Travel warning to Florida?

fight weekends in Vegas always have lots of interesting women flying in for temp services

 

Actually, the original post mentions both. I actually hadn’t heard of the previous warning from the latin Americans group until this thread. But as I said, that warning makes more sense.

The Latin one definitely has more merit as a “travel advisory”. The NAACP should be more of a watchlist than a “travel warning”. It’s not like FL is the only state to pass those crazy “anti-CRT” type laws either.

 

#1 (Me).People should have wide latitude in their academic pursuits. Critical thinking is important. Almost any subject is fair game.

#2(You) The state insists on efficient training in the making of widgets. Unfavorable ideologies cannot be taught.

Pretty sure #2 is the commie.

 

The whole country isn't safe. The only people who are safe are the mass shooters. They usually get shot by the police, but that's what they want, so it's safe. They're not safe only if they have the misfortune of being taken alive, which probably means a life even more miserable than they had before.

 

From “a bit stupid” to “critical thinking.” Quite a leap there, sparks.

 

Was the warning anything about trouble or a threat?

 

I disagree. #1 does not get you out of the cross hairs. Communists were people who played within the rules of the existing system to exploit them for their own cause. They would play the long game while they work hard to win over the hearts and minds of the youth. If someone was pushing hard for a Proletariat Studies major or a White and Caucassian Studies major to be funded by the state I would be very suspicious about them being under the influence of some kind of communistic or fascistic ideology.

Grievance studies are not the same thing as 18th and 19th century communism, but to act like that means it gets a pass is ignorance. There are similar tactics at play here even if you can point to some differences between the two. There is definitely an oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic and view of the world being taught in some of these majors like women's studies, African American Studies, etc. Once you've indoctrinated someone into that kind view of the world it becomes a self-reinforcing grid and narrative. And that is the goal of communism: to make people loyal adherents of the faith. Then the believers in that faith go and evangelize to convert others to the faith. That is how you flip a culture built on assumptions like free speech, free religion, free trade, freedom of thought to a culture where a big powerful government is necessary to deal with the oppression.

 

This can easily be taken two ways, and in many ways describes the DeSantis/Orban style leaders to intervene against free markets, free culture and corporations on oppressed cultural and religious conservatives.

 

That is a strawman, though. UF is government education. If the government were to offer health insurance, we would say the government is distorting the free market. That is actually in truth what is happening here. Government choosing not to propagate grievance studies with taxpayer money allows there to be a true free market for grievance studies. Let Miami, Rollins, Stetson, and Flagler have a free market competition over grievance studies majors.

 

This is such an absurd argument. When your argument is that freedom leads to tyranny, you need to reassess your own logic. And the whole "indoctrination" angle is beyond silly. Do you think I could indoctrinate you into being a Stalinist if that was my goal? Of course not.

You can try to dress government censorship up as protective of freedom, but it's transparent what your real aims are, government suppression of ideas you don't like. That sort of behavior is as antithetical to a free society as it comes.

As the Supreme Court said during the Red Scare:
The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any strait jacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.

Equally manifest as a fundamental principle of a democratic society is political freedom of the individual. Our form of government is built on the premise that every citizen shall have the right to engage in political expression and association. This right was enshrined in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Exercise of these basic freedoms in America has traditionally been through the media of political associations. Any interference with the freedom of a party is simultaneously an interference with the freedom of its adherents. All political ideas cannot and should not be channeled into the programs of our two major parties. History has amply proved the virtue of political activity by minority, dissident groups, who innumerable times have been in the vanguard of democratic thought and whose programs were ultimately accepted. Mere unorthodoxy or dissent from the prevailing mores is not to be condemned. The absence of such voices would be a symptom of grave illness in our society.

Another SCOTUS passage that's on point here:
Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

 

UF could choose not to have a political science or sociology program. UF cannot choose to suppress ideas it disfavors. The Constitution binds the government, and universities occupy a special niche under the First Amendment. Courts have vigorously protected both the academic freedom of professors and students. A passage from another one of the Supreme Court's Red Scare cases:
Our Nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us, and not merely to the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment, which does not tolerate laws that cast a pall of orthodoxy over the classroom. The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. The classroom is peculiarly the marketplace of ideas. The Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, rather than through any kind of authoritative selection.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
You're really no different from the censors back then.

 

UF does not offer a degree in Financial Engineering. I guess UF is censoring since they don't offer every degree there is to be offered by every institution. That is the substance of your argument.

DeSantis' argument is there are limited resources in the state for education. UF and the state of Florida have the power to choose which majors to prioritize, and which majors to not prioritize. Adding Financial Engineering and dropping grievance studies is perfectly fine. That is simply choosing how to prioritize the use of scarce resources.

 

Well, this is great news for Florida sports fans. Our NFL and NBA teams will never lose at home again, except to each other.

 

That's very much the opposite of my argument. Indeed, my first sentence makes quite clear why UF can do that. Reading comprehension is important.

That's not at all DeSantis's argument. Actually, DeSantis's argument is twofold. One, the ideas he disfavors are inherently discriminatory and must be outlawed (Stop WOKE Act). Two, viewpoints he dislikes should not be taught in Florida institutions (SB 266). How do I know this? Because instead of eliminating say the political science program, SB 266 and the Stop WOKE Act specifically single out viewpoints DeSantis and his cronies dislike.

If you're going to defend government suppression of ideas, you really need to come up with better arguments. They're not even trying to hide the ball. They literally wrote down the specific viewpoints they want to ban: "The board shall include in its review a directive to each constituent university regarding its programs for any curriculum that violates s. 1000.05 or that is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities."

You can no more shroud the suppression of ideas in fiscal responsibility than you can in the protection of freedom. Take it from Judge Amul Thapar, one of the judges on Trump's SCOTUS shortlist:
"One final point worth considering: If professors lacked free-speech protections when teaching, a university would wield alarming power to compel ideological conformity. A university president could require a pacifist to declare that war is just, a civil rights icon to condemn the Freedom Riders, a believer to deny the existence of God, or a Soviet émigré to address his students as 'comrades.' That cannot be. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe such orthodoxy."

 

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph in the world is that good men do nothing. Now is the time to act and all you're doing is complaining.

Perhaps you could create a Green Book app, start an underground railroad, or buy the Heat and move them out of the state. If you can't afford it, put a group together and buy the Magic.

 

There you go with that divisive "all lives matter" rhetoric.

 

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say anything like that. All lives do not matter.

 

That's more like it.