Jump to content

Desantis is a POS and needs his own thread


Gil Bang

Recommended Posts

the thing about bills like this is the cruelty and the hate are the point. you can tell by his response to that reporter.

my kids went to elementary school. there were plenty of same sex couples with kids in his classroom. if 2nd grader jimmy sees two moms drop off his friend johhny, and asks the teacher about it, is the teach allowed to answer?

also, this idea that we should NOT be normalizing other situations, whether it be gay parents, divorced parents, adoption, whatever - that's madness. 

ask yourself, if you support this idea, is it because it makes you somehow feel better or superior? are you protecting some idea of american/western culture? 

or are you after the best interests of the children?

somehow, i don't think it's the latter.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This law is clearly a case of tyranny of the majority. Certain families and people are not accepted by the majority and a public acknowledgement of these minorities are disallowed.

Of course our resident crypto freedom fighter would be on the side of tyranny because gay people are perverts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, F250 said:

This law is clearly a case of tyranny of the majority. Certain families and people are not accepted by the majority and a public acknowledgement of these minorities are disallowed.

Of course our resident crypto freedom fighter would be on the side of tyranny because gay people are perverts.

 

 

If it's crushing weaker people not like me under the government's boot, that's just good government.

It's only if it inconveniences me in any way that it becomes tyranny.  

Did you not get the memo of hyper-individualism, fuck literally every other human being but me?  It's our new governing document.  Coulda sworn you were on the distribution list.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

If you weren't on your fourth or fifth sock I would ask if you were new here. Alas.

 

 

As I stated before, the Florida bill does not specify what "classroom instruction" is. That leaves it open to parental interpretation and a lawsuit. A lawsuit that is mediated by an appointed special investigator. A teacher does not have to have a lesson plan on sexual _______, to have a parent decide 'they' know best about how to define 'classroom instruction.' After all, 'they' know what 'socialism' and 'CRT' are, right? Right?

 

It's Florida. Nothing could possibly go wrong there.

New here or not, personally attacking someone’s family or how they reasonably choose to raise their family is horribly unjustified, but especially as a retort in a discussion or debate about subjective values and politics. That poster didn’t deserve that IMO, and if anyone were to have responded in-kind to say, ‘Stache when he posted his family experience, it wouldn’t have been waved away as “oh we are just a bunch of scallywags on this site, is this your first day?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

New here or not, personally attacking someone’s family or how they reasonably choose to raise their family is horribly unjustified, but especially as a retort in a discussion or debate about subjective values and politics. That poster didn’t deserve that IMO, and if anyone were to have responded in-kind to say, ‘Stache when he posted his family experience, it wouldn’t have been waved away as “oh we are just a bunch of scallywags on this site, is this your first day?”

Stache's shenanigans are cheeky and fun. Vibes' shenanigans are cruel and tragic. 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wait but really @hayden_horn and @immamac what's going on with Chrispy/Donkey/Turkey's rep? He's got 495 rep on a total of -136 points lol

somethings_fucky_trailer_park_boys.gif

I’m guessing it has something to do with correcting an abuse by a handful of people who are trying to neg me to Bolivia for simply presenting, in a respectful and non-troll way, a different point of view and position. Also probably because those people have been warned and yet decided to continue to neg random posts indiscriminately and regardless of post content, context or merit (and on random threads in the movie or help me forums). I guess a lot of you don’t realize that’s actually against the rules of this site. Just a guess.

Start a thread on board discussion though, this is not the place for it.

Edited by TurkeyChew
  • Fuck You 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Previous posting history matters. If you get derided, make look at your old posts and ask yourself “what did I do to deserve such derision?”

I neg cunts that spread hate, propaganda, and further the idea of white supremacy and other forms of “othering” that allow them to demonize human beings that fall outside of their own comfort zone. If you tangentially carry water for such cunts and use mealy mouthed nothing responses to legitimate questions about how you justify your abhorrent views, you gonna catch holy hell fire here in the CR. If you dont like it, head to your safe space or get better ideas/opinions/values. 

Maybe the post you are referring to was “out of line” but the poster it was directed at has show his colors time and time again (amazingly those colors look a lot like the Russian flag it so happens). I won’t mention kids as a matter of practice, but if you hold them up as shield to take heat off your shitass views then don’t be surprised when a poster goes there. 
 

In summary, maybe go to CFA and have an iced tea and a spicy chicken sandwich instead of creating sock after sock so you can continue to enjoy the flagellation you so deeply deserve. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I’m guessing it has something to do with correcting an abuse by a handful of people who are trying to neg me to Bolivia for simply presenting, in a respectful and non-troll way, a different point of view and position. Also probably because those people have been warned and yet decided to continue to neg random posts indiscriminately and regardless of post content, context or merit (and on random threads in the movie or help me forums). I guess a lot of you don’t realize that’s actually against the rules of this site. Just a guess.

Start a thread on board discussion though, this is not the place for it.

LOL yeah, this is the place for you to troll and play dumb about the real and damaging outcomes of policy that you support and advocate for. How foolish of me.

I'm just confused how you got to 495 rep when you only had 283 updoots 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*Accuses political opponents of grooming children*

"Whoa your heated response is so out of line!"

Oh, I didn't mean grooming like that.

Also, why do these liberals keep wanting to molest* my children when they don't listen in class?

*Of course I mean "bother." Why would you think I meant it like that?

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

Insufferably smarmy self-righteous BULLSHIT

negs without merit? You earned every one of them. There was nothing random about it. I read every one of your self righteous, pontificating, sanctimonious posts. 

You have chosen to continually troll and shit all over threads. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look I know liberals want to be able to eat* children and I think that's fine actually but liberals need to recognize that some people disagree and don't want liberals to eat* their children, and those people should be able to do something about that.

*Of course I meant "educate," silly me I left some letters out. That was obviously an honest mistake.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Condolences to your kids. It must suck to have someone like you as a parent. I feel sorry for them.

You shouldn’t. They’re talented, good looking kids that lead a life of privilege, and that’s without factoring in their whiteness. They have a great mom and an average dad. Their parents just have different political positions. No big deal. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

negs without merit? You earned every one of them. There was nothing random about it. I read every one of your self righteous, pontificating, sanctimonious posts. 

You have chosen to continually troll and shit all over threads. 

I don’t know what half those words mean as it relates to me, but if you really have read every one of my posts you’d see they follow the same themes and POVs and I don’t waffle or troll. I’m earnest in my beliefs and stances (and thus posts) and because they fly in the other direction than most of you people, most of the time, doesn’t mean they are troll posts. What it means is there is an intolerance for specific beliefs that are a minority in these threads, yet represent a sizable population in America and are even the majority in certain population groups and communities. 

It’s my position that a minority or dissenting POV and opinion should be tolerated, if truthfully held and respectfully given. It can only help the discussion, right? What’s it hurt you? You have to read something you disagree with? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, bonnieblue said:

My single mom was unmarried when she had me, and - due to our local public school being terrible/under funded - I had to attend a private evangelical Christian school for elementary. It was the only one cheap enough to be covered by whatever school voucher system they had going at the time. Many of those teachers and some of the parents were truly horrible to me for this thing I had absolutely no control over. I was a model student, my mom a model parent. She did drop off/pick up every day with a full time job, and they treated her horribly as well. Perfectly fine in the eyes of the school, it’s admin, and the church which supported it.


These people want this treatment to persist for every student/parent that falls outside of the range of “normal”.  It’s a vicious two-pronged attack, both making public schools themselves less safe for these students/parents, and also destabilizing public schools (through this bounty system/ vague language) so that more and more people will be forced to funnel their kids into a school like the terror I attended.

It’s such bullshit

[American Christians] Maybe your mother SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SUCH A WHORE!!!! [/American Christians]

Pretty sure I got that right.

44 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

New here or not, personally attacking someone’s family or how they reasonably choose to raise their family is horribly unjustified, but especially as a retort in a discussion or debate about subjective values and politics. That poster didn’t deserve that IMO, and if anyone were to have responded in-kind to say, ‘Stache when he posted his family experience, it wouldn’t have been waved away as “oh we are just a bunch of scallywags on this site, is this your first day?”

However, if you're a member of the Florida legislature, the bolded is 100% a-ok, and in fact, per Florida's Lt. Gov., it's wrong to even question those legislators' conduct.

You are calling out behavior on a message board that is a fucking foundational plank of a party's platform.  That's super fucked up.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You shouldn’t. They’re talented, good looking kids that lead a life of privilege, and that’s without factoring in their whiteness. They have a great mom and an average dad. Their parents just have different political positions. No big deal. 

Their parents are ok with a teacher losing their job for explaining to the class how little Johnny can have 2 dads. No big deal

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

It’s my position that a minority or dissenting POV and opinion should be tolerated, if truthfully held and respectfully given. It can only help the discussion, right? What’s it hurt you? You have to read something you disagree with? 

And if that position sees children taken from parents, or parents charged criminally for violating my closely held beliefs, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

It’s my position that a minority or dissenting POV and opinion should be tolerated, if truthfully held and respectfully given. It can only help the discussion, right? What’s it hurt you? You have to read something you disagree with? 

It's my position that you have very helpfully illustrated the paradox of tolerance here. You hold an inherently intolerable position of "people deserve to be criminalized and made other on the basis of their sexuality".

The same rhetoric strategy of using tolerance as a shield and weapon against progressive policy and ideals is as old as fascism.

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's my position that you have very helpfully illustrated the paradox of tolerance here. You hold an inherently intolerable position of "people deserve to be criminalized and made other on the basis of their sexuality".

The same rhetoric strategy of using tolerance as a shield and weapon against progressive policy and ideals is as old as fascism.

I never stated my position as you have it characterized here. You’ve inferred that from my posts, but that’s not the case. I don’t believe people should be made other or criminalized based on their sexuality.

At worst, I empathize with those parents who don’t want their children exposed to same sex conversations/families/books/whatever at a super young age and who can’t afford private school, but also don’t want to other or criminalize those folks either. At best, I actually don’t care what is going on in Florida at the public school level because I don’t live there (yet). I came to this thread because I like RD and would want him to be a Republican nominee in 2024 and actually joined the discussion mid-conversation when it was heated which is probably the source of a lot of confusion for everyone.

Edited by TurkeyChew
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Their parents are ok with a teacher losing their job for explaining to the class how little Johnny can have 2 dads. No big deal

You act like you have no kids. You’ve never had a situation where you didn’t have time or didn’t feel like explaining something novel to a small child? 

 

Everybody’s family is different, Johnny. Now everybody get their notebooks out. 
 

No big deal. Move on.
 

You’re not dismissing it. You’re not validating it. If Johnny wants to ask his parents at home about it, he will. 
 

The teacher won’t cry themselves to sleep at night because they didn’t get explain two dads to Johnny. And little Emma that has two moms will not feel unsafe. There’s a middle ground that respects parents’ wishes. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You act like you have no kids. You’ve never had a situation where you didn’t have time or didn’t feel like explaining something novel to a small child? 

 

Everybody’s family is different, Johnny. Now everybody get their notebooks out. 
 

No big deal. Move on.
 

You’re not dismissing it. You’re not validating it. If Johnny wants to ask his parents at home about it, he will. 
 

The teacher won’t cry themselves to sleep at night because they didn’t get explain two dads to Johnny. And little Emma that has two moms will not feel unsafe. There’s a middle ground that respects parents’ wishes. 

Exactly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

I never stated my position as you have it characterized here. You’ve inferred that from my posts, but that’s not the case. I don’t believe people should be made other or criminalized based on their sexuality.

At worst, I empathize with those parents who don’t want their children exposed to same sex conversations/families/books/whatever at a super young age and who can’t afford private school, but also don’t want to other or criminalize those folks either. At best, I actually don’t care what is going on in Florida at the public school level because I don’t live there (yet). I came to this thread because I like RD and would want him to be a Republican nominee in 2024 and actually joined the discussion mid-conversation when it was heated which is probably the source of a lot of confusion for everyone.

So you don't really care about the policy, and actually don't want people to be criminalized (but othered is just fine?)...

BUT!

You really like the policy's architect, RD, and want his ideas to grow outside of Florida to the rest of the nation.

 

Do you not see how these concurrent positions are inherently in conflict? You're either lying to yourself or lying to us. But it sure as fuck seems like trolling to me.

You're using the same shitty argument strategy as Jordan Peterson and Anastasis. You make broad statement after broad statement, and when someone tries to summarize those broad statements into a specific position on an issue, draw back into victimization with "well I never said THAT!" and continue your trolling.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government does goes in the assault to labeL, judge, and breakup families.  
 

anti-government posters-“don’t criticize family dynamics!”

got it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You act like you have no kids. You’ve never had a situation where you didn’t have time or didn’t feel like explaining something novel to a small child? 

Everybody’s family is different, Johnny. Now everybody get their notebooks out. 

No big deal. Move on.

You’re not dismissing it. You’re not validating it. If Johnny wants to ask his parents at home about it, he will. 

The teacher won’t cry themselves to sleep at night because they didn’t get explain two dads to Johnny. And little Emma that has two moms will not feel unsafe. There’s a middle ground that respects parents’ wishes. 

What do you propose for sex education?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So you don't really care about the policy, and actually don't want people to be criminalized (but othered is just fine?)...

BUT!

You really like the policy's architect, RD, and want his ideas to grow outside of Florida to the rest of the nation.

 

Do you not see how these concurrent positions are inherently in conflict? You're either lying to yourself or lying to us. But it sure as fuck seems like trolling to me.

You're using the same shitty argument strategy as Jordan Peterson and Anastasis. You make broad statement after broad statement, and when someone tries to summarize those broad statements into a specific position on an issue, draw back into victimization with "well I never said THAT!" and continue your trolling.

We’ve conversed on her enough that you should know I never run or hide from direct questions. Instead of broadly assuming, or worse yet your favorite rhetoric trick of hyperbolizing and extrapolating to extreme and absurd equivalencies, you can simply ask if you need clarification. 

That said, one can like a politician and not be in love with everything that politician does. There is room to disagree, and in varying degrees. The opposite which you seem to think is the ideal, that if one supports a politician then they must support them fully and ride or die, is part of what is wrong with American politics today.

I don’t like this as policy, I think it’s overreach and mostly not necessary. I also think there should be a more of an elegant solution if you are going to make a law— one that attempts to not other or criminalize. 

I said this a few pages ago, but at this point I believe this to be a purely political. It’s the dark, underbelly of politics that democrats decry the republicans are adept at and democrats don’t know how to play. This is a complete non-issue that has now been whipped up into a frenzy to both a) nip a burgeoning minority momentum in the bud before it realizes any power and influence and b) have Florida GOP and people create their own swarm of momentum and political fuel. It all feels like it was cut and paste from the CRT play of taking a non-issue and building votes around it.

Edited by TurkeyChew
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been away awhile. 
 

I see that the exact same two shitty trolls on their fourth handle now are doing the exact same shitty trolling in this thread and others they’ve been doing since the great shag migration to here back in 2018. 

Its totally pointless to argue with these two fools typing away from their shitty ass run down apartments in Eastern Europe making money so they can afford to eat processed cheese. It’s also pointless to neg them because they just bitch about it a lot then come back with a new handle after getting crowdbanned.

Theyre not trying to accomplish anything, just making those now worthless rubles. At least the donkey idiot didn’t kill a bunch of people like GRUHorn with anti vax bullshit. Or maybe he did and I just forgot. 

Edited by JimmyJames
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My daughter’s kindergarten they did a collage with family photos to share with their class. Two different kids have families with two moms. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but in FL, an angry parent could sue the teacher and force her to defend herself in court, which would likely include an expensive fact-finding inquiry about what was said/taught and whether that violated the law or not. 
 

The plain intent is to have the risk be so great and the law be so vague that it will scare anyone from discussing the topic at all. Teachers don’t have expensive lawyers on retainer and are famously underpaid. It’s dystopian 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this will come as quite a shock to most of you, but Republicans are lying about the don't say gay bill:

Quote

In the week since Florida lawmakers passed H.B. 1557, dubbed the “don’t say gay” bill, the law’s most prominent supporters have refused to publicly tell the truth about what the measure actually says. According to the law’s sponsors and cheerleaders, H.B. 1557 is a simple ban on teaching very young students about sex. It is needed, they say, to prevent “groomers”—specifically, gay and trans teachers—from attempting to corrupt and indoctrinate children with explicit classroom materials. The “don’t say gay” moniker, they insist, is misleading: Teachers and students can still talk about LGBTQ issues; they just can’t force 8-and-unders to learn about gay sex and gender transition.

This framing of H.B. 1557, which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign into law, is, objectively, a lie. It is refuted by the text of the bill itself, as well as its legislative history, which shows that Republican lawmakers rejected efforts to turn the measure into a straightforward prohibition on sex education in early grades. In reality, H.B. 1557 uses intentionally vague language to outlaw a huge amount of speech about LGBTQ people, families, and issues—not just sex—in every grade. And it relies upon a vigilante enforcement mechanism to chill an even broader amount of speech by subjecting violators to humiliating investigations and ruinous lawsuits. The fact that H.B. 1557’s supporters lie about these basic facts suggests that they know their bill is indefensible and must conceal its true meaning to drag it over the finish line.

At every turn of the legislative process, Republican lawmakers and commentators have misrepresented this bill. During floor debates in the Florida House and Senate, a stream of GOP legislators asserted that the bill would merely expand parents’ rights and limit young children’s exposure to graphic sexual instruction at school. Ben Shapiro said the measure is devoted to “protecting small children from the predations of adults,” dismissing any other interpretation as “propagandistic lies.” Conservative media figures are all reading from the same script, accusing Democrats and mainstream media of exaggerating the law’s purpose and effects. On the far end of the spectrum, Christina Pushaw, DeSantis’ press secretary, called H.B. 1557 the “anti-grooming bill,” claiming that anyone who opposes it is “probably a groomer.”

Set aside, for now, this revival of the odious myth that gay people prey on children, attempting to “convert” or “recruit” them into homosexuality, then molesting them. Instead, to puncture these lies, let’s look at the words that Republican legislators used when drafting H.B. 1557. Unlike tweets, articles, and speeches in defense of the bill, words are the law, and they are worth reading closely.

Claim No. 1: H.B. 1557 only applies to very young children.

Proponents of the law unfailingly center this assertion in their defense of the bill. H.B. 1557, they say, is an effort to shield children ages 4 through 8 from sex education, and from any acknowledgment of LGBTQ families. This claim is easily dispatched with a quick look at the relevant provision, which states:

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.

Note the word I’ve emphasized: “or.” This word is disjunctive, meaning it separates different things. Here, it separates two groups of students to whom the law applies. The first group is students “in kindergarten through grade 3.” The second group is the remainder of “students” with no grade limitation—so grades 4–12.

The bill applies two different rules for these two different groups. For the first group (grades K–3), it imposes an absolute ban on “classroom instruction … on sexual orientation or gender identity.” For the second group (grades 4–12), it imposes a partial ban, outlawing instruction that is “not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate … in accordance with state standards.” (It is unclear which “standards” the bill refers to—more on that soon.)

To understand this point, think about a hypothetical bill that says: “No person shall consume alcohol who is under 21 or over 21.” Imagine if the sponsor said: “My bill reinforces the ban on underage drinking.” That would be partly true, because it does forbid alcohol consumption under the age of 21. But, of course, it also forbids alcohol consumption over the age of 21. By ignoring the text after the disjunctive, the sponsor has elided the fact that their bill applies to everyone, not just minors. H.B. 1557’s proponents are playing a similar trick—although, to state the obvious, alcohol consumption can harm minors, while a reference to LGBTQ families does not.

Claim No. 2: H.B. 1557 only applies to sex education.

Republicans slipped this measure into a broader package ostensibly aimed at expanding parents’ control over their children’s education in public schools. They framed it as a limitation on sex education, but, ironically, it does not target explicit sexual materials. Rather, the bill bans “classroom instruction … on sexual orientation or gender identity” while saying nothing about instruction about the act of sex itself.

So what speech, exactly, does the law censor? The answer hinges on the preposition on. Here, again, a hypothetical is helpful. Imagine a bill that bans classroom instruction “on” slavery. A reasonable teacher would know that any overt mention of slavery is out. They would probably assume, too, that identifying someone as an enslaved person, or noting that someone owned slaves, would be forbidden. A discussion of the abolition movement would have to exclude any reference to its actual goals. Ditto for the 13th Amendment. Any instruction that touches on slavery would be suspect, best avoided to forestall career-ending consequences.

The same goes for instruction on LGBTQ families and issues: Any speech that touches upon this third rail might trigger a complaint. Could a third grade teacher read the children’s book Heather Has Two Mommies in class? Surely not, even though its gentle illustrations are the furthest thing imaginable from sex education. In advance of Parents Day, could the teacher talk about her two adoptive fathers? Definitely not. During a discussion of civil rights heroes, could the teacher talk about trailblazing feminist lawyer Pauli Murray, a gender-nonconforming queer person? It would be a close call. What if they/them pronouns confused students and required an explanation? The teacher might have to explain Murray’s gender identity—and that, no doubt, is illegal.

The terrain gets even rougher in grades 4–12. H.B. 1557 does not clarify which “state standards” educators can use to decide if LGBTQ-related speech is “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.” There are currently no statewide standards governing LGBTQ instruction, so teachers just have to wing it. If an eighth grade teacher assigned President Barack Obama’s second inaugural address, could they explain his reference to “Stonewall”? Could an 11th grade course about the Supreme Court mention Obergefell v. Hodges, the decision legalizing same-sex marriage? Would an explanation of Obergefell be “developmentally appropriate” for 16-year-olds? What rational teacher would dare take the risk, knowing the potential ramifications?

If Republicans wanted to avoid these difficult questions, they could have clarified that they meant to restrict sex education, not LGBTQ-related speech. But they didn’t. And when a Democratic legislator proposed an amendment replacing the current text with a ban on discussion of “sexual activity,” Republicans voted it down.

H.B. 1557 does not outlaw sex ed. It erases LGBTQ families.

Claim No. 3: H.B. 1557 does not suppress free speech.

It is impossible to understand the scope of this bill’s censorship without looking at its convoluted enforcement mechanisms. The law requires school districts to “adopt procedures for a parent to notify the principal” if they have “concerns” about LGBTQ instruction, and to create a “process for resolving those concerns within 7 calendar days.” If the “concern” is not “resolved” within 30 calendar days, the school district must explain why. A parent can always file a complaint if the concern is not resolved to their satisfaction. The Florida commissioner of education then appoints a special magistrate to recommend a “resolution,” which the state Board of Education must approve or reject. DeSantis is currently stacking this board with far-right allies; his most recent nominee, Esther Byrd, has previously indicated her support for QAnon, the Proud Boys, and the Jan. 6 rioters.

Aggrieved parents have a more direct option: They can sue the school district. If a court agrees that an instructor violated the law, it may issue an injunction, damages, and attorneys’ fees to the parents. This award could run well into the tens of thousands of dollars and almost surely result in the termination of the offending teacher. With this vigilante scheme, Florida has copied from Texas’ playbook, empowering private citizens to enforce oppressive laws through direct legal action.

Even if no parent ever sues under H.B. 1557, the threat of enforcement will hang over school districts. Just as doctors stopped performing abortions when Texas passed S.B. 8, teachers will stop mentioning LGBTQ issues once this bill takes effect. That’s the point: The law has a chilling effect on speech, frightening educators into silence. A parent can ruin teachers’ lives by filing a complaint or a lawsuit; even if a teacher is ultimately exonerated, they will have suffered through an intrusive investigation and faced accusation of misconduct—or “grooming”—that will never fade away completely. Many reasonable educators would rather stay quiet than risk a months- or yearslong probe into their classroom speech, one that may well end in their dismissal or, at a minimum, a permanently stained reputation.

H.B. 1557’s proponents are correct that the bill does not use the word gay. But this reductive defense exploits the measure’s unusual structure to obscure its inevitable impact. If the law were defensible on its own merits, Republicans would not resort to these facile lies when making the case for its passage.

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

My daughter’s kindergarten they did a collage with family photos to share with their class. Two different kids have families with two moms. Absolutely nothing wrong with this, but in FL, an angry parent could sue the teacher and force her to defend herself in court, which would likely include an expensive fact-finding inquiry about what was said/taught and whether that violated the law or not. 
 

The plain intent is to have the risk be so great and the law be so vague that it will scare anyone from discussing the topic at all. Teachers don’t have expensive lawyers on retainer and are famously underpaid. It’s dystopian 

It's also basically a corollary to Texas' heartbeat bill--private right of action to enforce.  ALEC at work again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, TurkeyChew said:

It all feels like it was cut and paste from the CRT play of taking a non-issue and building votes around it.

Let's simplify and summarize for you:

1 -- an entire political party has built its playbook around a strategy of "find a weaker/marginalized group, and attack them relentlessly to score political points with people who like to see shit like that happen."  The textbook definition of bullying.

2 -- Turkey and his pals support that approach, and reward that party with their loyalty and votes.  BECAUSE THEY LIKE IT.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...