The battle for new college

Obviously what happened on January 6th was terrible.

That being said, where do you see her inciting violence in this picture? Hell, what criminal activity is she committing in this picture? Maybe trespass on a technicality? Looks like she didn't even come close to breaching the Capitol doors.

 

Well, for one, she is in a restricted area. So illegally entering a restricted area.

 

Fair enough... maybe.

Are we going to call anybody who enters a restricted area (a trespasser), a person who incited violence now?

 

The inciting accusation has more to do with things like when she declares all LGBTQ people as "evil" and "bad people" who want to recruit your children to a cult because they are evil and bad.

But saying things to radicalize other people into violence isn't against the law as long as you maintain enough plausible deniability, and she seems to have done that so far, except for January 6.

 

Even if she did say that, that's not inciting violence.

That WOULD BE about as wrong as a leftist saying capitalists are racist, evil, and bad.

 

And that they are coming to recruit your children to their ways by lying to them and you. That is where a reasonable expectation of violence as a consequence of rhetoric could occur. But, again, she has stayed this side of legal for now (outside of her actions on Jan. 6). Still think that sort of stuff is enough to reject her as some sort of authoritative source.

 

Okay, it just happens randomly that she mentions something and a bunch of death threats flow in. Completely random.

 

Perhaps not random, but certainly not her fault or responsibility.

Every public figure, every politician has said something at some point that inspired a violent person. Those politicians are not responsible for the violent acts of the violent person unless they called for the violent person to do violent acts.

 

She doesn't say something that at some point inspired a violent person. She constantly inspires a large quantity of violent people. Apparently by design. Regardless, I wouldn't think that a January 6 participant that labels all LGBTQ people as "evil," "bad people," and "in a cult" that is trying to convert your kids is a great source by which to make an argument as if she was just a regular media source.

 

Wrong.

Evidence?

Incredibly misleading. She was not a rioter or an insurrectionist. MAYBE she trespassed on the Capitol that day.

Just plainly wrong. She did not label all LGBTQ people as you just described.

 

So it is just one person calling in all those death threats to the schools and hospitals she focuses in on?

The fact that she has seen what her actions have done and has continued to do them with no modifications.

So now you are making excuses for members of the mob that invaded the Capitol? Or just her because you don't want to admit this about her and admit who she actually is.

Yes, she actually did. Those were all things she said in this interview.

So let's see, which adjectives and descriptors did she use about LGBTQ people?

Evil? Check.
Bad people? Check
In a cult? Check
Trying to convert your kids? Well she called it recruiting and grooming to their cult, but yes, that is what she said.

So yeah, she said those descriptors about the LGBTQ community, with absolutely no qualifiers limiting it below all of them.

Fox News' 'bigoted' interview with Libs Of TikTok founder

 

A lot of the DEI jobs are just for optics, so I'm not surprised. I expect some DeSantis supporter will say, "Then why does it matter if the Governor eliminates those jobs and initiatives?"

It matters because he's doing it to send a message to people of color and the LGBTQ community that they aren't supported or welcome here.

 

Here you go again using immutable characteristics as a means and a weapon. He's sending the message that equity-based propaganda has no place in education at any level. I actually disagree with that to some degree, but it has nothing to do with those immutable characteristics you're talking about.

Many members of the left, including you, have tethered concepts of equity to immutable characteristics so that any criticism of equity yields a response of "why are you attacking people based on their immutable characteristics?"

 

You yourself tethered DEI to immutable characteristics. Earlier, when pressed on your DEI argument, you cited funding to a number of organizations organized around racial/ethnic identity. Thanks for proving you understood exactly what DeSantis was targeting and exactly why I'm right. You can't eat your cake and have it too.

 

No you guys started it, I simply noticed it and responded to it.

https://www.ufloridabcc.com/diversity-equity-inclusion

 

Indeed this is a very complicated issue, and I wouldn’t assume adding some office with a title would solve it. I think the more central question here though is who should decide how our university system should be run?

In terms of state budget, it seems appropriate for the state should be in control. In hiring for diversity, I would turn to the courts. However, I can’t see how anyone would want the governor coming in to determine curriculum. DeSantis keeps pushing this argument that state university faculty are employees of the governor, and it’s repugnant every time. Should they now be teaching how Obama was the anti-Christ, and in four years teach how he was a savior? It’s ludicrous.

 

The government has a lot of power and discretion when it comes to budgeting and expending funds. But it obviously can't defund something for reasons that violate the Constitution.