4 ms·

Thanks. That's the culture-warrior's way of saying, "we're cancelling Disney because they protested that we were cancelling gay people."

by _jal 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago
The Florida bill never even mentions the word "gay". As for what the bill actually says: > 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. That's not cancelling gay people at large. That's preventing the schools from talking to third-graders or younger (8 years old or younger) about these things and letting their parents do it if they choose. You might disagree with the bill, but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance, regardless on what the political stance is.
- mrtranscendence 5y ago
  > but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance Wait, who said this? Corporations lobby the government all the time. They absolutely have political stances. Sometimes these stances are transparently about making them money, and sometimes they're (ostensibly) not, but it would deny reality to claim that they shouldn't have political stances. Maybe you feel that they shouldn't, but it's tilting at windmills. This is beside the point of whether they should have "special political privileges". Maybe no corporation should have "special political privileges". But in a world where they do, it's strange to confer them conditional on what has never been the case (companies not taking political positions). edit: "The Florida bill never even mentions the word 'gay'." That statement does not make you sound very serious. The bill obviously involves -- at a deep level -- the concept of "gay" whether or not it uses that particular word.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Preventing schools from talking about "gay" to people who are generally 5-9 years old is a political choice that is very different than excluding gay people from society as claimed.
    - larkost 5y ago
      I disagree. What is really trying to be banned here is things like talking about families that have two dads (or two moms). No-one is talking to kindergartners about sex in schools, homosexual or heterosexual. But they are talking about why one kids'd parents do not line up with another, and how that is ok. As a side note: I have an 8-year-old son. I tried to explain a bit about this sort of thing, but just explaining about how adults are attracted to each other is something he is simply not ready to understand. Trying to explain sex to him at this point would just be confusing. The problem is that some parents do not think that it is ok that someone has two dads, and really want to go back to the days when "those people" would be socially shamed and that shaming was supported by what is taught in school. And the governor of Florida, and his compatriots in that states legislative body agree with them (or are at least willing to play this for political points). I happen to think that we should accept people's choices about who they think are family (there are extremes on this, and I am less certain about my stance the farther you go). And to some degree our laws and the court's interpretation of that have solidified that as the law of the land. Once we are there, pretty much the only thing that schools can reasonably do is to teach these "new" forms of family as normal. Yes that is against what some parents want, but if they want their kids not to be exposed to this then they better be taking care of their kids education themselves (homeschool or paying for private schools).
    - halostatue 5y ago
      You are wrong, full stop. If one cannot talk about why Joe has two mommies and no daddies, or why Jane's mom should now be called dad (necessary consequences of the "don't say gay" bill - and very much intended by the bigots behind the bill and behind those bigots who support the bill), then one is _erasing_ gay people from society. My 62-year-old brother-in-law tells me that knew he was gay (but didn’t have a word for it) from about 6 years old. He still had to go through a bunch of figuring out what that meant, but if society hadn’t been stuck where it was when he was 6, he may have saved himself a lot of pain growing up.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mfringel 5y ago
  "The law doesn't have this exact word in it and therefore none of the observed effects of the law actually exist." is not the airtight defense you may think it is.

Thanks. That's the culture-warrior's way of saying, "we're cancelling Disney because they protested that we were cancelling gay people."

by _jal 5y ago

Thanks. That's the culture-warrior's way of saying, "we're cancelling Disney because they protested that we were cancelling gay people."

gjsman-1000 5y ago

The Florida bill never even mentions the word "gay". As for what the bill actually says: > 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. That's not cancelling gay people at large. That's preventing the schools from talking to third-graders or younger (8 years old or younger) about these things and letting their parents do it if they choose. You might disagree with the bill, but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance, regardless on what the political stance is.

mrtranscendence 5y ago
> but Disney is taking a political stance, and does not deserve to have special political privileges if they take any form of political stance Wait, who said this? Corporations lobby the government all the time. They absolutely have political stances. Sometimes these stances are transparently about making them money, and sometimes they're (ostensibly) not, but it would deny reality to claim that they shouldn't have political stances. Maybe you feel that they shouldn't, but it's tilting at windmills. This is beside the point of whether they should have "special political privileges". Maybe no corporation should have "special political privileges". But in a world where they do, it's strange to confer them conditional on what has never been the case (companies not taking political positions). edit: "The Florida bill never even mentions the word 'gay'." That statement does not make you sound very serious. The bill obviously involves -- at a deep level -- the concept of "gay" whether or not it uses that particular word.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Preventing schools from talking about "gay" to people who are generally 5-9 years old is a political choice that is very different than excluding gay people from society as claimed.
  - larkost 5y ago
    I disagree. What is really trying to be banned here is things like talking about families that have two dads (or two moms). No-one is talking to kindergartners about sex in schools, homosexual or heterosexual. But they are talking about why one kids'd parents do not line up with another, and how that is ok. As a side note: I have an 8-year-old son. I tried to explain a bit about this sort of thing, but just explaining about how adults are attracted to each other is something he is simply not ready to understand. Trying to explain sex to him at this point would just be confusing. The problem is that some parents do not think that it is ok that someone has two dads, and really want to go back to the days when "those people" would be socially shamed and that shaming was supported by what is taught in school. And the governor of Florida, and his compatriots in that states legislative body agree with them (or are at least willing to play this for political points). I happen to think that we should accept people's choices about who they think are family (there are extremes on this, and I am less certain about my stance the farther you go). And to some degree our laws and the court's interpretation of that have solidified that as the law of the land. Once we are there, pretty much the only thing that schools can reasonably do is to teach these "new" forms of family as normal. Yes that is against what some parents want, but if they want their kids not to be exposed to this then they better be taking care of their kids education themselves (homeschool or paying for private schools).
  - halostatue 5y ago
    You are wrong, full stop. If one cannot talk about why Joe has two mommies and no daddies, or why Jane's mom should now be called dad (necessary consequences of the "don't say gay" bill - and very much intended by the bigots behind the bill and behind those bigots who support the bill), then one is _erasing_ gay people from society. My 62-year-old brother-in-law tells me that knew he was gay (but didn’t have a word for it) from about 6 years old. He still had to go through a bunch of figuring out what that meant, but if society hadn’t been stuck where it was when he was 6, he may have saved himself a lot of pain growing up.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
mfringel 5y ago
"The law doesn't have this exact word in it and therefore none of the observed effects of the law actually exist." is not the airtight defense you may think it is.