5 ms·

I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivatio

by daenz 5y ago

I make this point more thoroughly in another comment, but I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Retaliation implies harm, and I am making the case that removing an unfair advantage, that shouldn't have ever existed in the first place, is not harm. If it's a neutral action (or neutral-positive), then it's not retaliation.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.
- daenz 5y ago
  >Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    There is no debate that Disney is worse off with the action, so it is harmful. Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.
    - daenz 5y ago
      You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
      - dragonwriter 5y ago
        > Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is: (1) harmful to Disney, and (2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights. > Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation. But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
        daenz 5y ago
        I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
        daenz 5y ago
        The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
    - colburnmh 4y ago
      And the counties and their taxpayers, as well.
  - WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
    > Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful. Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A. def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine
    - daenz 5y ago
      >Retaliation is me doing B because of A. No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
      - Volundr 5y ago
        retaliate: intransitive verb to return like for like especially: to get revenge transitive verb to repay in kind retaliate an injury Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.
colburnmh 4y ago
The retaliatory motivation of this law is clearly documented in articles, speeches, Tweets, and other forms. The structure of the law reinforces the retaliatory nature of the legislation: the law goes into effect immediately and dissolves the 6 special districts a year from now. The 6 special districts may petition the government to re-establish their special districts after they have been dissolved. This places a massive and unique burden on Disney since Disney and the two counties that it's property spans (Orange and Osceola), must take on an enormous amount of work and expense, to transition infrastructure and services to the counties before the special district is dissolved on July 1, 2023. Then, if the government grants the petition to re-establish the RCID, the counties and Disney will have to unwind all that work to transition the infrastructure and services from the counties back to the RCID. That wasted transition work will cost both Disney and the two counties' taxpayers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars, and will have served no rational legislative or business purpose. If the goal of the bill was to simply to require the re-establishment of the 6 special districts that were not re-established since the update to the state constitution, then the bill should have allowed the special districts to petition for re-establishment any time starting now, before dissolution, rather than requiring the special districts to dissolve before they can petition for re-establishment. And I bet that Disney's petition to re-establish the district will not be passed, if it is passed at all, at the same pace as the law to strip them of the special district rights in the first place. The SB-4C bill was submitted, passed with no debate in either House or Senate, and no public comment, and signed into law--including a change to the special session rules that allowed it to be considered and passed--all in the span of 96 hours. Most bills take weeks or months--not just 4 days--and go through substantial debate and public comment periods to get through that process.

by daenz 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I don't view it as retaliation, and I think only the people who are fixated on the political motivations view it as retaliation. Well, yes, nothing looks like retaliation when you ignore motivations. Motivations define retaliation. Starting out with selectively ignoring the facts most relevant for assessing whether a thing fits into a particular category is a singularly bad way of assessing whether that is the case.

daenz 5y ago
>Motivations define retaliation. Disagree. Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  There is no debate that Disney is worse off with the action, so it is harmful. Even your argument upthread is that this is an adverse change that Disney deserves for other reasons than the actual motivation, not that it is not an adverse change.
  - daenz 5y ago
    You're finally understanding my point. Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. Put it another way: Imagine a law that said white people get 10% off of every purchase. Now that law is repealed, and white people say: "I'm being harmed!" Are they?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Removing an unfair privilege is only "harmful" to the person with the unfair privilege. Yes, so (independent of whether the status quo is just or not) the act is: (1) harmful to Disney, and (2) motivated by Disney’s exercise of its first amendment rights. > Considering the full context makes it not actual harm. No, it doesn't. It makes it harmful in a way you believe is warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation. But the fact that an adverse government action would be warranted for reasons other than the actual motivation does not make taking the same action in retaliation for exercise of Constitutional rights permissible.
      - daenz 5y ago
        I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example, since I think that make it very clear why you're against the actions against Disney, and why I am for them.
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > I'd like to hear your answer to my white privilege example Your white privilege example includes no impermissible motivation, and assumes an initial state that would not merely be undesirable policy, but bright line prohibited by the 14th Amendment. While the Disney special district may be undesirable in some model of fairness, it is not unconstitutional, and the action to remove it does have an impermissible motivation. So the analogy fails on key points.
        daenz 5y ago
        The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed?
        dragonwriter 5y ago
        > The point I'm making is about harm, which has been the whole crux of my argument. In my example, are white people being harmed by having the 10% discount removed? Obviously, yes, they are worse off after the change.
  - colburnmh 4y ago
    And the counties and their taxpayers, as well.
- WarOnPrivacy 5y ago
  > Motivation plays a part, but it is ultimately the action that defines if it was retaliation. The action has to be harmful. Retaliation is about the why, not the what. Retaliation is me doing B because of A. def: Retaliation: The act of retaliating, or of returning like for like; retribution; now, specifically, the return of evil for evil In this case, it's about Disney acting in a way that pols don't like. "But here’s the issue, when my 14-year-old or my 10-year-old ask for special privileges? They behave! And they don’t expect those special privileges if they act like jerks. So Disney is learning that they are a guest in this state." - FL Rep Randy Fine
  - daenz 5y ago
    >Retaliation is me doing B because of A. No, and you're twisting what you know retaliation to be, to pretend that is merely "cause and effect." That's very deceptive, because I think you know that it doesn't make much sense to say "He gave me a nice gift, so I retaliated with my own nice gift."
    - Volundr 5y ago
      retaliate: intransitive verb to return like for like especially: to get revenge transitive verb to repay in kind retaliate an injury Words have dictionary definitions, legal definitions, and connotations (note: the especially). Your usage above is consistent with both the dictionary and legal definitions of retaliate, but would be confusing to most English speakers because of the connotations.

colburnmh 4y ago

The retaliatory motivation of this law is clearly documented in articles, speeches, Tweets, and other forms. The structure of the law reinforces the retaliatory nature of the legislation: the law goes into effect immediately and dissolves the 6 special districts a year from now. The 6 special districts may petition the government to re-establish their special districts after they have been dissolved. This places a massive and unique burden on Disney since Disney and the two counties that it's property spans (Orange and Osceola), must take on an enormous amount of work and expense, to transition infrastructure and services to the counties before the special district is dissolved on July 1, 2023. Then, if the government grants the petition to re-establish the RCID, the counties and Disney will have to unwind all that work to transition the infrastructure and services from the counties back to the RCID. That wasted transition work will cost both Disney and the two counties' taxpayers 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars, and will have served no rational legislative or business purpose. If the goal of the bill was to simply to require the re-establishment of the 6 special districts that were not re-established since the update to the state constitution, then the bill should have allowed the special districts to petition for re-establishment any time starting now, before dissolution, rather than requiring the special districts to dissolve before they can petition for re-establishment. And I bet that Disney's petition to re-establish the district will not be passed, if it is passed at all, at the same pace as the law to strip them of the special district rights in the first place. The SB-4C bill was submitted, passed with no debate in either House or Senate, and no public comment, and signed into law--including a change to the special session rules that allowed it to be considered and passed--all in the span of 96 hours. Most bills take weeks or months--not just 4 days--and go through substantial debate and public comment periods to get through that process.