin, or political affiliation.

I'll take a stab in the dark, you like Bernie Sanders better than Joe Manchin.
Hell, I'm in WV and I like Bernie Sanders more than Joe Manchin. I've voted for the former in primaries (feel like pointing out yet again that Sanders beat Clinton in WV primaries by a large margin overall and in every single county taken individually which is why she only won WV by one delegate) and the latter in general elections. Manchin's election slogan might as well have been "Not *quite* as bad as my opponent!" since that's why he got many of his votes.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,559
2,131
118
Country
United Kingdom
Then you're on the wrong side of the argument! Stop believing false accusations that Republicans are trying to defend Nazis or slavery or are trying to ban the civil rights movement from history classes. Those are the fabricated accusations used to smear people here.
Nice turnaround. Are you going to stop believing false accusations that "teachers are teaching students that all Republicans are bad"?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
Nice turnaround. Are you going to stop believing false accusations that "teachers are teaching students that all Republicans are bad"?
Nobody said that but me, trying to analyze likely motivation.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,559
2,131
118
Country
United Kingdom
Nobody said that but me, trying to analyze likely motivation.
"Trying to analyse likely motivation" by... claiming stuff is happening which you don't believe is happening? You've lost me.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
To be precise, this bill would not prevent teachers from teaching that modern conservatism is antithetical to human life. Common sense and ethics would prevent them from doing so, but that is not what we are discussing.
Correct, we're supposedly discussing how a teacher could teach that an ideology (Marxism, conservatism, etc, etc) could be evil, while you pretend that it wouldn't simultaneously be teaching that the adherents of that ideology were not, in fact, evil

But because the example I chose was *your* ideology, you absolutely refused to comment on it
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
Correct, we're supposedly discussing how a teacher could teach that an ideology (Marxism, conservatism, etc, etc) could be evil, while you pretend that it wouldn't simultaneously be teaching that the adherents of that ideology were not, in fact, evil
No, that's not it. It's not saying you can call an ideology evil without calling it's adherents evil, it's that you can call an ideology evil without calling its adherents' affiliates evil. If you say gerrymandering is a bad thing, you are condemning people who gerrymander. That is not the same thing as condemning every member of the 2 major parties on the basis of some of them gerrymandering. You're still not understanding the phrase "political affiliation".
But because the example I chose was *your* ideology, you absolutely refused to comment on it
If you want to actually discuss a concept, don't choose an analogy that requires your opponent to assume an inflammatory premise to converse with you. I'm not going to say "conservatives are evil" for the opportunity to tell you how you're wrong about the semantics slightly faster.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
"Trying to analyse likely motivation" by... claiming stuff is happening which you don't believe is happening? You've lost me.
Republicans, members of the Republican party, a political affiliation, have propose a ban on teachers condemning people based on their political affiliation. It is my cynical assumption that the political affiliation they most want to defend is their own, the Republican Party. I do believe that is what is happening, I don't believe this bill was designed to protect the Nazi party from criticism.

At the same time, I haven't seen anyone claiming this is the motivation. Nor should they, because it's not a good look to say "we're passing a bill that forbids teachers from criticizing us." So I'm not believing any "false accusations" made by anyone, I'm inferring something that's unsaid.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
6,559
2,131
118
Country
United Kingdom
Republicans, members of the Republican party, a political affiliation, have propose a ban on teachers condemning people based on their political affiliation. It is my cynical assumption that the political affiliation they most want to defend is their own, the Republican Party. I do believe that is what is happening, I don't believe this bill was designed to protect the Nazi party from criticism.

At the same time, I haven't seen anyone claiming this is the motivation. Nor should they, because it's not a good look to say "we're passing a bill that forbids teachers from criticizing us." So I'm not believing any "false accusations" made by anyone, I'm inferring something that's unsaid.
Right... so you're inferring that X is happening solely because the party is passing legislation designed to combat X?

Do you see the issue here? You're being the perfect mark for scapegoating.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
No, that's not it. It's not saying you can call an ideology evil without calling it's adherents evil, it's that you can call an ideology evil without calling its adherents' affiliates evil. If you say gerrymandering is a bad thing, you are condemning people who gerrymander. That is not the same thing as condemning every member of the 2 major parties on the basis of some of them gerrymandering. You're still not understanding the phrase "political affiliation".

If you want to actually discuss a concept, don't choose an analogy that requires your opponent to assume an inflammatory premise to converse with you. I'm not going to say "conservatives are evil" for the opportunity to tell you how you're wrong about the semantics slightly faster.
Why not, you'll freely do that with Marxism and satanism?
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
I said that satanists are not evil... in what way is that an inflammatory premise?
Dunno man, but you seem to hate it when it's your philosophy being described as inherently evil, so there must be something to that

After all, just because I believe your beliefs are the root cause for most of the suffering in the world doesn't mean I believe you're evil for holding and acting on those beliefs, so those teachings shouldn't run afoul of this law, right?
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,980
632
118
Country
USA
Dunno man, but you seem to hate it when it's your philosophy being described as inherently evil, so there must be something to that

After all, just because I believe your beliefs are the root cause for most of the suffering in the world doesn't mean I believe you're evil for holding and acting on those beliefs, so those teachings shouldn't run afoul of this law, right?
I don't think you even know what you're arguing for at this point. It almost sounds like you want the bill to be even more restrictive.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
4,842
2,711
118
Country
United States
I don't think you even know what you're arguing for at this point. It almost sounds like you want the bill to be even more restrictive.
I'm arguing that the bill is a farce and that you cannot, in fact, teach that an ideology is evil while pretending that that will not teach that adherents of that ideology are not also evil

This is doubly so in a environment where a significant number of people consider public school "communism", an ideology that would legally have to be taught as antithetical to the freedoms of the United States
 
Last edited: