“Woke”

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Whoosh... right over your head... again

I was addressing YOUR bull-**** claim that the trial has nothing to do with "woke" accusations...



If its "not part of the case" why are the defense asking about it, and the prosecution not objecting for relevance?

Your gaslighting tactics won't work here! Both wareyin and I are way too savvy to fall for your bull-****, or to grant it any credence!

Edited by Agatha:

Do not discuss your ignore list

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Zig now demonstrates that he has no concept that people title things in the way they mean them to be taken,

You are failing on so many levels.

First, the title of a statute isn't part of the law. Titles descriptive NOT prescriptive.

But that's just the start, because the title of a bill is separate from the title of a statute. The title of a bill doesn't automatically become the title of a statute. This bill modifies existing statutes, but it doesn't change the title of any statutes. So no part of the title of this bill actually becomes part of Florida statute.

But it gets even worse, because the "Stop WOKE Act" isn't even an official title. Seriously, go look up the legislative record. "Woke" isn't in there, even as a title. The words "Stop WOKE Act" are basically a nickname, at best. They have no legal relevance to anything, at all.

This is what happens when you never look anything up for yourself.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I was addressing YOUR bull-**** claim that the trial has nothing to do with "woke" accusations...

You are confused. "It" in that sentence wasn't the word "woke". "It" was the HB7 bill. HB7, sometimes referred to as the "Stop WOKE Act", isn't at issue in the Warren v. DeSantis trial.

Quote:

If its "not part of the case" why are the defense asking about it, and the prosecution not objecting for relevance?

They weren't asking about HB7. They were asking about the word "woke" because that word got used in contexts relevant to the trial that had nothing to do with HB7.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You are failing on so many levels.

First, the title of a statute isn't part of the law. Titles descriptive NOT prescriptive.

But that's just the start, because the title of a bill is separate from the title of a statute. The title of a bill doesn't automatically become the title of a statute. This bill modifies existing statutes, but it doesn't change the title of any statutes. So no part of the title of this bill actually becomes part of Florida statute.

But it gets even worse, because the "Stop WOKE Act" isn't even an official title. Seriously, go look up the legislative record. "Woke" isn't in there, even as a title. The words "Stop WOKE Act" are basically a nickname, at best. They have no legal relevance to anything, at all.

This is what happens when you never look anything up for yourself.

Good lord, can you fail to see the obvious any harder?

How about this: Let's say for the sake of argument that I said a poster lived under a bridge and tried to eat gruff billy goats. Would you understand that I said they were a troll, even though the word "troll" wasn't in my post? Because that's how stupid your word search defense is looking.

When the guy who wrote the bill and the guy who signed the bill into law call it anti-woke, then their definition of woke matters. And given that the guy who called it anti-woke also fired a guy for being woke (in his own words), then his definition matters to both usages.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

When the guy who wrote the bill and the guy who signed the bill into law call it anti-woke, then their definition of woke matters. And given that the guy who called it anti-woke also fired a guy for being woke (in his own words), then his definition matters to both usages.

Yeah, that's not how the law works. Technicalities matter. Definitions of words matter when those words are in the law. Definitions of words not in the law don't matter. A law against trolls depends on the definition of "troll". A law against people living under a bridge doesn't depend on the definition of "troll", even if trolls live under bridges.

What HB7 outlaws is what's described in HB7. "Woke" isn't in HB7. The description of "woke" given in a trial that has nothing to do with HB7 isn't part of HB7. The one thing isn't legally related to the other, except in your own head.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, that's not how the law works. Technicalities matter. Definitions of words matter when those words are in the law. Definitions of words not in the law don't matter. A law against trolls depends on the definition of "troll". A law against people living under a bridge doesn't depend on the definition of "troll", even if trolls live under bridges.

What HB7 outlaws is what's described in HB7. "Woke" isn't in HB7. The description of "woke" given in a trial that has nothing to do with HB7 isn't part of HB7. The one thing isn't legally related to the other, except in your own head.

Flap those arms harder, Zig!

You're pretending that the definition of "woke" as used by DeSantis doesn't matter when he fired a guy for being "woke", and that the definition of "woke" doesn't matter to how the "stop woke" bill is perceived and enforced by Republicans.

You're not fooling anyone. You're not convincing anyone. Your previous, pathetic popularity contest got you exactly **** all people who said they agreed with you, and this time you tried it several people chimed in to tell you that you're wrong.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Flap those arms harder, Zig!

You're pretending that the definition of "woke" as used by DeSantis doesn't matter when he fired a guy for being "woke",

I didn't say it was irrelevant in that trial. I said it was irrelevant to HB7. The trial has nothing to do with HB7.

Quote:

and that the definition of "woke" doesn't matter to how the "stop woke" bill is perceived and enforced by Republicans.

How it's perceived is different than how it's enforced, and how it CAN be enforced. And HB7 can only be enforced the way it is written, which is without the word "woke" anywhere in it.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Flap those arms harder, Zig!

You're pretending that the definition of "woke" as used by DeSantis doesn't matter when he fired a guy for being "woke", and that the definition of "woke" doesn't matter to how the "stop woke" bill is perceived and enforced by Republicans.

You're not fooling anyone. You're not convincing anyone. Your previous, pathetic popularity contest got you exactly **** all people who said they agreed with you, and this time you tried it several people chimed in to tell you that you're wrong.

I'm not so sure they're trying to fool us or if they really are that ******* stupid. It's hard to tell, but in either case, 'stupid' is the only explanation.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I didn't say it was irrelevant in that trial. I said it was irrelevant to HB7. The trial has nothing to do with HB7.



How it's perceived is different than how it's enforced, and how it CAN be enforced. And HB7 can only be enforced the way it is written, which is without the word "woke" anywhere in it.

Who signed the Stop WOKE bill into law? Whose lawyers gave his definition of "woke" into testimony? How the guy who promoted and signed into law the stop woke act defines woke is obviously pertinent to the law he got passed which is intended to punish state employees and businesses for being woke as well as to the court case over his firing of a state employee for being woke.

And pgwenthold was correct in connecting 2 very public instances of DeSantis using "woke" with his under oath definition of "woke", while you are left looking like a fool because a word search doesn't use the work "woke" in the second paragraph of article 3 of the stop WOKE act so you can't understand why we care how DeSantis defines woke.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Who signed the Stop WOKE bill into law?

Doesn't matter. The law is what it is, regardless of who signed it into law.

Quote:

Whose lawyers gave his definition of "woke" into testimony?

Doesn't matter.

Laws often define the words they use in ways specific to those laws. For example, abortion restriction laws often define what abortion means for the context of that law. The definition given within the law is controlling for that law, and what the lawyer for the governor who signed the bill into law gives as a definition is irrelevant, because the law's definition, not the lawyer's, is controlling.

And that's if the law even uses a term. The definition of a term that the law doesn't even use is completely irrelevant to that law. That should be obvious. It's amazing that it still isn't.

Quote:

How the guy who promoted and signed into law the stop woke act defines woke is obviously pertinent to the law he got passed

Not legally, it isn't.

Quote:

And pgwenthold was correct in connecting 2 very public instances of DeSantis using "woke" with his under oath definition of "woke"

It's not DeSantis's definition of woke. DeSantis didn't give it under oath, or at all.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Doesn't matter. The law is what it is, regardless of who signed it into law.



Doesn't matter.

Laws often define the words they use in ways specific to those laws. For example, abortion restriction laws often define what abortion means for the context of that law. The definition given within the law is controlling for that law, and what the lawyer for the governor who signed the bill into law gives as a definition is irrelevant, because the law's definition, not the lawyer's, is controlling.

And that's if the law even uses a term. The definition of a term that the law doesn't even use is completely irrelevant to that law. That should be obvious. It's amazing that it still isn't.



Not legally, it isn't.



It's not DeSantis's definition of woke. DeSantis didn't give it under oath, or at all.

Ok, you are unable to understand the relevance of the definition of "woke" to this thread, to the law passed to "stop woke" or to the court case over firing someone for being "woke". At this point, as you are the only one unable to understand this concept, the class is just going to have to move on without you. I'm sorry, Zig, but there's no point to wasting more time explaining something you are simply unwilling to or incapable of understanding.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Ok, you are unable to understand the relevance of the definition of "woke" to this thread,

It's obviously relevant to the thread in general.

Quote:

to the law passed to "stop woke"

It's not relevant to enforcement of HB7, for reasons I've already described. You have provided no rational reason for how it can affect enforcement of HB7. "Because DeSantis" isn't a reason.

Whether or not it affects people's impression of HB7 is a different matter, but people's impressions of laws and the actual effects of laws are often divergent. That's not my problem.

Quote:

or to the court case over firing someone for being "woke".

It's potentially relevant to that case, but even that isn't guaranteed, and it's not demonstrated. Lots of testimony in a trial ends up not being relevant in the end.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's obviously relevant to the thread in general.



It's not relevant to enforcement of HB7, for reasons I've already described. You have provided no rational reason for how it can affect enforcement of HB7. "Because DeSantis" isn't a reason.

Whether or not it affects people's impression of HB7 is a different matter, but people's impressions of laws and the actual effects of laws are often divergent. That's not my problem.



It's potentially relevant to that case, but even that isn't guaranteed, and it's not demonstrated. Lots of testimony in a trial ends up not being relevant in the end.

<pats head>
There, there. I'm glad you had the opportunity to repeat how you don't understand this.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

<pats head>
There, there. I'm glad you had the opportunity to repeat how you don't understand this.

I've read the law. I've read the court documents. You have done neither.

And you're convinced you understand what's going on.

That's cute.

[wareyin]

In other news on DeSantis' war on "woke", he's now going after BlackRock for "woke capitalism".

I will not be explaining to the intentionally clueless how DeSantis' definition of woke matters to this.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Ok, you are unable to understand the relevance of the definition of "woke" to this thread, to the law passed to "stop woke" or to the court case over firing someone for being "woke". At this point, as you are the only one unable to understand this concept, the class is just going to have to move on without you. I'm sorry, Zig, but there's no point to wasting more time explaining something you are simply unwilling to or incapable of understanding.

Oh, he understands perfectly, he is simply trying (and failing miserably), to gaslight us!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I've read the law. I've read the court documents. You have done neither.

And you're convinced you understand what's going on.

That's cute.

Well, I have read the law (in its entirety)

I have also read all the available court documents (in their entirety)

I have also read the statements by Warren, DeSantis et al

And I still agree with wareyn, pgwenthold, mgidm86 et al... and I still disagree with you. IMO, you are being (as wareyn put it) "intentionally clueless"

[Donal]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'd define it as "the ongoing process of uncritically discovering novel systemic injustices, and uncritically endorsing such discoveries proclaimed by others."

Like the outrage over the Twitter files?

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Well, I have read the law (in its entirety)

I have also read all the available court documents (in their entirety)

I have also read the statements by Warren, DeSantis et al

And I still agree with wareyn, pgwenthold, mgidm86 et al... and I still disagree with you. IMO, you are being (as wareyn put it) "intentionally clueless"

Can you explain the way in which you disagree with Ziggurat? Do you think that the HB7 act is relevant to the court case? If so, how is it relevant?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Can you explain the way in which you disagree with Ziggurat? Do you think that the HB7 act is relevant to the court case? If so, how is it relevant?

Christ on a ******* bike!! Does this really have to be laid out to you in baby steps... again... really?

OK then

1. HB7 is the "Stop woke" law. It was described by Desantis as such, by its authors it as such, and during debate in the Floriduh House and Senate House. However, much Ziggurat would like to claim that his word search failing to find "woke" in the wording is relevant, it simply isn't.

2. Yes, we all know what the actual, stated intent of HB7 was - to directly limit classroom discussion in higher education, of CRT and other subjects that De Santis and the rest of his right wing bigots don't want taught to white kids in school, but we have also all heard of Merton's Law... the Law of Unintended Consequences, and we all know that laws are often misused and interpreted loosely to widen the catchment.

3. When De Santis fired Andrew Warren he specifically stated it was for being "woke". For this reason it is abundantly clear to anyone intelligent enough, and who is paying attention to right wing politics in socially retarded redneck states like Florida and Texas, that Warren is a victim of this new law.

4. If you don't believe that, please explain why the prosecution asked De Santis' Communications Director, Taryn Fenske what she means by "woke", and if "woke" is not relevant to the case, why didn't the defense object to that line of questioning on relevance? Please explain why the prosecution asked De Santis' General Counsel, Ryan Newman what he means by "woke", and if "woke" is not relevant to the case, again, why didn't the defense object to that line of questioning on relevance?

Newman added that DeSantis doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the U.S. He also emphasized he believed Warren’s “wokeism” led him to sign the pledge not to prosecute abortion crimes, the primary factor that led to his suspension.

* * * * *

Its worth nothing that Warren wasn't appointed to his position, he was elected, by the people he serves. If Warren stands again, and gets elected. Is DeSantis going to fire him again?
.
.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Can you explain the way in which you disagree with Ziggurat? Do you think that the HB7 act is relevant to the court case? If so, how is it relevant?

There's a phenomenon I see a lot in the science forum with promoters of various pseudoscientific beliefs, particularly of the Electric Universe breed but not unique to them. They'll look at some popular press coverage of a discovery or topic, latch on to language from that press coverage, and treat it like that press coverage is the actual scientific work in question. And so when things get simplified, dumbed down, or even misrepresented in that coverage (because it's press coverage, and not the actual scientific work), they consider it revealing of actual errors in mainstream science, rather than a reflection of the problems with conveying complex science to a non-expert audience.

What we're seeing here is that same phenomenon. smartcooky has latched on to the press's obsession with the word "woke", and taken that to be indicative of far more than it actually is. Notice what he has never once done. He has never once gone to any of the primary sources. He's never cited the text of the HB7 law. He's never cited DeSantis's letter suspending Warren. He's never cited Warren's complaint to the court objecting to his suspension. I'm the one who has brought these documents into the discussion, not smartcooky. Why?

Because his claims don't actually have support from the actual primary sources.

To start with, Warren's suspension has nothing to do with HB7. DeSantis didn't use HB7 as a justification for his suspension, and Warren doesn't claim his suspension had anything to do with HB7. This is obvious to anyone who has read HB7, DeSantis's letter suspending Warren, or Warren's complaint to the court.

Furthermore, HB7 never uses the word "woke". smartcooky wants us to think that this isn't important, but the words that laws use, or don't use, are important. You can only act under the law according to what the law specifies. And HB7 says nothing about "woke".

Now, some of what HB7 does specify could certainly be described as "woke", but legally speaking, this isn't relevant. Woke can also include much that isn't specified by HB7. And if something is "woke" but doesn't fall under what HB7 describes, then HB7 doesn't apply, because again, HB7 doesn't apply to "woke", it only applies to what it describes. Which doesn't include the Warren v. DeSantis case. And so a description of "woke" given in that case isn't relevant to HB7. No description of "woke" given anywhere by anyone can possibly expand the reach of HB7 beyond what HB7 itself already outlines.

Now, if smartcooky thought a bit more deeply about this whole issue, he might argue that both HB7 and the Warren firing fall under a more general category of DeSantis's opposition to "woke". And that's true, they do. I never said otherwise. But when it comes to the law, details matter. "Technicalities" matter. You can't use HB7 against "woke" in general. You cannot use it the way pgwenthold claimed. I may sound like a broken record, but since smartcooky still hasn't caught on, it bears repeating: you can only use HB7 in the ways that HB7 itself (not the press, not even the governor) says it can be used. You can only outlaw what the law says you have outlawed. And HB7 does not outlaw "woke".

[d4m10n]

Elon weighs in:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1602278477234728960

Almost no idea what he means, though. Presumably this "mind virus" consists of memes which spread between human minds for reasons other than conforming to reality.

ETA: "Woke" is now trending on the bird app.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Now, if smartcooky thought a bit more deeply about this whole issue, he might argue that both HB7 and the Warren firing fall under a more general category of DeSantis's opposition to "woke".

And here Zig pretends that this somehow isn't exactly what everyone has been telling him for the last several pages. Amazingly enough, he finally caught on that the various ways DeSantis opposes what he defines as "woke" are all related to each other, and as such how DeSantis defines "woke" is relevant to the various ways he opposes it.


Of course he still argues against that in the bits I snipped out, because of course defending this crap requires an inconsistent argument.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

And here Zig pretends that this somehow isn't exactly what everyone has been telling him for the last several pages.

Yeah, no.

pgwenthold claimed that "woke" was being made illegal. This isn't true, and I called him out on his error. You objected to that, for incoherent reasons that never actually addressed pgwenthold's claim or my objection to it. And his claim is a very different claim than a generalized opposition to "woke" from DeSantis, something which I again will point out that I never made. YOU failed to make that distinction, not me. You're so bad at making a coherent argument, I had to do it for you, and now you want to take credit for what I did on your behalf out of charity.

That's just sad.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yeah, no.

pgwenthold claimed that "woke" was being made illegal. This isn't true, and I called him out on his error. You objected to that, for incoherent reasons that never actually addressed pgwenthold's claim or my objection to it. And his claim is a very different claim than a generalized opposition to "woke" from DeSantis, something which I again will point out that I never made. YOU failed to make that distinction, not me. You're so bad at making a coherent argument, I had to do it for you, and now you want to take credit for what I did on your behalf out of charity.

That's just sad.

Your alternate facts version of the last several pages is fascinating. Do you think you will fool anybody?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Your alternate facts version of the last several pages is fascinating. Do you think you will fool anybody?

Oh, I have no expectation to convince you or smartcooky. But I'm the one who went to the primary sources, not you two. And I expect lurkers who aren't dead set on trying to prove a preset agenda-driven conclusion will be able to figure out that you don't have a case, that Warren's suspension had nothing to do with HB7, and that HB7 doesn't actually make "woke" illegal. Because they don't need to believe me, it's all there in those primary documents, plain a day.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Oh, I have no expectation to convince you or smartcooky. But I'm the one who went to the primary sources, not you two. And I expect lurkers who aren't dead set on trying to prove a preset agenda-driven conclusion will be able to figure out that you don't have a case, that Warren's suspension had nothing to do with HB7, and that HB7 doesn't actually make "woke" illegal. Because they don't need to believe me, it's all there in those primary documents, plain a day.

Snerk. Let's take the very first claim you make in your "alternate facts" version:"pgwenthold claimed that "woke" was being made illegal"

In reality pgwenthold posted: "what Florida has done is to make a law that says that promoting the belief that the gap is unacceptable is illegal."

Now, given that what you now refer to as HB7 (in a hilarious attempt at gaslighting us into forgetting it's called the Stop Woke act) specifically prohibits teachers and businesses from promoting that belief, you're not going to convince anyone who is aware of the state of politics in FL.

Add to that your admission that Warren's firing is part of DeSantis's crusade against woke and the Stop Woke act is also part of DeSantis's crusade against woke in #861, and you've already killed your own case.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by wareyin

And here Zig pretends that this somehow isn't exactly what everyone has been telling him for the last several pages. Amazingly enough, he finally caught on that the various ways DeSantis opposes what he defines as "woke" are all related to each other, and as such how DeSantis defines "woke" is relevant to the various ways he opposes it.


Of course he still argues against that in the bits I snipped out, because of course defending this crap requires an inconsistent argument.

Exactly!!!

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by wareyin

Snerk. Let's take the very first claim you make in your "alternate facts" version:"pgwenthold claimed that "woke" was being made illegal"

In reality pgwenthold posted: "what Florida has done is to make a law that says that promoting the belief that the gap is unacceptable is illegal."

Now, given that what you now refer to as HB7 (in a hilarious attempt at gaslighting us into forgetting it's called the Stop Woke act) specifically prohibits teachers and businesses from promoting that belief, you're not going to convince anyone who is aware of the state of politics in FL.

Add to that your admission that Warren's firing is part of DeSantis's crusade against woke and the Stop Woke act is also part of DeSantis's crusade against woke in #861, and you've already killed your own case.

Zig appears to be back-pedaling so hard that the chain's come off!!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Zig appears to be back-pedaling so hard that the chain's come off!!

Uh, no. You never understood my point in the first place. And have you stopped claiming that HB7 was part of Warren's suspension?

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. You never understood my point in the first place. And have you stopped claiming that HB7 was part of Warren's suspension?

"related to"(what was actually claimed and what you originally disputed) =/= "part of"( your new claim)

I swear, the combination of your sneering condescension about people not understanding your point plus your (intentional?) inability to grok other people's simple statements is just beautiful.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Uh, no. You never understood my point in the first place.

Ahem, no. I understood your point perfectly, right from the get-go.... I just disagreed with it - that's all!! You've been trying (and failing) to gaslight us ever since!

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And have you stopped claiming that HB7 was part of Warren's suspension?

I never claimed that, and nor did anyone else!

[Graham2001]

I'm putting this here because I think it belongs, it's a fairly typical example of the kind of 'word salad' that seems to be gaining traction.



I think the author is simply rephrasing the 19C idea that non-whites/non-straights lack the 'vital something' to do well in maths and so should not do them (An idea refuted time-and-again over the years since the 19th C).

Quote:

Undergraduate Mathematics Education as a White, Cisheteropatriarchal Space and Opportunities for Structural Disruption to Advance Queer of Color Justice.

Abstract

This lecture consists of two parts. For the first half of the lecture, I present findings from my research about the educational experiences of 39 undergraduate queer and trans* (QT) students of color pursuing STEM majors across historically white and minority-serving universities in the United States. Findings depict how Black, Latin*, and Asian QT students’ narratives of experience reflect forms of intersectionality, or instances of oppression and resistance at intersecting systems of white supremacy and cisheteropatriarchy (or white cisheteropatriarchy). I use my analytical framework, “STEM Education as a White, Cisheteropatriarchal Space” (Leyva et al., 2022, American Educational Research Journal), to capture how intersectional oppression among QT students of color unfolds across three interconnected levels of influence in undergraduate STEM: ideological, institutional, and relational. In addition, I highlight findings that illustrate structural disruptions, defined as educational structures and practices that resist intersectional oppression in undergraduate STEM. Findings also address coping strategies among QT students of color navigating white cisheteropatriarchy in STEM for protecting their academic success and intersectional identities. During the second half of the lecture, I apply my framework and research findings to argue how undergraduate mathematics education operates as a white, cisheteropatriarchal space that limits learning opportunities affirming of queer of color identities and experiences. I conclude by re-imagining undergraduate mathematics education with structural disruptions that advance justice for learners marginalized across intersections of race, gender, and sexuality. This re-imagining accounts for ideological, institutional, and relational forms of disruption that interrogate dominant forms of knowledge production as well as expand access to learning opportunities and departmental support that affirm queer of color identities.

https://meetings.ams.org/math/jmm202...gi/Paper/16248