Sanders signed Senate Bill 10, which exempts records that āreflect the planning or provision of security servicesā provided to the governor and other cabinet members.
The bill is retroactive to June 1, 2022, which is before Sanders was elected.
Sanders signed Senate Bill 10, which exempts records that āreflect the planning or provision of security servicesā provided to the governor and other cabinet members.
The bill is retroactive to June 1, 2022, which is before Sanders was elected.
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 āboth sidesā 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 Iām 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 donāt think youāre interested in a good faith discussion. If Iām 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 thatās absolutely fine if you donāt want to discuss anything, Iām more interested in the other people seeing thru your well-spoken bullshit.
This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so Iāll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, Iām out.
I havenāt seen much evidence for this.
The Florida law that I think youāre 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 thereās 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 Iām 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 itās alarming to me that people donāt seem to see past the BS.
I think these are related, but again, itās hard to see through the rhetoric.
You canāt murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless theyāre actually incarcerated. Iām not really sure what the first is referring to, so Iāll 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 thatās 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 thereās 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 doesnāt 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 Trumpās actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidateās position this year has been terrible.
I recall reading someoneās proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:
On paper that sounds fair, though Iād need to see the details first.
I sure hope youāre 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.
Iām at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them itās just going to take a couple hours.
Moreover theyāve 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 thatās fine but it doesnāt 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 Iām 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 ādunkā 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 doesnāt seem to go against what weāve discussed in my companyās recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).
Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesnāt āstop wokeā (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And Iām pretty sure Iāll find something similar in most cases.
Sure, but I donāt 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 donāt think anyone should use drugs, but Iāll fight for drug legalization because I donāt think thatās the governmentās business. I donāt 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 Iāll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but Iāll 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 donāt 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 itās 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 doesnāt mean theyāre perfect. So donāt just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, donāt reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. Thereās 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 itās more correct to say theyāre pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesnāt mean the legislature is āanti worker,ā theyāre just limiting the governmentās intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isnāt state support for it.
As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think itās disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isnāt 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 whatās 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 itās all in the name of fiscal responsibility but itās not itās 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 doesnāt get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.
Hereās 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 hereās an article about the mentioned standards):
I donāt 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 āsee alsoā section).
The most Iāve seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that thereās 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, itās never been about that, thatās just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.
What theyāre 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 youāre a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, itās great! If youāre a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, itās 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 donāt need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so theyāre not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.
At least thatās my perspective, but maybe Iām just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.
Then youāre 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 doesnāt see any evidence for rising antisemitism.
Lol I stopped reading after you said you havenāt seen much evidence for book banning. Thatās 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 whatās 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 thatās why I want to have a discussion about actual cases, to point out how mundane the changes usually are.
This whole āboth sidesā 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 canāt learn/read.
Whatās actually happening isnāt mundane. Laws are being passed that effect me and mine. They impact me, theyāre 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 youāre 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 donāt 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 thereās 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 itāll be covered by the school nurse if it comes up, unless parents opt out. I donāt like state governments telling schools what they canāt teach, thatās what school choice is for, and Iāve heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.
So while Iām against the bills (which isnāt relevant since Iām not a Florida resident), I donāt think theyāre 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 āslaves developed skills which, in some instances, can be applied for their personal benefit.ā 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 donāt understand why they need to push this off at all? Itās education about their bodyā¦ 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 donāt 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 parentās (often time) radical beliefs that may not even align with the childās 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 Iām also against school choice, I donāt 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 shouldnāt 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.
deleted by creator