Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

I dismissed it pretty much entirely. It was like BL quoting the WaPo way back.

I've posted many things.on the headline alone... Sometimes the headline is misleading and I regret the post.

But this headline was so outrageously unbelievable I had to click into. Any critical thinking adult would have questioned it before assuming it was correct
 
From the article...

The bill reads in part, “An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

--------

Where does it saying anything about white people? And why did the AP describe it that way?

“This bill’s not for Blacks, this bill was not for any other race. This was directed to make whites not feel bad about what happened years ago,” said state Sen. Shevrin Jones, who is Black. “At no point did anyone say white people should be held responsible for what happened, but what I would ask my white counterparts is, are you an enabler of what happened or are you going to say we must talk about history?”
 
“This bill’s not for Blacks, this bill was not for any other race. This was directed to make whites not feel bad about what happened years ago,” said state Sen. Shevrin Jones, who is Black. “At no point did anyone say white people should be held responsible for what happened, but what I would ask my white counterparts is, are you an enabler of what happened or are you going to say we must talk about history?”

So, a democrat opponent to the bill says it's for white people, and therefore, it's for white people?

The AP quoted the bill itself... race is not mentioned once
 
Seems pretty hard to misinterpret.

Most people will move on when you stop making everything about race.

What people get tired of, is everyone making everything about race (especially when it isn't)

Its about individuals being decent human beings.
 
It’s weird that a self professed critical thinker can’t do some critical thinking for his own question lol
 
From the article...

The bill reads in part, “An individual, by virtue of his or her race or sex, does not bear responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex. An individual should not be made to feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.”

--------

Where does it saying anything about white people? And why did the AP describe it that way?

You’re quite right that the bill says nothing about white people. I am somewhat curious which group you think is feeling guilt over their ancestors’ actions in America due to CRT, though.

That said, I personally take issue with the bill for a completely different reason, partially outlined by a FL Senator:

“How is a judge supposed to determine if a person is made to feel guilty by proper diversity training, sexual harassment training or any kind of policy that a company has in place to prevent discrimination?” Polsky said.

To me, this bill does one of two things:

1) Sets it up where any discussion of the vile **** we did as a nation is illegal to teach or talk about in the workplace because it might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty.

2) Essentially nothing, as it’s legislating against a mostly sensationalized version of these lessons or trainings. While there are some out there that think that white people need to openly think of themselves as oppressors, it’s really not common. It is common to declare the nation was built on a framework of open racism, but that doesn’t just mean it follows that the conclusion is all white people are individually bad. You might stop some idiots from doing this, but it’s largely pointless if this is genuinely all it wants to stop.

Also, it’s insane to me that the Right would include diversity training in private workplaces to this bill. It’s one thing to legislate this regarding public schools, but how is this not exactly stifling free speech of private individuals in the course of running their business?
 
Last edited:
You’re quite right that the bill says nothing about white people. I am somewhat curious which group you think is feeling guilt over their ancestors’ actions in America due to CRT, though.

That said, I personally take issue with the bill for a completely different reason, partially outlined by a FL Senator:



To me, this bill does one of two things:

1) Sets it up where any discussion of the vile **** we did as a nation is illegal to teach or talk about in the workplace because it might make someone feel uncomfortable or guilty.

2) Essentially nothing, as it’s legislating against a mostly sensationalized version of these lessons or trainings. While there are some out there that think that white people need to openly think of themselves as oppressors, it’s really not common. It is common to declare the nation was built on a framework of open racism, but that doesn’t just mean it follows that the conclusion is all white people are individually bad. You might stop some idiots from doing this, but it’s largely pointless if this is genuinely all it wants to stop.

Also, it’s insane to me that the Right would include diversity training in private workplaces to this bill. It’s one thing to legislate this regarding public schools, but how is this not exactly stifling free speech of private individuals in the course of running their business?

I was merely pointing out that Goldy was duped about the bill outlining white people not feeling discomfort. I'd hate for black people to feel discomfort for the riots of George Floyd they had nothing to do with either.

Why don't we treat people today as individuals. Judge them on their own actions rather than those of centuries past?
 
I was merely pointing out that Goldy was duped about the bill outlining white people not feeling discomfort. I'd hate for black people to feel discomfort for the riots of George Floyd they had nothing to do with either.

Why don't we treat people today as individuals. Judge them on their own actions rather than those of centuries past?

Sure, that works in many, many contexts. The issue is when we use that idea to stifle debate around the extent to which the prior, explicitly racist policies affect the individuals today. Individuals rise out of poverty all the time, but we need to not assume it’s a given that everyone will. I don’t think that the answer is to treat minorities as a monolith and automatically provide resources to people based solely on race, but when you look at some of the communities that are struggling, it’s hard not to look at the root causes and think we should do better.
 
Seems pretty hard to misinterpret.

Most people will move on when you stop making everything about race.

What people get tired of, is everyone making everything about race (especially when it isn't)

Its about individuals being decent human beings.

You're right it is pretty hard to misinterpret. It's a bunch of pussy ass white men who don't like being reminded that the country was really ****ty for everyone who wasn't a white man for the majority of it's existence. So they attempt to make a law to stop people from reminding them of it.

I do agree that the individual is more important than the collective. But part of making someone a well rounded individual is having all the information.
 
If the issue is addressing poverty why focus on a group that is less than the other?

Most of the solutions I support focus on the poverty itself. I want other white people to not be in poverty either. The percentages just show that due to structural issues, your skin color makes it more likely to be in poverty, and the causes for that are largely due to our history.
 
Most of the solutions I support focus on the poverty itself. I want other white people to not be in poverty either. The percentages just show that due to structural issues, your skin color makes it more likely to be in poverty, and the causes for that are largely due to our history.

You should have loved Trump then because inflation adjusted wages for non-supervisory workers increased at a rate not seen in over 50 years.
 
If the issue is addressing poverty why focus on a group that is less than the other?

there is literally no reason to double down on showing how much of a non critical thinker you actually are

like, absolutely zero reason
 
It'd be fun if you could articulate why...

But we all know how hilarious that dream is.

Imagine living life with full conviction of beliefs, but cannot articulate why

Gotta be a little embarrassed
 
Back
Top