4 ms·

If my memory serves me right, this chess game started this way: 1. Many teachers in Florida started teaching kids (grade 3 and below) about sexual identity mat

by akomtu 5y ago

If my memory serves me right, this chess game started this way: 1. Many teachers in Florida started teaching kids (grade 3 and below) about sexual identity matters (aka CRT). 2. Parents got upset and legislature passed a bill to ban such activity (again, for grade 3 and below). The left promptly called it a "dont say gay bill" and the right responded with the "anti-groomers bill" label. 3. Disney execs came to rescue the losing left and threw a few accusations on DeSantis. 4. The mostly conservative legislature got upset that Disney is messing with politics and retaliated with this bill, to strip Disney from its special status. My guess is that Disney will respond with a PR campaign to smear DeSantis.

seizethegdgap 5y ago
> sexual identity matters > CRT I don't think CRT means what you think it means.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  In this case, their definition of CRT is completely in line with Christopher Rufo's redefinition of CRT, which is "anything I don't like"[1]: > Christopher Rufo, a prominent opponent of critical race theory, in March acknowledged intentionally using the term to describe a range of race-related topics and conjure a negative association. > “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical-race-theory-bans-schools/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical...
zht 5y ago
lmaoooo "critical race theory" means sexual identity?
- lost_soul 5y ago
olliej 5y ago
1. They teach kids about straight relationships, and that isn’t being banned? 2. So? A significant (and similar) group of parents got upset by desegregation 3. Disney said dehumanizing lgbtq people, especially kids, is wrong. Kind of meh on the political speech of corporations, but the 1st amendment lets that happen in the US. 4. In response to Disney exercising it’s first amendment rights (that the GOP fervently defends when it’s people firing lgbt employees for existing), the GOP explicitly retaliated. A clear government suppression of protected speech. That said a bunch of what I’ve read suggests this actually just ends up costing the tax payers money instead? (I’m in general anti these kinds of laws exempting business from, well, the law) My guess is Disney will decide whether this cost them money, and if it is take the legislature to court for a clear first amendment violation - the various legislators explicitly said it was retaliation, so I imagine it would be a moderately clear cut case. But then I am not a lawyer.
- akomtu 5y ago
  1 & 2 is a tired rhetorical trick. That's like arguing with a judge: "yeah, I was speeding 40 over the limit, but my friend's brother regularly goes 2x over the limit!" 3 & 4 - I'm not sure if 1A applies to businesses. Does it mean businesses have right to petition the gov and demand change? Does it apply to businesses owned by foreign entities? I doubt it. On paper, nobody retaliated: legislature simply reconsidered some old statute. My opinion is that Disney crossed the line here, but Florida's response is awkward and doesn't achieve much.
  - olliej 5y ago
    1 & 2 is not, That's like arguing with a judge: "I don't believe it is fair for me to have got a ticket because my car had a bumper sticker with a pride flag" 3 & 4 - The GOP has consistently stated that the 1st amendment applies to businesses, which is why laws forcing news to, for example, be fair and balanced, are illegal. The GOP has also argued businesses have religious freedom, and so can fire people for being LGBTQ if it goes against the owners "sincerely held religious beliefs".

by akomtu 5y ago

seizethegdgap 5y ago

> sexual identity matters > CRT I don't think CRT means what you think it means.

heavyset_go 5y ago
In this case, their definition of CRT is completely in line with Christopher Rufo's redefinition of CRT, which is "anything I don't like"[1]: > Christopher Rufo, a prominent opponent of critical race theory, in March acknowledged intentionally using the term to describe a range of race-related topics and conjure a negative association. > “We have successfully frozen their brand — ‘critical race theory’ — into the public conversation and are steadily driving up negative perceptions,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “We will eventually turn it toxic, as we put all of the various cultural insanities under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something crazy in the newspaper and immediately think ‘critical race theory.’” [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical-race-theory-bans-schools/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/05/29/critical...

zht 5y ago

lmaoooo "critical race theory" means sexual identity?

lost_soul 5y ago

olliej 5y ago

1. They teach kids about straight relationships, and that isn’t being banned? 2. So? A significant (and similar) group of parents got upset by desegregation 3. Disney said dehumanizing lgbtq people, especially kids, is wrong. Kind of meh on the political speech of corporations, but the 1st amendment lets that happen in the US. 4. In response to Disney exercising it’s first amendment rights (that the GOP fervently defends when it’s people firing lgbt employees for existing), the GOP explicitly retaliated. A clear government suppression of protected speech. That said a bunch of what I’ve read suggests this actually just ends up costing the tax payers money instead? (I’m in general anti these kinds of laws exempting business from, well, the law) My guess is Disney will decide whether this cost them money, and if it is take the legislature to court for a clear first amendment violation - the various legislators explicitly said it was retaliation, so I imagine it would be a moderately clear cut case. But then I am not a lawyer.

akomtu 5y ago
1 & 2 is a tired rhetorical trick. That's like arguing with a judge: "yeah, I was speeding 40 over the limit, but my friend's brother regularly goes 2x over the limit!" 3 & 4 - I'm not sure if 1A applies to businesses. Does it mean businesses have right to petition the gov and demand change? Does it apply to businesses owned by foreign entities? I doubt it. On paper, nobody retaliated: legislature simply reconsidered some old statute. My opinion is that Disney crossed the line here, but Florida's response is awkward and doesn't achieve much.
- olliej 5y ago
  1 & 2 is not, That's like arguing with a judge: "I don't believe it is fair for me to have got a ticket because my car had a bumper sticker with a pride flag" 3 & 4 - The GOP has consistently stated that the 1st amendment applies to businesses, which is why laws forcing news to, for example, be fair and balanced, are illegal. The GOP has also argued businesses have religious freedom, and so can fire people for being LGBTQ if it goes against the owners "sincerely held religious beliefs".