Want to rant about rightwings and conservatives? This is your thread.

[sumskilz]

Those are direct quotes from the "latest version" tab on the Indiana website. Feel free to check for yourself and provide the exact text from the bill if you believe that's incorrect.

As I said, you're quoting from the synopsis, not from the law.

These are the tenets that the synopsis refers to (as they appear in the text of the actual law):

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.

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.

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.

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.

That an individual’s moral character is necessarily determined by the individual’s sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, national origin or political affiliation.

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.

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.

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.

[chilon]

As I said, you're quoting from the synopsis, not from the law.

These are the tenets that the synopsis refers to (as they appear in the text of the actual law):

Are you claiming the official synopsis at the very top of the official bill is not accurate? Do you believe the bill sponsors wrote the synopsis to be misleading or a false indication of the entire bill?

In which section is the extended legalese of the bill in contradiction to the official synopsis?

[Infidel144]

All of the provisions are unnecessary and together show the Indiana GOP to be out of control in their attempts to enforce their extreme partisan views.

Then quote the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertion.

It says schools may not provide instruction that socialism, Marxism, totalitarianism, or similar political systems are compatible with the principles of freedom upon which the United States was founded.

This is even more problematic and extreme because of how loaded the language is. It just assumes that European style democratic socialism is suddenly equivalent to "totalitarianism."

Hmmm... I recall some earlier whinging about requiring a neutral point of view...

Now, how about you answer the questions I posed...

Your questions have no relevance to what I have written.

[sumskilz]

Are you claiming the official synopsis at the very top of the official bill is not accurate?

No, I am claiming that what you described as a "vague guide" is in fact a synopsis.

Do you believe the bill sponsors wrote the synopsis to be misleading or a false indication of the entire bill?

No, I am unsurprised that they didn't manage to fit all the details into the synopsis. If all the details of a legal text could be fit into a short text the size of a typical synopsis, I suspect that would make the practice of having a synopsis redundant.

In which section is the extended legalese of the bill in contradiction to the official synopsis?

It repeats in sections 9, 17, and 19.

[chilon]

No, I am claiming that what you described as a "vague guide" is in fact a synopsis.

You never made that clear. But the actual sections of the law are still vague. Multiple sentences in your quote can have wildly diverse interpretations in practice. For instance, some parents and students can claim that anything from teaching about slavery to the Confederacy's motivations for Civil War to Jim Crow laws give them "discomfort, guilt or anguish" and they can try to force the teacher to create a new lesson plan or file a complaint.

This is why the comments from the sponsor are relevant because he even tried to claim that the Nazis must be taught "impartially" which is clearly impossible because under this law students could even claim that gives them discomfort, guilt or anguish.

It's also telling that the sponsor (like the conservatives here) cannot provide any evidence for the need for such provisions.

Then quote the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertion.

I did, in the very post you quoted and you clipped them out.

Now, are you also refusing to answer questions:
Do you support the provisions in the Indiana bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting the need for any of these provisions?
Those questions are 100% relevant to everything you have posted so far.

This is a forum and discussion goes both ways. If you can't answer questions in good faith then I see no need to respond to anything else you post.

[Infidel144]

I did, in the very post you quoted and you clipped them out.

You quoted from the synopsis. Quote the actual provision in the bill.

Now, are you also refusing to answer questions:
Do you support the provisions in the Indiana bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting the need for any of these provisions?
Those questions are 100% relevant to everything you have posted so far.

False. I have made no assertions about the proposed law.

This is a forum and discussion goes both ways. If you can't answer questions in good faith then I see no need to respond to anything else you post.

You are attempting to avoid providing the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertions.

[chilon]

You quoted from the synopsis. Quote the actual provision in the bill.

I did, everything I wrote in that long posts still applies. You are now changing the goalposts saying the official synopsis of the provisions in the official bill is not good enough.

False. I have made no assertions about the proposed law.

You are attempting to avoid providing the specific provisions in the bill that support your assertions.

You are avoiding very basic questions. I see no need to further engage with you since you aren't demonstrating good faith. Once you answer these questions, I'll be happy to write a longer post but not wasting my time when there is not good faith shown on both sides.
Do you support the provisions in the Indiana bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting the need for any of these provisions?

[Cope]

You never made that clear. But the actual sections of the law are still vague. Multiple sentences in your quote can have wildly diverse interpretations in practice. For instance, some parents and students can claim that anything from teaching about slavery to the Confederacy's motivations for Civil War to Jim Crow laws give them "discomfort, guilt or anguish" and they can try to force the teacher to create a new lesson plan or file a complaint.

This is why the comments from the sponsor are relevant because he even tried to claim that the Nazis must be taught "impartially" which is clearly impossible because under this law students could even claim that gives them discomfort, guilt or anguish.

It's also telling that the sponsor (like the conservatives here) cannot provide any evidence for the need for such provisions.

Thank you for citing specific paragraphs, though it appears that the provisions are being misunderstood/mischaracterized. They state that educators cannot not adopt or adhere to teaching doctrines which promote, instruct or impart that students should feel psychological distress on account of their protected characteristics. In other words, students cannot be deliberately encouraged to feel bad because of their personal identities, either through the curriculum or other instructional programs. The provision is not legislating that any subject which causes discomfort or distress is unlawful.

The context of cited example as it appears in the bill:

Sec. 20. (a) In accordance with IC 20-33-1-6, a state agency, school corporation, or qualified school or an employee of the state agency, school corporation, or qualified school acting in an official capacity shall not direct or otherwise compel a school employee to affirm, adopt, or adhere to any of the following tenets:



(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.

Sec. 2. (a) In accordance with IC 20-33-1-1, a state agency, school corporation, or qualified school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the school corporation or qualified school, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:



(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.


Sec. 1. (a) A teacher preparation program shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow faculty or other employees of the teacher preparation program, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:



(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.

[Infidel144]

I did, everything I wrote in that long posts still applies. You are now changing the goalposts saying the official synopsis of the provisions in the official bill is not good enough.

False. I said quote the specific provisions. I did not say quote the synopsis.

You are avoiding very basic questions. I see no need to further engage with you since you aren't demonstrating good faith. Once you answer these questions, I'll be happy to write a longer post but not wasting my time when there is not good faith shown on both sides.
Do you support the provisions in the Indiana bill?
Do you have any evidence supporting the need for any of these provisions?

You are continuing to avoid quoting the specific provisions in the bill.

[alhoon]

What's your source and evidence for this claim? Link?

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi...text=lawreview

" For this reason, children have a right to privacy that includes the
ability to decide whether to take hormone suppressants. The State’s interests
in restricting this privacy right are not significant so as to render the parental
consent requirement valid. Therefore, States must provide children with a
judicial bypass procedure whereby they can access hormone suppression
treatments without parental consent"

The above is pure lunacy. We don't allow 20-years old to drink beer, many states don't allow people to drink alcohol in the park our outdoors but nooo... let's give 6-years old the right to take dangerous hormones.

[chilon]

Thank you for citing specific paragraphs, though it appears that the provisions are being misunderstood/mischaracterized. They state that educators cannot not adopt or adhere to teaching doctrines which promote, instruct or impart that students should feel psychological distress on account of their protected characteristics. In other words, students cannot be deliberately encouraged to feel bad because of their personal identities, either through the curriculum or other instructional programs. The provision is not legislating that any subject which causes discomfort or distress is unlawful.

You're putting your own subjective interpretation on what's actually in the bill, which is part of the issue at hand, it's quite subjective. The relevant section

a state agency (as defined in IC 4-13-1.4-2), school corporation, or qualified school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the school corporation or qualified school, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:

(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 responsibility, 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.

All of these clauses are very subjective in nature. Extreme parents could claim any number of lessons from slavery to the Civil War to Native American persecution to the Japanese internment camps violate (6) in some subjective way. (7) is highly subjective, it could claim any number of academic research and journalism reports somehow give a right-wing family discomfort. And (8) could be interpreted a wild variety of ways including the papers that show the simple fact that being born wealthy and white grants privileges in society.

All of these is being pushed without any evidence that it makes it supposedly necessary or useful in any way. The sponsor made claims that, when challenged, he admitted to not having any data tracking alleged complaints that cause this initiative. So where is the evidence that supports these measures? It simply doesn't exist.

[chilon]

https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/cgi...text=lawreview

" For this reason, children have a right to privacy that includes the
ability to decide whether to take hormone suppressants. The State’s interests
in restricting this privacy right are not significant so as to render the parental
consent requirement valid. Therefore, States must provide children with a
judicial bypass procedure whereby they can access hormone suppression
treatments without parental consent"

The above is pure lunacy. We don't allow 20-years old to drink beer, many states don't allow people to drink alcohol in the park our outdoors but nooo... let's give 6-years old the right to take dangerous hormones.

You're quoting the abstract not the article, not good enough. I don't see anything there that supports your interpretation about "6-year-olds." I'm guessing you are misunderstanding and blowing a PhD candidates exercise in legal logic far out of proportion to reality.

[Heathen Hammer]

a state agency (as defined in IC 4-13-1.4-2), school corporation, or qualified school shall not include or promote the following concepts as part of a course of instruction or in a curriculum or instructional program, or allow teachers or other employees of the school corporation or qualified school, acting in their official capacity, to use supplemental instructional materials that include or promote the following concepts:

(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 responsibility, 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.

It only does seem subjective to neo-marxists and their mirror equivalent among Stormfront guys on the other isle.

[Cope]

You're putting your own subjective interpretation on what's actually in the bill, which is part of the issue at hand, it's quite subjective. The relevant section

It's simple comprehension. The provision prevents educators from teaching that students should be deliberately made to feel psychologically distressed on account of the identity characteristics outlined in the bill.

All of these clauses are very subjective in nature. Extreme parents could claim any number of lessons from slavery to the Civil War to Native American persecution to the Japanese internment camps violate (6) in some subjective way. (7) is highly subjective, it could claim any number of academic research and journalism reports somehow give a right-wing family discomfort. And (8) could be interpreted a wild variety of ways including the papers that show the simple fact that being born wealthy and white grants privileges in society.

All of these is being pushed without any evidence that it makes it supposedly necessary or useful in any way. The sponsor made claims that, when challenged, he admitted to not having any data tracking alleged complaints that cause this initiative. So where is the evidence that supports these measures? It simply doesn't exist.

Making a claim is not the same as proving it. The existence of dubious or unfounded claims is not a justification for abolishing civil rights legislation.

[alhoon]

You're quoting the abstract not the article, not good enough. I don't see anything there that supports your interpretation about "6-year-olds." I'm guessing you are misunderstanding and blowing a PhD candidates exercise in legal logic far out of proportion to reality.

The point is that there are fringe idiots that support those things. That PhD candidate is one of them.

[alhoon]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/japanese-...184839225.html

Sooo... let's rant about non European rightwings.

As you can see in the article, a Japanese couple turned to a man from social media to impregnate the woman. After having sex with her for 10 times, she became pregnant in June 2019. Later she found out that the man was not highly educated and worse: He was Chinese!
Being the elitist buttholes they were, the mother and the cuckold gave up the non-pure-superior-race baby that was 1 1/2 years old. A baby the mother carried to term and then cared for and provided for for 1 1/2 years.
Because the baby was half-Chinese and its biological father was not highly educated and from China.

But... this is not a rant (just) about an elitist / racist cuckold and his wife.
Did the Japanese state act in a horrified way and told the woman that you cannot just abandon your kid, your flesh and blood, because the father was not the shade of yellow you wanted?
Nope.
The woman and the cuckold are not in jail for neglect.

And here are the words from the Director of the Japanese sperm bank, that warns people to NOT turn to the internet to find donors:
"The semen that is handed over may carry infectious agents. [...] When the child is born, it may turn out that the sperm is not Japanese. Such crazy things are happening."
see how "You may get HIV" is in the same statement as in "The child may be Chinese".


As some may now, I am against abortions except in early pregnancy or in special cases, and so is Japan.
On the other hand, I am for supporting your kid even if it happens to be half-Chinese. Japan is apparently not. That's not pro-life, that's ???? stance.

[Cyclops]

Like most cultures Japan has a degree of racism, in this case the nth degree. I have family from Japan: my elderly relative (still with us just) who was near Hiroshima as a schoolgirl when it was bombed was metaphorically reclassified as a non person because of her impure status, so she married a baka gaijin: then her family didn't talk to her twice as often as they didn't before. My half Japanese half Scottish relo is as fine a human as you'd meet, but his Japanese relatives never will. This exceeds even the generous bounds of Australian racism.

[alhoon]

Like most cultures Japan has a degree of racism, in this case the nth degree. I have family from Japan: my elderly relative (still with us just) who was near Hiroshima as a schoolgirl when it was bombed was metaphorically reclassified as a non person because of her impure status, so she married a baka gaijin: then her family didn't talk to her twice as often as they didn't before. My half Japanese half Scottish relo is as fine a human as you'd meet, but his Japanese relatives never will. This exceeds even the generous bounds of Australian racism.

I don't understand any of the examples. What is a "Baka Gaijin"? What do you mean she was "Reclassified as a non person"? What do you mean "impure status"?
What do you mean that you HJ/HS relative is fine but his Japanese relatives "never will"?
And ... what about Australia?

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Sooo... let's rant about non European rightwings.

Just because the person is racist it doesn't make them right-wing

[Coughdrop addict]

Just because the person is racist it doesn't make them right-wing

Yes it does. Conservatism is based on the idea that certain people are just inherently superior and so deserve more rights and privileges than others, and that certain other people are just inherently inferior and so deserve fewer rights and privileges than others. The only difference is the identities of these two groups and what arbitrary characteristics are used to define them IE rich/poor, male/female, white/black, or in this case Japanese/Chinese.