127
Gov. Sanders signs legislation limiting FOIA
(www.kait8.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2023
127 points (98.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7170 readers
234 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes, and I live in one of the reddest counties in FL. These assholes love it.
One party wants to govern & one party wants to rule.
One party is making FptP voting illegal
One party is banning books.
One party is supporting child murder via inaction.
One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.
One party supports forced birth.
One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.
Get the fuck out of here with your "both sides" bullshit.
Which party is banning FPTP? And do you consider that a good thing or a bad thing? The rest seem to be digs at the GOP, but I'm not sure what that first point is referring to.
Fortunately, most of that is limited to a handful of red states, and also largely misrepresented on the news (esp. the articles linked on lemmy). Some is fair criticism though.
Also, your rhetoric here is just off the charts, so I don't think you're interested in a good faith discussion. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know and we can discuss the issues. But if you just want to rant, feel free to let it all out.
Sorry, the #GOP is banning Ranked Choice Voting. I had FptP stuck in my head for some reason.
And that's absolutely fine if you don't want to discuss anything, I'm more interested in the other people seeing thru your well-spoken bullshit.
This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so I'll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, I'm out.
I haven't seen much evidence for this.
The Florida law that I think you're referring to merely requires schools to formalize the process for what books they put on shelves. Books were removed until that process was finished, and AFAIK there's no restriction on what citizens can purchase or what libraries can carry, the only restriction is that books in schools need to be age appropriate (and I'm sure you and I both disagree with conservatives on what that means) and relevant.
What I have seen is a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and it's alarming to me that people don't seem to see past the BS.
I think these are related, but again, it's hard to see through the rhetoric.
You can't murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless they're actually incarcerated. I'm not really sure what the first is referring to, so I'll focus on the second.
What you seem to be getting at here is the concept of positive rights. I personally reject positive rights in general, but I do think school lunches should be provided to all, but that's because we legally require attendance for enough hours that a meal break is needed. I think employers should also provide meals if they require shifts longer than 4 hours, or schedule shifts back to back with less than four hours in between. I think employees and students should be free to refuse the provided meals and receive monetary compensation instead.
However, I reject the notion of positive rights in general, and I think there's an interesting discussion to be had here.
This comes down to when you believe people get rights. The conservative position is that fetuses have human rights, and liberals seem to ignore fetal rights and focus on the rights of the mother.
My personal view is more nuanced:
I believe that balances the rights of the woman and the fetus. It doesn't make either side happy, but I do believe it is better than the status quo.
Both sides have a bad track record on immigration. The solution would be resolved if we just made legal immigration easier.
But I do agree, I think Trump's actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidate's position this year has been terrible.
I recall reading someone's proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:
On paper that sounds fair, though I'd need to see the details first.
I sure hope you're taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.
I'm at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them it's just going to take a couple hours.
Moreover they've made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.
I understand that you may have your own values and that's fine but it doesn't change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history
Yeah, I would like to discuss examples of alleged book bans. There has been a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and I'm interested in having a discussion based on the facts of each case, not the clickbait titles and rhetoric.
Are you talking about CRT? My understanding is that teachers never actually taught CRT, at least at an elementary level, so this is just virtue signaling from Republicans and a chance for Democrats to "dunk" on them. AFAIK, very little, if anything, actually changed in how teachers teach throughout most of the country.
Likewise, the much contested changes to curriculum in Florida is again largely virtue signaling from both sides. I read through the curriculum, and it looks much like what I was taught in my very progressive school system. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it also doesn't seem to go against what we've discussed in my company's recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).
Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesn't "stop woke" (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And I'm pretty sure I'll find something similar in most cases.
Sure, but I don't mix my religious/moral values and my politics. I support policies that expand individual freedom, not policies that promote my personal worldview.
For example, I don't think anyone should use drugs, but I'll fight for drug legalization because I don't think that's the government's business. I don't understand trans people, nor do I think gender is actually distinct from sex (gender as described by progressives is largely a cultural thing imo), but I'll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but I'll fight for a woman to never be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and I think there should be a safe medical path forward for a woman who does not want to keep the baby.
My values don't match either major party, nor do my policy preferences. So I pick whatever candidate I think is more liberty-minded and rational. Lately, that has been Democrats, but sometimes it's Republicans. It really depends on the election.
This is an interesting article that discusses that. Basically, it says both Democrats and Republicans reject scientific consensus, Republicans are just more systematic about it because they prioritize unity over scientific accuracy.
Democrats are better than Republicans here, at least lately, but that doesn't mean they're perfect. So don't just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, don't reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. There's a lot of interesting data that goes against the Democratic narrative especially WRT climate change, particularly in the urgency of their claims (politicians love to pile on the rhetoric and urgency).
I think it's more correct to say they're pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesn't mean the legislature is "anti worker," they're just limiting the government's intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isn't state support for it.
As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think it's disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isn't evidence of hostility).
No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and what's the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.
And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.
And you can say it's all in the name of fiscal responsibility but it's not it's been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesn't get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.
Here's an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.
For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and here's an article about the mentioned standards):
I don't know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the "see also" section).
The most I've seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that there's rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.
Oh yeah, it's never been about that, that's just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.
What they're actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).
Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If you're a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, it's great! If you're a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, it's horrendous.
The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.
Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions don't need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so they're not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.
At least that's my perspective, but maybe I'm just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.
Then you're purposefully ignorant of what is going on in the country, especially the south, and not worth another moment of my time.
Bro could see nazis marching down the street and say he doesn’t see any evidence for rising antisemitism.
Lol I stopped reading after you said you haven't seen much evidence for book banning. That's next level head in the sand, spend literally 10 seconds in Google.
My point was that a lot of the media on both sides present a stronger view of what's going on than reality. Conservatives was to appear tough on culture war nonsense, and liberals want to dunk on conservatives for being anti-freedom.
A lot of what actually happens is much more mundane than either side wants you to believe.
And that's why I want to have a discussion about actual cases, to point out how mundane the changes usually are.
This whole "both sides" argument is weak. Conservatives being tough on culture war means passing crazy laws, banning books, and banning the education of certain topics. And the liberals what, are against that and start actual education without the government controlling what you can and can't learn/read.
What's actually happening isn't mundane. Laws are being passed that effect me and mine. They impact me, they're not just mundane laws.
If you think banning topics that can be taught in class, like learning about your period and what homosexuality even is, or that there was slavery in America is just mundane then you're part of them problem. Down playing actual damage being done is supporting the people who are doing the damage.
Are those actually banned? From what I can tell, those topics are merely delayed. For example:
It looks very similar to what I was taught in a very liberal part of the country (Seattle area). Sex ed was in 6th grade, and I don't recall specifically talking about sexual orientation or gender identity until high school.
The main issues I personally see are:
But any topic should be allowed, provided there's parental consent below some age (our sex ed was opt out in 6th grade). Maybe there should be a flyer around grade 4 that informs parents that it'll be covered by the school nurse if it comes up, unless parents opt out. I don't like state governments telling schools what they can't teach, that's what school choice is for, and I've heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.
So while I'm against the bills (which isn't relevant since I'm not a Florida resident), I don't think they're as disastrous as people claim.
Yes, look into what they are calling critical race theory. Some districts are putting topics such as slavery in the CRT bucket. And look at the things they are saying. The new curriculum included instruction for middle school students that "slaves developed skills which, in some instances, can be applied for their personal benefit." Are you kidding me?
But yes, they are delaying others, which is its own issue. A girl gets her period between the ages 10-15 on average. 6th grade is about 12 years old. I don't understand why they need to push this off at all? It's education about their body... Yes parents should teach their kids, but there should be general education around this BEFORE it happens, so kids know what to expect, especially if they have apathetic parents.
On sexual orientation I %100 agree, they are starting this at grade 9, which is 14-15, well into when people will already be in puberty and exploring sexuality. Including being confused about being gay. So again, why are we delaying education until people are already experiencing these things?
I disagree with this. I don't think a parent should be allowed to rob a child of a proper education. Things needed to be well-prepared adults ready to face the world should not be taken away based on a parent's (often time) radical beliefs that may not even align with the child's own world view.
They also do things like ban books, which again is just more delaying/removing of information, which is not what the education system should be doing. But I'm also against school choice, I don't think if you believe contraceptives are evil that you get to rob your child from educating them on what condoms and birth control are. The same way if they are a flat earther or religion they shouldn't be able to opt out of earth science or basic biology/evolution.
Is it the end of the world, no. But it very much looks like the start of a slippery slope.
Do you have an example? I can absolutely believe that some districts (particularly in N. Florida) would do that, but that seems to go against the actual curriculum standards that I've seen (linked below).
That really depends on how it's being taught. The outcry I've seen has been saying, "they're saying slavery was a good thing!", which doesn't fit with the rest of the curriculum. This statement comes from Page 6 of the curriculum, which looks at the types of duties that slaves performed. There are 32 other pages related to slavery, and this is merely a clarification. That slaves were able to use skills they gained in slavery to start a new life is absolutely true, and that process is a lot more complicated than that (the social network among black communities was arguably much more important). I think this also gives context to the hate crimes committed after emancipation.
I went through a very similar discussion in the past, complete with examples outlining why I think the media response here is overblown, using citations and whatnot.
The issue, I think, is that students aren't mature enough for a robust discussion about it, whereas they likely are at 6th grade. Boys usually don't hit puberty until 6th grade or later, so discussing it with them isn't appropriate when reproduction is pretty much the furthest thing from their mind.
That's why my issue is that it should be totally acceptable to discuss on a 1:1 basis with the school nurse, who is likely to handle any incidents that happen at school. Parents should be informed about that, and have the opportunity to handle it themselves.
And yeah, I think it's odd that sexual orientation/gender identity is delayed until 9th grade. That's quite easy to handle with a regular sex ed class, such as:
I'm sure there's a better way of putting that (I'm not trans or gay), but it seems like a natural segue to mention in a broader discussion about puberty. That should help students realize that maybe what they're feeling is different from what others feel, and that they should feel comfortable exploring that.
So yeah, a brief discussion on it seems appropriate around 6th or 7th grade, and perhaps go into more depth with the related social issues in higher grades.
As long as the parent is the legal guardian of the child, they should have a central role in what gets taught at school. If the parent consistently blocks important instruction, that could rise to the level of abuse, and at that point the authorities should get involved to change legal guardianship.
I also believe that, as kids get older, they should have more and more say in their own education. So I could see parental control over their kids' education completely ending at age 16, which is the point where kids can be tried as adults in many jurisdictions, and in some jurisdictions kids may choose to drop out of school.
However, I don't want to ever get into a situation where governments get complete control over what gets taught in schools. A parent screwing over their child sucks, but a government screwing over many kids is much worse.
Sure. Parents should be required to educate their children at home on any subjects they choose to take their child out of, and the child will need to pass an exam showing they have at least the minimum understanding of the material. Parents should then be given the material, and it's on them to teach their child sufficiently.
Are you against school choice generally, or just the way it has been implemented so far? One thing I don't like about current implementations is that it's on parents to transport their children to/from alternative schools, which means poorer households have less access because parents may not have the time or means to drop off and pick up their child.
How would you feel about this:
This allows schools to specialize to attract students, much like universities specialize.