Sanders signed Senate Bill 10, which exempts records that ā€œreflect the planning or provision of security servicesā€ provided to the governor and other cabinet members.

The bill is retroactive to June 1, 2022, which is before Sanders was elected.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    Ā·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sorry, the #GOP is banning Ranked Choice Voting. I had FptP stuck in my head for some reason.

    And thatā€™s absolutely fine if you donā€™t want to discuss anything, Iā€™m more interested in the other people seeing thru your well-spoken bullshit.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      16
      Ā·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This comment seems a lot more calm than the last, so Iā€™ll give it a shot. But if you lean into rhetoric, Iā€™m out.

      banning books

      I havenā€™t seen much evidence for this.

      The Florida law that I think youā€™re referring to merely requires schools to formalize the process for what books they put on shelves. Books were removed until that process was finished, and AFAIK thereā€™s no restriction on what citizens can purchase or what libraries can carry, the only restriction is that books in schools need to be age appropriate (and Iā€™m sure you and I both disagree with conservatives on what that means) and relevant.

      What I have seen is a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and itā€™s alarming to me that people donā€™t seem to see past the BS.

      One party is supporting child murder via inaction.

      ā€¦

      One party is trying to make kids go hungry while they are forced to be at school.

      I think these are related, but again, itā€™s hard to see through the rhetoric.

      You canā€™t murder through inaction, nor starve someone through inaction unless theyā€™re actually incarcerated. Iā€™m not really sure what the first is referring to, so Iā€™ll focus on the second.

      What you seem to be getting at here is the concept of positive rights. I personally reject positive rights in general, but I do think school lunches should be provided to all, but thatā€™s because we legally require attendance for enough hours that a meal break is needed. I think employers should also provide meals if they require shifts longer than 4 hours, or schedule shifts back to back with less than four hours in between. I think employees and students should be free to refuse the provided meals and receive monetary compensation instead.

      However, I reject the notion of positive rights in general, and I think thereā€™s an interesting discussion to be had here.

      One party supports forced birth.

      This comes down to when you believe people get rights. The conservative position is that fetuses have human rights, and liberals seem to ignore fetal rights and focus on the rights of the mother.

      My personal view is more nuanced:

      • it should never be illegal for a woman to seek an abortion, any regulation should be on doctors
      • during the first trimester when miscarriage risk is high, itā€™s a privacy issue, so it should be nearly completely unrestricted (aside from malpractice issues like doctors urging women to get an abortion they donā€™t want, but itā€™s already illegal to force medication on someone)
      • until fetal viability, it should be restricted to medical need, or for people who couldnā€™t get an abortion during the first trimester for some reason (abusive relationship, legal complexities, didnā€™t know they were pregnant, etc)
      • once the fetus is viable, the state should fund an early delivery if the woman chooses to put the child up for adoption

      I believe that balances the rights of the woman and the fetus. It doesnā€™t make either side happy, but I do believe it is better than the status quo.

      One party separated & caged children seeking asylum.

      Both sides have a bad track record on immigration. The solution would be resolved if we just made legal immigration easier.

      But I do agree, I think Trumpā€™s actions here were terrible, and every GOP candidateā€™s position this year has been terrible.

      I recall reading someoneā€™s proposal, but I forget who (I think it was someone from the GOP), but here it is:

      • All undocumented immigrants need to go to the nearest immigration office to get a temporary visa after a background check
      • Every year, they need to return to the immigration office to get a renewal; this can continue as long as they remain law abiding citizens
      • if they get deported, itā€™ll be a lot more difficult to get in legally

      On paper that sounds fair, though Iā€™d need to see the details first.

      • Franklin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I sure hope youā€™re taking the piss because Republican governors have been banning all sorts of books that range from ones that teach about trans rights and climate change for some time.

        Iā€™m at work right now but if you want sources I can provide them itā€™s just going to take a couple hours.

        Moreover theyā€™ve made it illegal to teach theories that the parents have an issue with obviously slanted towards stopping the education on evolution.

        I understand that you may have your own values and thatā€™s fine but it doesnā€™t change that the Republican party has been staunchly anti science and anti worker for the majority of recent history

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, I would like to discuss examples of alleged book bans. There has been a lot of FUD from both sides about it, and Iā€™m interested in having a discussion based on the facts of each case, not the clickbait titles and rhetoric.

          illegal to teach theories

          Are you talking about CRT? My understanding is that teachers never actually taught CRT, at least at an elementary level, so this is just virtue signaling from Republicans and a chance for Democrats to ā€œdunkā€ on them. AFAIK, very little, if anything, actually changed in how teachers teach throughout most of the country.

          Likewise, the much contested changes to curriculum in Florida is again largely virtue signaling from both sides. I read through the curriculum, and it looks much like what I was taught in my very progressive school system. Granted, that was a long time ago, but it also doesnā€™t seem to go against what weā€™ve discussed in my companyā€™s recent DEI meetings either (which I enjoyed).

          Every time I actually like at the facts, both sides just seem ridiculous. The Florida curriculum doesnā€™t ā€œstop wokeā€ (whatever that means), nor does it promote slavery apologism. And Iā€™m pretty sure Iā€™ll find something similar in most cases.

          you may have your own values

          Sure, but I donā€™t mix my religious/moral values and my politics. I support policies that expand individual freedom, not policies that promote my personal worldview.

          For example, I donā€™t think anyone should use drugs, but Iā€™ll fight for drug legalization because I donā€™t think thatā€™s the governmentā€™s business. I donā€™t understand trans people, nor do I think gender is actually distinct from sex (gender as described by progressives is largely a cultural thing imo), but Iā€™ll fight for trans people to be treated fairly. I think abortion is disgusting, but Iā€™ll fight for a woman to never be prosecuted for seeking an abortion, and I think there should be a safe medical path forward for a woman who does not want to keep the baby.

          My values donā€™t match either major party, nor do my policy preferences. So I pick whatever candidate I think is more liberty-minded and rational. Lately, that has been Democrats, but sometimes itā€™s Republicans. It really depends on the election.

          Republican party has been staunchly anti science

          This is an interesting article that discusses that. Basically, it says both Democrats and Republicans reject scientific consensus, Republicans are just more systematic about it because they prioritize unity over scientific accuracy.

          Democrats are better than Republicans here, at least lately, but that doesnā€™t mean theyā€™re perfect. So donā€™t just accept what a Democrat claims as true just because they claim scientific consensus. Likewise, donā€™t reject what a Republican claims WRT science until you actually check the sources. Thereā€™s a lot of interesting data that goes against the Democratic narrative especially WRT climate change, particularly in the urgency of their claims (politicians love to pile on the rhetoric and urgency).

          and anti worker

          I think itā€™s more correct to say theyā€™re pro business. I live in a red state with very few worker protections, but that doesnā€™t mean the legislature is ā€œanti worker,ā€ theyā€™re just limiting the governmentā€™s intrusion into the private sector. People are still free to form unions and whatnot, there just isnā€™t state support for it.

          As a worker, I wish we had a few more protections, but I think itā€™s disingenuous to say my state is anti worker (and no, inaction isnā€™t evidence of hostility).

          • Franklin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            No, I was talking specifically about teaching the theory of evolution in Florida and the law they passed which prevents theories from being taught if a parent complains about them and whatā€™s the only theory that parents are going to complain about why the theory of evolution. In several republican-leaning states so many books have been banned with so much educational value that librarians have had death threats for for refusing to comply from right-wing voters.

            And the party routinely proposes and passes laws that give tax breaks to corporations bailouts you name it. All while repeatedly curtailing efforts to have any sort of safety nets for workers like better minimum wages, better access to food, better access to housing and better access to health care.

            And you can say itā€™s all in the name of fiscal responsibility but itā€™s not itā€™s been proven in front of them with their own numbers that socializing or health care system would not only increase quality but decrease cost. You know why it doesnā€™t get done because their donors come from the medical insurance industry and it would stop lining their pockets.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              Ā·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              teaching the theory of evolution

              Hereā€™s an article that goes through how evolution is taught in schools across the US. In essence, no state bans evolution, and most states explicitly require teaching it.

              For Florida specifically (quote is from the above article, and hereā€™s an article about the mentioned standards):

              On February 19, 2008, the Florida State Board of Education adopted new science standards that explicitly require the teaching of evolution in public schools. This is the first time this was required.

              I donā€™t know if the recent (this year?) curriculum changes touch on evolution, but the federal court system has consistently held that states and public school districts cannot require intelligent design to be taught (see others in the ā€œsee alsoā€ section).

              The most Iā€™ve seen is that states can require mentioning alternatives to established theories, as in they need to demonstrate that thereā€™s rarely complete consensus in science and that new evidence can change even very established theories. To me that sounds very reasonable, provided the alternatives also have actual, scientific evidence for them.

              fiscal responsibility

              Oh yeah, itā€™s never been about that, thatā€™s just the excuse they give to sugarcoat it.

              What theyā€™re actually interested in is stimulating the economy, meaning increasing stock valuations and reducing unemployment. Those look good and help them get reelected. If they focused on workers, that would reduce profits (and thus stock prices) and slow economic expansion (and this increase unemployment).

              Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. If youā€™re a small business owner, investor, or specialized employee, itā€™s great! If youā€™re a blue collar worker that can easily be replaced, itā€™s horrendous.

              The fiscal responsibility bit is just an excuse to get people on board.

              Democrats come at it from a different angle. They bill themselves as being socially responsible and protecting workers, but what this actually means is reducing corporate profits and consolidating workers into unions, because unions generally means votes. This means smaller businesses tend to suffer because the barrier to start a business gets higher (need to provide more benefits to workers), and they tend to cater to the interests of larger companies that want to entrench themselves. They do this by regulating industries, which again raises the barrier to entry for a new business. They also want the unemployed vote, hence all of the social programs for the poor. Unions donā€™t need universal healthcare, UBI, etc, so theyā€™re not that motivated to reduce unemployment if they can cater to those displaced.

              At least thatā€™s my perspective, but maybe Iā€™m just jaded from years of disappointment from both sides of the aisle.

      • Jaysyn@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        I havenā€™t seen much evidence for this.

        Then youā€™re purposefully ignorant of what is going on in the country, especially the south, and not worth another moment of my time.

        • xts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Bro could see nazis marching down the street and say he doesnā€™t see any evidence for rising antisemitism.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Lol I stopped reading after you said you havenā€™t seen much evidence for book banning. Thatā€™s next level head in the sand, spend literally 10 seconds in Google.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          My point was that a lot of the media on both sides present a stronger view of whatā€™s going on than reality. Conservatives was to appear tough on culture war nonsense, and liberals want to dunk on conservatives for being anti-freedom.

          A lot of what actually happens is much more mundane than either side wants you to believe.

          And thatā€™s why I want to have a discussion about actual cases, to point out how mundane the changes usually are.

          • Lightor@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            1 year ago

            This whole ā€œboth sidesā€ argument is weak. Conservatives being tough on culture war means passing crazy laws, banning books, and banning the education of certain topics. And the liberals what, are against that and start actual education without the government controlling what you can and canā€™t learn/read.

            Whatā€™s actually happening isnā€™t mundane. Laws are being passed that effect me and mine. They impact me, theyā€™re not just mundane laws.

            If you think banning topics that can be taught in class, like learning about your period and what homosexuality even is, or that there was slavery in America is just mundane then youā€™re part of them problem. Down playing actual damage being done is supporting the people who are doing the damage.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              Ā·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              banning topics

              Are those actually banned? From what I can tell, those topics are merely delayed. For example:

              • menstruation - only allowed in grades 6-12
              • sexual orientation/gender identity - grades 9-12
              • slavery - I canā€™t see any evidence of this denialism; I read through the new curriculum and slavery was definitely part of it

              It looks very similar to what I was taught in a very liberal part of the country (Seattle area). Sex ed was in 6th grade, and I donā€™t recall specifically talking about sexual orientation or gender identity until high school.

              The main issues I personally see are:

              • menstruation - not clear if teachers can address it 1 on 1 if it comes up
              • sexual orientation - should probably be taught along with sex ed, starting around grade 6 because thatā€™s when hormones start firing up

              But any topic should be allowed, provided thereā€™s parental consent below some age (our sex ed was opt out in 6th grade). Maybe there should be a flyer around grade 4 that informs parents that itā€™ll be covered by the school nurse if it comes up, unless parents opt out. I donā€™t like state governments telling schools what they canā€™t teach, thatā€™s what school choice is for, and Iā€™ve heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.

              So while Iā€™m against the bills (which isnā€™t relevant since Iā€™m not a Florida resident), I donā€™t think theyā€™re as disastrous as people claim.

              • Lightor@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                1 year ago

                Are those actually banned? From what I can tell, those topics are merely delayed. For example:

                Yes, look into what they are calling critical race theory. Some districts are putting topics such as slavery in the CRT bucket. And look at the things they are saying. The new curriculum included instruction for middle school students that ā€œslaves developed skills which, in some instances, can be applied for their personal benefit.ā€ Are you kidding me?

                But yes, they are delaying others, which is its own issue. A girl gets her period between the ages 10-15 on average. 6th grade is about 12 years old. I donā€™t understand why they need to push this off at all? Itā€™s education about their bodyā€¦ Yes parents should teach their kids, but there should be general education around this BEFORE it happens, so kids know what to expect, especially if they have apathetic parents.

                On sexual orientation I %100 agree, they are starting this at grade 9, which is 14-15, well into when people will already be in puberty and exploring sexuality. Including being confused about being gay. So again, why are we delaying education until people are already experiencing these things?

                But any topic should be allowed, provided thereā€™s parental consent

                I disagree with this. I donā€™t think a parent should be allowed to rob a child of a proper education. Things needed to be well-prepared adults ready to face the world should not be taken away based on a parentā€™s (often time) radical beliefs that may not even align with the childā€™s own world view.

                I donā€™t like state governments telling schools what they canā€™t teach, thatā€™s what school choice is for, and Iā€™ve heard Florida has a strong school choice culture.

                They also do things like ban books, which again is just more delaying/removing of information, which is not what the education system should be doing. But Iā€™m also against school choice, I donā€™t think if you believe contraceptives are evil that you get to rob your child from educating them on what condoms and birth control are. The same way if they are a flat earther or religion they shouldnā€™t be able to opt out of earth science or basic biology/evolution.

                So while Iā€™m against the bills (which isnā€™t relevant since Iā€™m not a Florida resident), I donā€™t think theyā€™re as disastrous as people claim.

                Is it the end of the world, no. But it very much looks like the start of a slippery slope.

                • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  Some districts are putting topics such as slavery in the CRT bucket

                  Do you have an example? I can absolutely believe that some districts (particularly in N. Florida) would do that, but that seems to go against the actual curriculum standards that Iā€™ve seen (linked below).

                  The new curriculum included instruction for middle school students that ā€œslaves developed skills which, in some instances, can be applied for their personal benefit.ā€ Are you kidding me?

                  That really depends on how itā€™s being taught. The outcry Iā€™ve seen has been saying, ā€œtheyā€™re saying slavery was a good thing!ā€, which doesnā€™t fit with the rest of the curriculum. This statement comes from Page 6 of the curriculum, which looks at the types of duties that slaves performed. There are 32 other pages related to slavery, and this is merely a clarification. That slaves were able to use skills they gained in slavery to start a new life is absolutely true, and that process is a lot more complicated than that (the social network among black communities was arguably much more important). I think this also gives context to the hate crimes committed after emancipation.

                  I went through a very similar discussion in the past, complete with examples outlining why I think the media response here is overblown, using citations and whatnot.

                  I donā€™t understand why they need to push this off at all? Itā€™s education about their bodyā€¦

                  The issue, I think, is that students arenā€™t mature enough for a robust discussion about it, whereas they likely are at 6th grade. Boys usually donā€™t hit puberty until 6th grade or later, so discussing it with them isnā€™t appropriate when reproduction is pretty much the furthest thing from their mind.

                  Thatā€™s why my issue is that it should be totally acceptable to discuss on a 1:1 basis with the school nurse, who is likely to handle any incidents that happen at school. Parents should be informed about that, and have the opportunity to handle it themselves.

                  And yeah, I think itā€™s odd that sexual orientation/gender identity is delayed until 9th grade. Thatā€™s quite easy to handle with a regular sex ed class, such as:

                  Female bodies go through puberty via changes like X, and male bodies go through puberty via changes like Y. Most of the time, biological males are sexually attracted to biological females, but thatā€™s not always the case. Some people are attracted to their same sex, and some donā€™t experience sexual attraction despite going through these changes. Along the same lines, some people donā€™t feel comfortable with their assigned sex, and they prefer to identify as another gender, and some use medication to adjust how their body works to fit the way they feel. Thereā€™s no ā€œrightā€ or ā€œwrongā€ here, just different ways people experience the changes in their bodies.

                  Now, back to the biological changesā€¦

                  Iā€™m sure thereā€™s a better way of putting that (Iā€™m not trans or gay), but it seems like a natural segue to mention in a broader discussion about puberty. That should help students realize that maybe what theyā€™re feeling is different from what others feel, and that they should feel comfortable exploring that.

                  So yeah, a brief discussion on it seems appropriate around 6th or 7th grade, and perhaps go into more depth with the related social issues in higher grades.

                  I donā€™t think a parent should be allowed to rob a child of a proper education.

                  As long as the parent is the legal guardian of the child, they should have a central role in what gets taught at school. If the parent consistently blocks important instruction, that could rise to the level of abuse, and at that point the authorities should get involved to change legal guardianship.

                  I also believe that, as kids get older, they should have more and more say in their own education. So I could see parental control over their kidsā€™ education completely ending at age 16, which is the point where kids can be tried as adults in many jurisdictions, and in some jurisdictions kids may choose to drop out of school.

                  However, I donā€™t want to ever get into a situation where governments get complete control over what gets taught in schools. A parent screwing over their child sucks, but a government screwing over many kids is much worse.

                  I donā€™t think if you believe contraceptives are evil that you get to rob your child from educating them on what condoms and birth control are. The same way if they are a flat earther or religion they shouldnā€™t be able to opt out of earth science or basic biology/evolution.

                  Sure. Parents should be required to educate their children at home on any subjects they choose to take their child out of, and the child will need to pass an exam showing they have at least the minimum understanding of the material. Parents should then be given the material, and itā€™s on them to teach their child sufficiently.

                  Iā€™m also against school choice

                  Are you against school choice generally, or just the way it has been implemented so far? One thing I donā€™t like about current implementations is that itā€™s on parents to transport their children to/from alternative schools, which means poorer households have less access because parents may not have the time or means to drop off and pick up their child.

                  How would you feel about this:

                  • city transit replaces school busses, and students get a free transit pass
                  • participating schools may not charge any tuition, fees, etc, and non-participating schools donā€™t get any financial assistance
                  • participating schools must provide free lunches, and free breakfasts must be provided to those who meet income qualifications
                  • school counselors assist students on finding appropriate transit routes
                  • additional funding goes to schools that provide special needs resources, otherwise schools get funding based on headcount

                  This allows schools to specialize to attract students, much like universities specialize.