It's definitely true or the Rooskies would have let it pass at the airport (for some selfies etc.).

Unfortunately, where Lebron is at a 10, she is at a 4 and doesn't get that special treatment. But hey, you and me are probably at a 1 or 2.

We would be, "oh, yeah. They have this guy to somewhere." But then, we also are not important enough to hold, and a simple bribe could possibly get us sprung.

I was wrong. I guess he really doesn't have more important things to do. Kamala would have been a good compromise but Biden also getting personally involved in a 4/10 ....


And here are the 1s and 2s.

Chances that Newsom primaries Biden in '24?

He's beginning to build some momentum and going on the offensive by going straight to trump's social media platform to post. Sounds like he's looking at the national stage for sure. It's all about when?

It probably needs to happen since someone like Sherrod Brown does not seem interested. If we get a Newsome/DeSantis matchup though, not sure I like his chances.

I really wish Larry Hogan would run and somehow get the GOP nod. It is going to be an uphill battle for any Dem, at this point at least, and I could certainly live with Hogan, who i think is an excellent Governor.

Am I in the minority in not realizing until recently that Gavin Newsome was married to Kimberly Guilfoyle like 20-years ago. What kind of ridiculousness will ensue if it ends up being Trump vs Newsome in 2024?

I can't imagine Sherrod Brown running for president with that voice of his.

I agree with you. But the number of GOP primary voters who would support Larry Hogan probably couldn't fill a basketball arena at this point.

Hogan Republicans are Democrats now.

Does anyone know what's going on with Boris Johnson? Why do they all want him to resign?

They did really poorly in a bi-election. The Tories are losing support, and feel they need a change in leadership.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Btw, Boris reportedly is saying that if the rules are changed so they can have another "no confidence" vote and remove him, hewill refuse to step down. That will "activate the Queen." My wife's comment on that: "You have be careful if she is activated. She can move in any direction."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

bravo {clapclapclap}

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Boris is expected to resign today. Politics in the UK is interesting. It seems like if you ever see "blood in the water" so to speak that a PM is in trouble, they don't tend to last very long.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Wonder if the Queen came into play here.

Idk. From what I read ot looks like hus whole cabinet was about to walk outwit no one willing to take their positions. He really didn't have much of a choice.
Also, I didn't know there was another scandal that started last week that precipitated this. A minister he reported had to resign for groping two women at a party. Afterward it came out that this guy was a serial groper. Johnson denied ever being told about the past allegations, until a person went on record saying he personally had briefed him before the guy was put into his position.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The simplest answer is he has just had too many scandals and was not politically skilled enough to ride them out.

Here is a pretty good explainer of the latest scandal. It is a blueprint of how Johnson has handle all the other scandals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...incher-resign/

If the above is paywalled, here is the basic version. Johnson brought Chris Pincher back into government in February despite Pincher having multiple sexual misconduct accusations against him. Pincher then had to resign last week because he allegedly groped multiple men at a private club. Normal political stuff so far. I am sure we can think of ways to navigate this scandal pretty easily.

Johnson's problem was that he told everyone he could that he did not know anything about the previous accusations. Based on that, other members of the party defended him and parroted the same thing. After that, it came out Johnson was told about the accusations. Johnson then said he did not remember being told. After more information came out making it very clear that he was told and possibly on multiple occasions, Johnson finally came around and said he was told about the accusations thus embarrassing everyone in his party who defended him.

He has to resign. After getting Brexit through, he had nothing else to offer politically for the party to keep suffering through all the scandals he brought on himself and them.

It doesn't help that he's the face of Brexit and that has been a clear net negative for most. I think the Tories would love to put the blame on Boris and pretend like the issue has been dealt with.

I am not sure those that voted to leave believe that Brexit is a net negative. I think they believe that it would have and will work once there are clear plans to execute it properly in place.

I think we're saying basically the same thing. Polling has gone from +1 Should leave in May 2021 to +14 Shouldn't leave now. Even taking everything related to these Boris scandals out of the mix, there's still a big weight on the Tories from the dissatisfaction around Brexit.

Politics everywhere. "It is not that the policy is a failure, it that we need to double down."

Fox News is busy blaming marijuana for mass shootings.

Right wing populist buffoon gets elected.

Manages to pass controversial right-wing policy.

Keeps embarrassing his party because he is a buffoon.

His party decides that they got the policy they wanted and that he's an embarrassment, so they force him off the stage.

It really is as easy as that. When the GOP says that they "can't" get rid of Trump, do not believe them. They can get rid of him at the expense of an embarrassing news cycle or two. They don't want to get rid of Trump.

There is a belief that the higher support for Brexit in Spring 2021 was tied to the COVID vaccine rollout in the UK compared to EU countries at that time. It was the best and maybe the only example so far that not being a part of the EU was beneficial to the UK.

I don't think he was hurt by being the face of Brexit. I think he hung on as long as he did because he was the face of Brexit. Many of the pitfalls of Brexit had already begun to show when the Tories made significant gains in the 2021 local elections. The scandals came one after another since then. In the 2022 elections, the Tories had significant losses. That is why I am making the distinction. I believe there was a willingness to continue to support Boris even with the Brexit execution issues because eventually the people who supported Brexit believed he would figure it out in the same way he figured out how to get Brexit done. Getting it done was the most important part for them.

The one thing he was good at was campaigning and getting voters to the polls to support him. The scandals took away his ability to do that. Once he lost that, there was no need for the Tories to keep him around.

FWIW I'll take DeSantis over Trump any day. We'll see if he can knock Trump off his perch in the GOP.

If you're into that whole autocracy thing you really don't have much to lose with either one of them. Who needs pesky voting?

Lesser of 2 evils. Trump is a 10. DeSantis ... haven't quite figured it out yet but I know he's not a 10 compared to Trump.

Well what he’s doing with the “don’t say gay” bill, the faux outrage over ctr in schools, the way he handled making in the state, and now there bullshit with Disneys cdd he’s perfect in regards to yay capitalism and freedom until it’s I’m going to take away your freedom and tell businesses what to do… typical modern day gop


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, as a parent, I am okay with the "don't say gay" bill which really isn't "don't say gay".

Maybe there is a nuance I don't understand, but it seems pretty simple to me. Don't get into these type of discussions in public schools for those kids under 3rd grade. I'm not sure what age is appropriate but say maybe middle school.

I have news for you. The state sets the curriculum. No where in That curriculum do they currently teach those things. So why need the law?

Not to mention what happens when Jonny brings up in class he has two moms and some of the kids have questions.

I'm going to assume because there are situations where these discussions are brought up by teachers. But let's say these are not brought up and there is no curriculum to teach it, then what's the harm if it doesn't happen anyway?


I do not know what teachers are supposed to say when this comes up. But how I would respond to the effect "thanks Jonny for letting us know. Class, if you have any questions, can you please ask your mom & dad (or any combination thereof)"

Neither do they, the bill is purposely vague and thats the problem. What if thy have a day where a kid does a presentation about their family in front of the class?

As far as I know there have been zero complaints or reports of teachers bringing this up in class. Should they also pass a law that bans teaching against the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It is a flat out attack on the LGBTQ community because he knows it plays to his bigoted base of shit for brains constituents. It is a culture war, nothing more.

It is the same thing as CRT. Literally creating a solution for a problem that does not exist. Thats not how you govern.

It's just a law so they can kick gay teachers out of school. Just like the CRT ones are there to kick black teachers out of school.

There are bound to be situations like that. Let it play out and there'll be lawsuits and policies created.

The bottom line to me is there are situations/topics that should be deferred to parents when dealing with young kids.


My guess is there is concern about wokeness (right or wrong) and this was to head it off. I did try googling on why DeSantis thought this was necessary (e.g. was there an incident) but was not successful.


It may be an attack on LGBTQ community because it's coming from DeSantis. But it is also true that parents should have a say on some topics when dealing with younger kids.

In this situation, I'll err on the side of parents/younger kids knowing that 4th+ grader can have more indepth discussions in a year or two.


Before I get into this, I know there are differing definitions of CRT. Please provide a definition/quote/use case(s) and I'll see if I agree or not.

The fact that no one on the Right can define CRT is part of the point. They created a completely fictional boogeyman, then legislate against it. But the affect was that any teaching of the history of slavery or racial injustice is completely white-washed. It is white supremacy in code word.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Just like "Antifa."

THATS NOT HOW IT FUCKING WORKS!!!

You don't pass a law then say "oh yeah, lets now see what happens"

You pass a law to address problems in society, not to react when the law you passed creates unforeseen problems.

and I will not define CRT for you because thats the problem with these laws. Lack of definitive language.

Can you give a quote by some leader on what CRT is as defined by the Left? I google and see many things but I'm not really sure what is "official".

Er, as I stated, I assume this law came to be because DeSantis & supporters are anticipating the growing "problem in society" of wokeness.

You may disagree, but they obviously see it as a problem (but don't see the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a real problem).


Okay, I'll ignore discussing it then with you. I'll see if GD can come up with something.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crit...cial%20justice.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

CRT is not part of any curriculum below College and as a theory, is not part of required curriculum, though some are pushing to implement varying amounts of it as required learning.

It has become a big scary boogeyman that many are using as a scare tactic to suppress, or eliminate the teaching of American history that happens top touch on the uncomfortable topics of racism that has occurred in this country and is part of American history, whether they want to erase it or not.

All history has evil, corruption, destruction and disasters, that have brought suffering and pain to untold multitudes over the course of time. Teaching history is not just cherry picking a shout out to George Washington Carver for inventing Peanut Butter (which isn't even true BTW, but it was taught). None of it should be excluded, while critical race theory, in it's intended form, is a completely different animal.

Thanks.

I also found below 538 article that talks about all the ongoing anti-CRT bills in numerous states. It says they really aren't consistent, vague and not well defined, and that teachers have been punished under the anti-CRT bills even though they weren't teaching CRT etc.

I'll read up on it (I honestly don't have an opinion on it) but do want to finish the discussion on "Don't say Gay" bill until it comes to a natural conclusion (e.g. agree to disagree with likely some name calling & dripping sarcasm). Glad to do a deeper dive with you then if you are still willing.

How Anti-Critical Race Theory Bills Are Taking Aim At Teachers | FiveThirtyEight

FWIW, if it's only being taught in college, definitely no problem with it.

I suspect there are probably some examples of it being taught in K-12 which are blown out of proportion and hence the overreaction of supposed wokeness.

I don't think the Tories sacked him over Brexit, but I do think they'll be happy to blame all the problems on Boris and hope it works.

Christopher Rufo made up the CRT panic because he thought it was good politically. He's been proven right, but there is no reason to worry about CRT in classrooms.

IIRC, your wife is a teacher correct?

If you walked into her classroom to volunteer one day, how does she tell the children who you are?

More than likely, she is going to say something like "He is my husband. You call him Mr. Edwward64."

That is a statement of sexual orientation and gender identity which coming from a teacher can be considered classroom instruction.

Why is it wrong to have that discussion?

My wife is a teacher but special ed so she doesn't have to worry much about "don't say gay" or CRT. But let's use your example.

From what I understand, the FL "don't say gay" bill doesn't say my wife can't introduce me as her husband to 3rd graders. From what I understand it is "instruction" of.

Quote:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

I can easily concede the bill is not detailed enough or factors in all the possibilities but there's is a sense of "reasonableness" where no school board is going to fire my wife because she introduced me as such. And BTW, I sure as heck hope they do, because I'll call Morgan & Morgan (or like) and pretty sure we'll win a nice lawsuit and set us up for life.

Quite honestly, outside of a random opinion potentially offered by a teacher, anyone saying it is part of curriculum is lying. I know probably a couple of dozen teachers through coaching, and they either laugh or shake their heads at the notion it is being actively taught. Again, just a way to keep people scared or outraged.

The fact that you put instruction in quotes says it all doesn't it? Anything a teacher says in the classroom can be deemed instruction. The lack of detail allows that to be so.

Also, this is not a school board call. This is up to me as a parent. If I decide that a human being who identifies as a woman can't describe her heterosexual relationship to a human being who identifies as a man using the term husband in front of the third graders. I can report that in the same way another parent may decide that another teacher who is identifies as a man can't identify their homosexual relationship with a human being who identifies as a man using the term husband.

If this was about the sense of "reasonableness", the bill would never have been written much less passed. We have been having discussion with 3rd graders about sexual orientation and gender identity since school was created. 3rd graders and younger know husbands and wives, boyfriends and girlfriends (I am sure my son wasn't the only one who the teacher said had "a little girlfriend" when they were in kindergarten. What was that all about?), men and women, moms and dad, boys and girls and GASP! THE
PRONOUNS. Why have those things suddenly become "woke"?

Some Texas board of ed folks just tried to change "slavery" to "involuntary relocation"...if that does not tell you what the end goal of anti-CRT bills are, I'm not sure you can be enlightened. You don't make up laws to problems that don't exist and wait for lawsuits to work their way through courts to settle it. That is not how government is supposed to work. My kids have been in GA schools for the better part of 10 years...not once has the topic of gay marriage been discussed at their school, even with a teacher who transitioned when my daughter was in early elementary (the country would not give out a new email address with his new name sadly). My kids understand that slavery and segregation were bad things, and we should still be doing things that help right the wrongs, it did not stop with Brown vs. Board of Ed.

Point being, if your kids feel guilty that their parents and grandparents kept black kids from going to school and drinking the same water fountains, good. They should feel bad and use that to make sure it does not happen again.

I can see how you inferred that but honestly, I added it for emphasis. Instruction <> introducing me as husband.

Agree that law can be vague but don't think that is too unusual. The law will be tested in courts and it'll be discarded/finetuned.


Fine. Parents complain all the time. If parent report my wife, she gets fired for supposed cause, I'd still call Morgan & Morgan. In this specific situation, I find it very unlikely she'll get fired.


This may have been true for your school, but it certainly wasn't for my school (but mine was a long time ago and overseas anyway). For my kids that went to school here, I don't remember when or ages, but do remember multiple times that parents were informed whenever there would be discussion about sex (and prob other sensitive matters) and were allowed to excuse their kids from those discussions.

I'm actually okay continuing that way. Want to talk about same sex relationships or about LGBTQ+ or about heterosexuals sexual relationships in school for 3rd graders and below, fine. Just give parents notice ahead of time to opt out. Anyone know if FL public schools do that consistently?

Talking about sex and talking about same sex relationships is not the same thing.

For me and a <= 3rd grader, it falls under the same category.

that isn't part of the curriculum. What part of your thick fucking skull doesn't grasp that?

Par for the course ... how's the edibles or your liquor?

Holy shit. Former Japanese PM Shinzo Abe was shot tonight.

Its liquor but whatever, keep endorsing hateful, bigoted policies...

Both around the same intellect.

With a shotgun. Reports sound pretty dire. Wow.

Let me ask you a question. Is there anything you would not want your 3rd grader to learn in school as a 3rd grader?

I understand you don't think our topic is being discussed in school. But is there anything you do not want your 3rd grader to be "instructed" in school about?

Absolutely thinking about you and a couple of your other bros when I predicted below.

One of my daughter's kindergarten friends had two dads. She was told that some families have a mommy and a daddy, some have two daddies, some have two mommies, and some have a single parent.

She's 17 and showing no signs of abuse.

I'll ask you the same question as above.

Yes parents were and still are informed when students are having a discussion about sexual intercourse. Well not really sexual intercourse they don't discuss that. It is more like a discussion about sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. And yes when there is a discussion of that manner, yes the parents can opt out. Either way, I am positive there are no discussion about sexual intercourse or STIs in those younger classrooms. I am pretty sure no one on the board is advocating for those kind of discussions in those younger classrooms There is definitely discussion about pregnancies aka a possible result of a heterosexual sexual relationship when the teacher is someone who can and does get pregnant. I have not heard anyone say anything about the stork recently Surprisingly, most kids are not corrupted by knowing that the teacher is going to have a baby, are sometimes allowed to touch the pregnant belly to feel the baby move and even hear about the baby's sex* when they ask if the teacher knows whether it's a boy or a girl. Again, it does not seem to be an issue for anyone.

* https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex Definition 1a


Of all people, you know better than anyone. Words matter. I gave you very specific examples where classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identities has occurred, is occurring and will continue to occur. Those are the terms in the law. The law is not meant to protect those children from those instructions. Again, by third grade, students have learned about using the appropriate pronouns for the appropriate people for example. Why is that an issue now?


Fixed that for ya! I would actually respect DeSantis more if this is what he put in the law. This is what he is trying to achieve. Maybe we can add some other things that parents can opt their children out of. Can a parent who does not believe in the new way they do math opt out of that? What about an opt out of history because it does not fit the parent's view of that history?

That is an easy one. I would not want my third grader to be instructed that members of the LGBTQ+ community are less deserving of fair and equal treatment under the law anywhere in the world but especially in the United States of America.

I'm not sure why you have provided the definition of sex? The FL law says below? Let's use your example of the stork. I don't see the law as stopping teacher from say "yes, I'm going to have a baby with my husband/wife/significant other" and stop there (e.g. no instruction)? If I'm mistaken, quote me a passage in the FL law.

Quote:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Definitely words & definitions matter (and so does context, degree/scale). I've already conceded the law can be interpreted in different ways and scenarios will come up where it will be fought/challenged in a court of law (which is not uncommon).

Sure by third grade kids know pronouns. You are saying by teachers teaching kids I/me/they/them/he/she etc. they have been "instructed" on "gender identity"? I don't think so and don't think any court would agree with that as the intent of the law. But hey, someone wants to bring it up, let's get a ruling and get it on the books.

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.


I'm not sure why you added & highlighted above. I'm really talking about 3rd graders and below. I will concede I haven't quite pinpointed when is the appropriate time for "instruction on sexual orientation or gender identity". I had earlier said middle school which is 11-13 (vs 3rd grader at 8-9) and this seems right to me.

Ed

The reason the laws are passed is not because they’re afraid of upcoming wokeness. That’sBS

It’s political marketing to drum up anger so that their base votes on the back of their anger which just so happens to be the very best way to motivate people to get off of their coaches and vote.

It’s the same thing that’s been going on for 20 years.

The crime their looking to law isn’t happening… the vote incentive for storing the pt and keeping your tribe angry at the other one is happening.

End of discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would not want my 3rd grader to be instructed on that either. So punt to the parents who can provide their beliefs, their experiences, can spend the amount of time they believe is needed etc. to discuss with their 3rd grader.

And if the parents don't get to it or it never comes up, then go ahead and have schools start instructing it in 4th grade (or middle school).

There is no doubt it is for political gain. Absolutely no doubt. Part of that is for DeSantis to show he is fighting back (imaginary or not) against the wokeness which plays to his (and Trump's) base.

It still does not belie the fact (IMO) that some topics are better left for parents to discuss with a 3rd grader vs some public school teacher.

Of course there are subjects that aren't appropriate for third graders. The fact that homosexuals exist is not one of those subjects.

The law isn't for a teacher to deny that LGBTQ exists. I'm thinking the key word here is "instruction"

and the problem is there is no definition of what that would entail.

How you can not see this for what it is absolutely blows my mind.

dola- and if you don't think the entire purpose of this law is to deny LGBTQ exists you are one naïve MFer....

I'm pretty sure I answered your question/rebuttal already. It's just that you aren't accepting my answer.

I definitely see "instruction" (and other terms) can be subject to interpretation.


I don't see why you don't think some topics is better left for parents to discuss with their 3rd grader.

I really don't see how this law is to deny LGBTQ exists. IMO it's really more like below ...

The Biden Presidency - 2020
 

Ed

By them making the law so ambiguous they’ve in essence frozen all teachers to completely excise anything that might even remotely be considered by any one citizen offensive so ostensibly they’ve frozen out 1000% further than the line you’re trying to throw out there. You understand that right?

You may be talking systematically but what you’re failing to admit to is that due to the planned ambiguities they’ve in essence threatened all teachers to stay out of anything even remotely possibly controversial at all in the smallest corners of any consideration or what they can lose their profession so they need to just stfu on anything close to anything close to anything close to these topics

Cuz teachers are liberals and liberals should die And the base needs to hate them and thus vote against teachers and science and gays….

You get it right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe I understand what you are saying. No, I do not agree on bolded section above.

There will definitely be a period of transition for sure where teachers are uncertain on what is possible or not. And its for those teaching 3rd grade and below. "Boundaries" will be tested, lawsuits will be initiated (or not), and the definitions will get more clear.

Using the example in prior posts, go ahead and terminate my wife because she introduced me as her husband to 3rd graders. It'll be a welcome windfall (albeit after the 2-3 years of legal back and forth).

I do agree there is a strategy in making the wording ambiguous. Its for maximum flexibility to act or not and it is for DeSantis/GOP's benefit.

A $30k/yr teacher can’t afford the suit so they bolted comment is what has happened

Ty for recognizing what we’ve been pointing out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hah, I'm pretty sure Morgan & Morgan will do contingency fee basis (or at least that's what their radio ads say).

I'm sure all these teachers unions speaking out against it are wrong and your correct. Oh, and disney...

for the record I do think there are things I don't want my 3rd grader learning, like how to make meth. there any laws against that?

My cousin is gay, my kids are super close with her and her wife. So far no therapy has been needed for them...

The law is literally designed to remove any and all mention of LGBTQ from the classroom. How is that not in essence denying the existence?

What do you think it's real purpose is? Do you think teachers are pulling pronhub up on the projector and showing tranny pron?

There is no doubt at all they could be wrong.


Probably not a law specific to that. But I'm pretty sure there would be some sort of system in place to escalate the teaching of that syllabus.


I hope your cousin had supportive parents and didn't need to feel he had to have a teacher/classroom discussion about his sexuality as a 3rd grader.

you literally could not be missing the point of this law more....

The FL law states below. It does not remove "any and all mention of LGBTQ". It does remove "instruction of (LGBTQ) sexual orientation or gender identity".

Quote:

Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

In my prior response to you I said below. If you believe "instruction" = "mention" then we'll agree to disagree and the courts will ultimate arbitrate what that means.

Quote:

I definitely see "instruction" (and other terms) can be subject to interpretation.

I've already mentioned what I believe the purpose was. I'll pull them together for you. See below quotes.

Quote:

I do agree there is a strategy in making the wording ambiguous. Its for maximum flexibility to act or not and it is for DeSantis/GOP's benefit.

Quote:

I think what you are really saying to me is "look, this law isn't about instructing on all sexual orientation or gender identity, it is really about instructing on LGBTQ sexual orientation or gender identity", I agree with you. It really is that regardless of the more neutral wording in the law. I'm still okay with leaving those discussions for parents to handle for 3rd graders and below.

Quote:

There is no doubt it is for political gain. Absolutely no doubt. Part of that is for DeSantis to show he is fighting back (imaginary or not) against the wokeness which plays to his (and Trump's) base.

It still does not belie the fact (IMO) that some topics are better left for parents to discuss with a 3rd grader vs some public school teacher.

Question for you. You believe the law's use of "instruction" is equal to your definition of "mention" as per how you used it above?

I feel the same. But hey, we'll agree to disagree.

I believe the state purposely left it vague and yes, they intend on instruction and mention being the same thing.

The point being it isn't taught, there was no need for this law. If a teacher went rogue and decided to teach this, THEN there should be lawsuits and legislation. Not the other way around.

apparently me, everyone else who has chimed in, teachers all over the US, and Floridas largest employer, but I am sure you're on the right side of this one...

r/SelfAwarewolves

It's either one heck of concern trolling performance art (I kindof doubt it) or this is the reservoir of naivety that these sort of laws are designed to perfectly target.

SI

Let's leave that as the crux of why we disagree. I certainly do not think "instruction" is same as "mention".


So if I can find one example of a FL teacher that went rogue and taught (instructed) LGBTQ, you will concede (but not agree) this law was okay to be brought up?

Just responding to sarcasm in same manner. Didn't you say context matters?

So let's finish this (we're getting redundant but glad to continue if you really want to) ... and I'll call your hand with below (note the source, assume these are pretty legit polling nos). So yeah, I'll take the polls below over teachers and Disney.

Parents Mixed on 'Don't Say Gay' Laws, According to New Poll

lol. no, because the problem is the way the law is written. I think we all agree for the most part this shouldn't be part of a 3rd grade curriculum and lower, at least the specifics.

Perhaps if we taught it we would stop churning out generation of intolerant bigots...

Oh, I misunderstood. You are not against the intent of the law (or at least my definition of it with "instruction"). You are against how the law was worded.

I have absolutely no issues or criticism with this. (Or did I get you wrong?)

Sure. Teach it at grade 4+ (or my preference, middle school).

you got me wrong. I am against the law. Just because you may find one vague example of it happening doesn't mean the law is needed.

This contradicts what you posted above.


Just checking, is this still an accurate statement from you?

Schools are being instructed by their lawyers to do things like remove rainbow stickers because the law is so vague and the punishment so extreme.

We're seeing this with the anti-CRT laws, too. I just saw a governor start an investigation into a school district because of one anonymous complaint about the content of a teacher training.

Do you believe that's the preferred dividing line for FL lawmakers? That all this is to protect that very specific demographic?

I do not. It's a toehold for future legislation.