10 ms·

I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the busines

I don’t think the elimination of the Reedy Creek district is meant to ever actually occur. The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.

zmgsabst 5y ago
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    I paraphrased your comment, but I think I captured the essence of what you said accurately: > to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
    - bandyaboot 5y ago
      You think wrong.
      - zmgsabst 5y ago
        I think it’s telling you didn’t offer an alternative interpretation either time you told me I was “wrong”.
- vmh1928 5y ago
  Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
  - nsxwolf 5y ago
    - bbatchelder 5y ago
      It is absolutely the case in certain circumstances. I know several evangelical parents who want their kids ignorant about sexual health because they think teaching kids about sexual health will lead to them engaging in sex. Of course, thats not how it works, and these kids just end up engaging in sex while totally uninformed or in some cases filled with disinformation (for example, being told that condoms don't work - the parents think if the kids believe there is no safe sex that they won't have sex - but the kids end up having sex and don't use a condom because they believe it doesn't work).
    - JaimeThompson 5y ago
      Those who think that females should have as much education as males are explicitly saying that they want the females to be more ignorant than the males.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people are seemingly unworried about the potential for overreach in this case.
  - zmgsabst 5y ago
    This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?
    - jlmorton 5y ago
      You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher was not complying with school district policy, then the recourse was to fire the teacher. The bill you're arguing in favor of hijacks control from local voters, overrides the expressed preferences of parents and local voters, and relies on civil lawsuits to enforce a state policy.
      - zmgsabst 5y ago
        I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic. It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.
        JaimeThompson 5y ago
thrashh 5y ago
I suspect there's a way to eliminate Reedy Creek district. I don't think it's the law stopping the dissolution of the district -- it's that no one important in the state seriously wants to do that. Who does it benefit?
- gamblor956 5y ago
  There is: the state of Florida can pay off the debt. All at once. That is the only legal way to do it without endangering all of Florida's other debt (bonds, etc.).
  - fnordpiglet 5y ago
    The local community can’t afford to assume the districts responsibility even if the bond debt is assumed by the state.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Wouldn't the local community collect a lot more taxes if the district didn't exist? As I understand it (admittedly not very well), right now Disney is effectively "paying taxes" to itself.
      - mikeryan 5y ago
        That's actually covered in the article. "Mills" is the term of art for the amount levied in property taxes. Reedy Creek has the ability to tax at 30mills and currently taxes at 13.67 (1/3 of which goes to paying the debt) the counties are limited to only taxing at a rate up to 10 mills (and are currently at about ~7 mills (Osceola) and ~5 (Orange) so there's a 3.67 shortfall they can't make up and another 3-5 which they currently don't. The added revenue to the counties would be far short of the amount they'd need to provide the current services and service the debt. Osceola Millage Rates https://www.property-appraiser.org/final-millage-rates/ https://www.property-appraiser.org/final-millage-rates/ Orange Millage Rates https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/faqcontent/Taxroll_Info#A404411 https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/faqcontent/Taxroll_Info#A404411
zackees 5y ago
paxys 5y ago
That's what people said about Brexit..but here we are
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
vannevar 5y ago
>The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. I think the purpose was a lot more narrow: to position Ron DeSantis for the 2024 Republican Presidential primaries. Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 2016 despite a majority of Republican primary voters actually voting for other candidates. Once he was nominated, however, most Republicans fell into step and supported him.
- AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
  > Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 2016 despite a majority of Republican primary voters actually voting for other candidates. That strategy doesn't work as well if you get ranked choice voting or anything other than first-past-the-post. https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-choice-voting-despite-citizen-support/ https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-c... ...oh
- loki49152 5y ago
  Few people remember that Trump likely won the nomination due to "cross-over" voters in states with open primaries. There was an organized effort by Democrats to cross-vote for him as the Republican candidate under the belief that he couldn't possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in the actual election. I don't know if there is a way to determine whether or not that effort actually succeeded, but it did exist and was spoken about with great pride until Trump became the President.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
twofornone 5y ago
>And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. It's slimy and dishonest to pretend that only republicans are fighting a culture war when the bulk of the progressive platform is explicitly about changing US culture. It's like calling Ukraine the aggressor for defending against the Russian invasion.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  It’s slimy and dishonest to pretend that I said something that I did not say.
- mrzimmerman 5y ago
  Cultures change constantly. They’re never in a sort of stasis. Culture is just the expressions of a group of humans, how they think, and how they interact. One could argue that rolling back abortion access (which has existed for decades and is part of US culture) is conservatives in America explicitly changing US culture. Same with bills like the one in Florida that disallow teachers from discussing human gender or human romantic relationships. Everyone is generally trying to affect the direction of the culture of the US at the political level at all times. It’s not a right va left thing it’s a humans exist thing.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      That's a very particular reading of a very particular poll. Contrast with a Gallup poll from more or less the same time frame: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" No: 58% Yes: 32% No opinion: 10% You can slice and dice the court of public opinion many different ways to demonstrate support for your preferred position on abortion (as with many other things). That doesn't mean that "conservatives are trying to roll back the law to reflect the culture" (emphasis mine). It means that they have an idea of what the culture should be, and are trying to make it so (like everyone else who is trying to accomplish anything politically).
rayiner 5y ago
Your use of “dissent” is an interesting way to frame a major corporation trying to exert pressure to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Is this a change from Republican orthodoxy, where big corporations get whatever they ask for regardless of public opinion. Yes.
- roseway4 5y ago
  > to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Please provide a source for this claim.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FN_ArK9VEAEnDva?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FN_ArK9VEAEnDva?format=jpg&name=... The question is: "To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade?" Respondents supported it 50-34.
    - johnnyo 5y ago
      Don’t confuse support for one provision to mean support for the entire bill. If you scroll down in the same poll a few questions you will see: “To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Allowing parents to sue school districts over alleged violations of sexual orientation and gender identity discussions in schools” Support 41% Oppose 43% https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-9034-d137-abff-f0f410670000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-9034-d137-abff-f0f41...
    - gi_jones 5y ago
      I think it would have been more enlightening if they'd separated out the question, to see how many people would be okay with sexual orientation being taught, but not gender identity. Or vice versa. They're two very different, and somewhat conflicting, concepts. For example, is homosexuality an attraction between people of the same sex, or the same gender identity? This is a contentious issue even amongst adults, never mind teaching it to children.
mbostleman 5y ago
Everything you say is likely correct, but for full context, these actions are a response to an initial political action that most likely can also be described in identical terms. From a less polarized position, this is fire fighting fire.
- caddemon 5y ago
  This is a pretty big escalation. There are definitely examples of both sides being the aggressor in the broader "culture wars", but IMO the absurdity of this particular issue is pretty much entirely on the right.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - mbostleman 5y ago
    I'm not sure how to resolve the absurdity level between the left's initial action and the right's reaction. They both seem equally absurd to me. But maybe that's where subjectivity comes in.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Disney’s political actions were entirely within their rights. The state taking adverse action against them for exercising those rights should not be tolerated in a liberal society.
ladyattis 5y ago
>To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And as a consequence it means less business will ever come to Florida which is a disaster for them. It also means any existing businesses in Florida are likely to move more of their new work outside of the state. It's really a bad decision on DeSantis' part and I don't think he cares obviously but his party does.
- adfm 5y ago
  It’s been said that reality has a well-known liberal bias[^0]. The palpable fear and petulance on display in Florida seems to reinforce that statement. Stunts like this underscore the fact that the US consistently fails with people like DeSantis in office because their gut gets in the way of what is right [^1]. And we all know the problem with politics is the left admitting it’s not always right. [^0]: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4698442/user-clip-reality-liberal-bias https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4698442/user-clip-reality-lib... [^1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_un...
hunterb123 5y ago
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Disney is not giving sex talks to kids without parents permission. They are being called groomers. > I don't really care what Disney is being called. I care about teachers engaging in sexual discussion w/ minors without permission. If you do that, or you support this policy, I'll call you a groomer and I'll report you. Ok, so not giving sex talks to kids without parents’ permission is not, in fact, a simple way to avoid being called a groomer. Got it.
timintheglades 5y ago
But naming the opposition "white supremacist", "far right", and "racists" is perfectly accurate and OK.
- danaris 5y ago
  When people espouse positions that are friendly toward white supremacist ideology, and adopt policies that are demonstrably racist, I think it's absolutely reasonable to call them white supremacists and racists. When people hold positions that are quite clearly far down the right side of our traditional political spectrum, I think it's correct to call them far right. It's not an ad hominem attack or partisan name-calling to say someone is <insert negative description here> if they actually, factually fit that description.

zmgsabst 5y ago

bandyaboot 5y ago
I think it’s interesting that you took my comment, rewrote it in your head, and responded to your made up version of what I said.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  I paraphrased your comment, but I think I captured the essence of what you said accurately: > to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. When they get their people denouncing the opposition as “groomers”, they are achieving their objective.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    You think wrong.
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      I think it’s telling you didn’t offer an alternative interpretation either time you told me I was “wrong”.
vmh1928 5y ago
Thanks for citing a Washington Examiner opinion piece as evidence of your assertion. Sometimes teaching kids about sexuality is meant to educate them so they don't grow up ignorant an can make informed decisions. Some people are against that.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
- nsxwolf 5y ago
  - bbatchelder 5y ago
    It is absolutely the case in certain circumstances. I know several evangelical parents who want their kids ignorant about sexual health because they think teaching kids about sexual health will lead to them engaging in sex. Of course, thats not how it works, and these kids just end up engaging in sex while totally uninformed or in some cases filled with disinformation (for example, being told that condoms don't work - the parents think if the kids believe there is no safe sex that they won't have sex - but the kids end up having sex and don't use a condom because they believe it doesn't work).
  - JaimeThompson 5y ago
    Those who think that females should have as much education as males are explicitly saying that they want the females to be more ignorant than the males.
InitialLastName 5y ago
Is there no distinction between teaching children about "sex" and teaching children about families and relationships? Because a casual reading of the bill certainly appears to threaten the latter, where the "this is reasonable" proponents seem to be pushing for the former interpretation. Classic "disingenuous use of partisanship to talk past each other", but it's funny how the ostensibly "limited government" people are seemingly unworried about the potential for overreach in this case.
- zmgsabst 5y ago
  This rule is addressing other actions by government, such as the choice of government funded schools to adopt an ideology that a majority views as dangerous to their children — and represents a limit on government power. Why would this constitute overreach?
  - jlmorton 5y ago
    You're making a hypothetical argument that is only tangentially-related to the actual bill as-passed. The bill that was passed is deliberately vague. Beyond that, it empowers private citizens to sue teachers in their personal capacities for any alleged transgression. This is crazy. The status quo was that this question would be left up to school districts, with boards that are elected at the local level. If a teacher was not complying with school district policy, then the recourse was to fire the teacher. The bill you're arguing in favor of hijacks control from local voters, overrides the expressed preferences of parents and local voters, and relies on civil lawsuits to enforce a state policy.
    - zmgsabst 5y ago
      I believe that you’re ignoring the role of state and national educational agencies and groups in the dynamic. It absolutely is not the case educational material decisions are a purely local choice as the “status quo”.
      - JaimeThompson 5y ago

thrashh 5y ago

I suspect there's a way to eliminate Reedy Creek district. I don't think it's the law stopping the dissolution of the district -- it's that no one important in the state seriously wants to do that. Who does it benefit?

gamblor956 5y ago
There is: the state of Florida can pay off the debt. All at once. That is the only legal way to do it without endangering all of Florida's other debt (bonds, etc.).
- fnordpiglet 5y ago
  The local community can’t afford to assume the districts responsibility even if the bond debt is assumed by the state.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Wouldn't the local community collect a lot more taxes if the district didn't exist? As I understand it (admittedly not very well), right now Disney is effectively "paying taxes" to itself.
    - mikeryan 5y ago
      That's actually covered in the article. "Mills" is the term of art for the amount levied in property taxes. Reedy Creek has the ability to tax at 30mills and currently taxes at 13.67 (1/3 of which goes to paying the debt) the counties are limited to only taxing at a rate up to 10 mills (and are currently at about ~7 mills (Osceola) and ~5 (Orange) so there's a 3.67 shortfall they can't make up and another 3-5 which they currently don't. The added revenue to the counties would be far short of the amount they'd need to provide the current services and service the debt. Osceola Millage Rates https://www.property-appraiser.org/final-millage-rates/ https://www.property-appraiser.org/final-millage-rates/ Orange Millage Rates https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/faqcontent/Taxroll_Info#A404411 https://ocpaweb.ocpafl.org/faqcontent/Taxroll_Info#A404411

zackees 5y ago

paxys 5y ago

That's what people said about Brexit..but here we are

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

vannevar 5y ago

>The point is twofold. To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. I think the purpose was a lot more narrow: to position Ron DeSantis for the 2024 Republican Presidential primaries. Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 2016 despite a majority of Republican primary voters actually voting for other candidates. Once he was nominated, however, most Republicans fell into step and supported him.

AftHurrahWinch 5y ago
> Relatively small numbers of Republicans vote in the primaries, and they tend to be the angrier, more extreme wing. Donald Trump was nominated in 2016 despite a majority of Republican primary voters actually voting for other candidates. That strategy doesn't work as well if you get ranked choice voting or anything other than first-past-the-post. https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-choice-voting-despite-citizen-support/ https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-c... ...oh
loki49152 5y ago
Few people remember that Trump likely won the nomination due to "cross-over" voters in states with open primaries. There was an organized effort by Democrats to cross-vote for him as the Republican candidate under the belief that he couldn't possibly defeat Hillary Clinton in the actual election. I don't know if there is a way to determine whether or not that effort actually succeeded, but it did exist and was spoken about with great pride until Trump became the President.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

twofornone 5y ago

>And, to keep stoking the fires of the culture wars. It's slimy and dishonest to pretend that only republicans are fighting a culture war when the bulk of the progressive platform is explicitly about changing US culture. It's like calling Ukraine the aggressor for defending against the Russian invasion.

bandyaboot 5y ago
It’s slimy and dishonest to pretend that I said something that I did not say.
mrzimmerman 5y ago
Cultures change constantly. They’re never in a sort of stasis. Culture is just the expressions of a group of humans, how they think, and how they interact. One could argue that rolling back abortion access (which has existed for decades and is part of US culture) is conservatives in America explicitly changing US culture. Same with bills like the one in Florida that disallow teachers from discussing human gender or human romantic relationships. Everyone is generally trying to affect the direction of the culture of the US at the political level at all times. It’s not a right va left thing it’s a humans exist thing.
- rayiner 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    That's a very particular reading of a very particular poll. Contrast with a Gallup poll from more or less the same time frame: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx "Would you like to see the Supreme Court overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision concerning abortion, or not?" No: 58% Yes: 32% No opinion: 10% You can slice and dice the court of public opinion many different ways to demonstrate support for your preferred position on abortion (as with many other things). That doesn't mean that "conservatives are trying to roll back the law to reflect the culture" (emphasis mine). It means that they have an idea of what the culture should be, and are trying to make it so (like everyone else who is trying to accomplish anything politically).

rayiner 5y ago

Your use of “dissent” is an interesting way to frame a major corporation trying to exert pressure to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Is this a change from Republican orthodoxy, where big corporations get whatever they ask for regardless of public opinion. Yes.

roseway4 5y ago
> to oppose a Florida bill the majority of people in Florida support. Please provide a source for this claim.
- rayiner 5y ago
  https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FN_ArK9VEAEnDva?format=jpg&name=medium https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FN_ArK9VEAEnDva?format=jpg&name=... The question is: "To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Banning the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity from kindergarten through third grade?" Respondents supported it 50-34.
  - johnnyo 5y ago
    Don’t confuse support for one provision to mean support for the entire bill. If you scroll down in the same poll a few questions you will see: “To what extent do you support or oppose the following items in the bill? Allowing parents to sue school districts over alleged violations of sexual orientation and gender identity discussions in schools” Support 41% Oppose 43% https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-9034-d137-abff-f0f410670000 https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000017f-9034-d137-abff-f0f41...
  - gi_jones 5y ago
    I think it would have been more enlightening if they'd separated out the question, to see how many people would be okay with sexual orientation being taught, but not gender identity. Or vice versa. They're two very different, and somewhat conflicting, concepts. For example, is homosexuality an attraction between people of the same sex, or the same gender identity? This is a contentious issue even amongst adults, never mind teaching it to children.

mbostleman 5y ago

Everything you say is likely correct, but for full context, these actions are a response to an initial political action that most likely can also be described in identical terms. From a less polarized position, this is fire fighting fire.

caddemon 5y ago
This is a pretty big escalation. There are definitely examples of both sides being the aggressor in the broader "culture wars", but IMO the absurdity of this particular issue is pretty much entirely on the right.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- mbostleman 5y ago
  I'm not sure how to resolve the absurdity level between the left's initial action and the right's reaction. They both seem equally absurd to me. But maybe that's where subjectivity comes in.
bandyaboot 5y ago
Disney’s political actions were entirely within their rights. The state taking adverse action against them for exercising those rights should not be tolerated in a liberal society.

ladyattis 5y ago

>To send a message that dissent from the business community will not be tolerated. And as a consequence it means less business will ever come to Florida which is a disaster for them. It also means any existing businesses in Florida are likely to move more of their new work outside of the state. It's really a bad decision on DeSantis' part and I don't think he cares obviously but his party does.

adfm 5y ago
It’s been said that reality has a well-known liberal bias[^0]. The palpable fear and petulance on display in Florida seems to reinforce that statement. Stunts like this underscore the fact that the US consistently fails with people like DeSantis in office because their gut gets in the way of what is right [^1]. And we all know the problem with politics is the left admitting it’s not always right. [^0]: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4698442/user-clip-reality-liberal-bias https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4698442/user-clip-reality-lib... [^1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_un...

hunterb123 5y ago

bandyaboot 5y ago
Disney is not giving sex talks to kids without parents permission. They are being called groomers. > I don't really care what Disney is being called. I care about teachers engaging in sexual discussion w/ minors without permission. If you do that, or you support this policy, I'll call you a groomer and I'll report you. Ok, so not giving sex talks to kids without parents’ permission is not, in fact, a simple way to avoid being called a groomer. Got it.

timintheglades 5y ago

But naming the opposition "white supremacist", "far right", and "racists" is perfectly accurate and OK.

danaris 5y ago
When people espouse positions that are friendly toward white supremacist ideology, and adopt policies that are demonstrably racist, I think it's absolutely reasonable to call them white supremacists and racists. When people hold positions that are quite clearly far down the right side of our traditional political spectrum, I think it's correct to call them far right. It's not an ad hominem attack or partisan name-calling to say someone is <insert negative description here> if they actually, factually fit that description.