4 ms·

Is there a way to stage an intervention on behalf of the young people affected by these policies? The original not teaching sexuality and gender law was only su

Is there a way to stage an intervention on behalf of the young people affected by these policies? The original not teaching sexuality and gender law was only supposed to apply to grade 3 and under. How the hell did we get to highschool AP classes now??

clipsy 3y ago
> The original not teaching sexuality and gender law was only supposed to apply to grade 3 and under. No, it was never limited to grade 3 and under. Certain sections of it were. You were bamboozled by right-wing propaganda if you believed the bill only affected grade 3 and under.
- valleyer 3y ago
  You'll win more hearts and minds if you just present misinformed people with the facts. Telling people that they were "bamboozled" makes them feel embarrassed (and probably less receptive to the important part of your message).
  - clipsy 3y ago
    It is neither my responsibility nor my desire to care for the feelings of people who would -- either through malice or ignorance -- relegate me to being a second class citizen.
  - drewbug01 3y ago
    Would you believe that many folks (including myself) did, actually, present people with the facts at the time? And that the response was an overwhelming “you’re being alarmist” or “why do you want little kids to learn about sex, hmm?” Forgive us for being a little salty about it.
    - valleyer 3y ago
      Yeah, that's understandable. And I'm certainly guilty of reacting that way at times. This just seemed like a clear situation where the original commenter was genuinely open to others' opinions but instead was dealt an insult. That's going to discourage other people from opening up their minds in the same way.
      - drewbug01 3y ago
        I do agree with you (especially in this case). Just adding a bit of useful background color. I suspect this is going to get worse, and maybe there’s some value in shouting into the ether that some people did try to explain in good faith, before it got worse. Dunno what that value might be, but maybe it’s there.
drewbug01 3y ago
The law contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through: “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students” Who gets to decide what is age-appropriate? The Florida Dept of Education, naturally. I distinctly recall that folks engaging in discussion on this fine site were not amenable to discussion of this loophole, or of it’s obvious conclusion; and instead were more apt to ask commenters why they wanted kindergarteners to learn about gay sex. We got here precisely how a lot of people predicted it would happen.
- xorbax 3y ago
  It's having one's cake after eating it They also want to make all undocumented immigrants flee the state while also maintaining their fruit industry "It's posturing, we swear! We don't mean any of the parts that have consequences! We only need to look authoritarian- we promise we understand the impact of our top priorities and they're just politics! C'mon! It's meaningless!"

clipsy 3y ago

> The original not teaching sexuality and gender law was only supposed to apply to grade 3 and under. No, it was never limited to grade 3 and under. Certain sections of it were. You were bamboozled by right-wing propaganda if you believed the bill only affected grade 3 and under.

valleyer 3y ago
You'll win more hearts and minds if you just present misinformed people with the facts. Telling people that they were "bamboozled" makes them feel embarrassed (and probably less receptive to the important part of your message).
- clipsy 3y ago
  It is neither my responsibility nor my desire to care for the feelings of people who would -- either through malice or ignorance -- relegate me to being a second class citizen.
- drewbug01 3y ago
  Would you believe that many folks (including myself) did, actually, present people with the facts at the time? And that the response was an overwhelming “you’re being alarmist” or “why do you want little kids to learn about sex, hmm?” Forgive us for being a little salty about it.
  - valleyer 3y ago
    Yeah, that's understandable. And I'm certainly guilty of reacting that way at times. This just seemed like a clear situation where the original commenter was genuinely open to others' opinions but instead was dealt an insult. That's going to discourage other people from opening up their minds in the same way.
    - drewbug01 3y ago
      I do agree with you (especially in this case). Just adding a bit of useful background color. I suspect this is going to get worse, and maybe there’s some value in shouting into the ether that some people did try to explain in good faith, before it got worse. Dunno what that value might be, but maybe it’s there.

drewbug01 3y ago

The law contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through: “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students” Who gets to decide what is age-appropriate? The Florida Dept of Education, naturally. I distinctly recall that folks engaging in discussion on this fine site were not amenable to discussion of this loophole, or of it’s obvious conclusion; and instead were more apt to ask commenters why they wanted kindergarteners to learn about gay sex. We got here precisely how a lot of people predicted it would happen.

xorbax 3y ago
It's having one's cake after eating it They also want to make all undocumented immigrants flee the state while also maintaining their fruit industry "It's posturing, we swear! We don't mean any of the parts that have consequences! We only need to look authoritarian- we promise we understand the impact of our top priorities and they're just politics! C'mon! It's meaningless!"