The law doesn't seem to prevent discussion, just that training should not include anything racial, which is not the same thing.

In any case, just to make sure I understand right: they are fighting back at "cancel culture" by "cancelling" it with a law? You may rail as much as you want against "leftists", but whatever they do it looks like the "right" can do it much worse......
 

I am by nature a centrist. I see both extremes as harmful. It is just that if you say anything centrist, the extreme right sees you as communist, while the extreme left sees you as fascist. If both sides disagree with me, I am doing something right. And I try to avoid judgement calls on which side is “worse”. They are both “worse”.
 

You already can't discuss any racial privilege other than white in the work place. Why exactly do you think it's so valuable to discuss white privilege at work, why can't you discuss that privately where you aren't at risk of being punished by your employer for what you believe or don't believe?

This is not to prevent discussion, it's to prevent being forced to listen to racist drivel by your employer.
 

You already can't discuss any racial privilege other than white in the work place.

The legislation needed here is one where your employee is prohibited from firing you for free speech, not one that *also* restricts the free speech of the other side.
 

Debate between left and right can be difficult when their underlying assumptions and definitions are different. To someone on the right, "equity" or "justice" means treating everyone the same, regardless of colour - no special treatment for any group. It's all about getting the process right. Those on the left tend to regard "equity" as meaning equal outcomes, and will happily adjust the process until the results become what is desired. Neither approach is ideal though - colour-blind processes result in unequal outcomes if the inputs aren't equal, for example because some groups have worse schools or housing situations, or don't have the same access to tutors to bump up their scores. And rigging a process to produce the desired outcome not only creates resentment in the group it is "adjusted" against but risks promoting people who aren't the optimal choice for the job, which means everyone suffers.

As for slave reparations - the idea is that person A should have to pay person B compensation for what person C did to person D. Sounds perfectly fair! Is there a limitation on what can be claimed - I'd like to consider reparations from the Italian government for what the Roman Empire did to my ancestors. For that matter, Iraq owes Israel a hefty payout for the misdeeds of the Babylonians, and sanctions on Iran should definitely not be lifted until they've compensated Greece for Xerxes' unprovoked aggression...
 

On the reparations issue, there's a huge difference between unwilling beneficiaries of past indiscretions wishing to repay their historic debt and unwitting third parties being forced to do so. As the culture changes, more and more people feel they'd prefer to make some reparation because they feel some responsibility. The kinds of educational processes being outlawed in the Florida legislation reinforce and encourage this kind of cultural change and the pushback against them is a defensive move to try and slow down, halt or even reverse the process. Cultural change tends to have more momentum than such measures can resist but the degree to which change can be slowed always depends on how much force the defending forces are able and willing to bring to bear. In the end, though, history suggests progressive change will eventually prevail.

In the particular case of white privelige, there's also an odd echo of the old trope that tells us history is written by the winners. The conflict between racial groups is still ongoing so, unlike a war, as yet there is no final "winner". Both "sides" are trying to fix history into the shape they believe represents what really happened but history is only ever a snapshot of an accepted cultural or academic consensus. While there is no consensus the struggle for the historical record continues and no amount of legislation will prevent it.
 

@Bhagpuss: How do you define "historic debt"? Do only white descendants of slave owners have this debt? What about white people whose ancestors immigrated into the USA after 1865? What about black people whose ancestors immigrated into the USA after 1865? Obama clearly experienced racial discrimination, but would he be able to claim reparations for slavery? Would you want a poor white person paying reparations to a rich black one?

A much better idea would be universal basic income. If there is any group of people socially disadvantaged, they would automatically benefit more from such a policy than a group which is already socially advantaged. Trying to create a system which identifies who exactly owns what "historic debt" to whom would be a lot more expensive and provide fewer benefits for the poor.
 

This law is just as useless as the recently passes one for K12 education and is written in a similar way.

What the law actually targets is employers who during training try to say that a specific race of people are responsible for the suffering of others.

Now I know I may be younger then some of you here but I've never had a workplace say anything like this. So much like the K12 law this is targeting something that isn't happening anyways.

This is yet another political stunt for Desantis to point at when he launches his presidential run.
 

UBI would absolutely be one of the best ways to help not only minorities but poor whites and the elderly. It would be a giant leap towards the equity that the left wants to see.

Unfortunately even Democrats think UBI is communism and "Centrist" Dems lost their shit at the temporary pandemic payments because $600 a month somehow means people no longer want to work so I doubt we'll see it here in the US in my lifetime.

 

@Bigeye: Yep.
 

You can't judge all of America by what Florida, Texas, or California do. Those states are radicals in their own ways. Florida may pass some off the wall bill but that type of bill wouldn't pass in most states. The nice thing about the US is that you can move easily between states. If your state goes nuts, it's easy to move 100 miles or so to the next state where they haven't gone batshit crazy. Now I agree our adults in politics have forgotten how to work together for the sake of their people, they only care about their jobs but we haven't totally abandoned our constitution.
 

Compared to what is happening in Russia - where you could go to jail just for saying that there is a war with Ukraine going on - the US is the epitome of free speech and transparency.
 

UBI is definitely not a centrist concept, and won't fly anytime soon. Socially and culturally America is not ready for it. We need to fix a lot of other stuff before the concept of the UBI could begin to work.

As a business owner who's been around the block one too many times, the systemic racism is clear and evident, and on both sides but in different ways. A lot of the denialism comes from the fact that the schism of disquiet caused by racist thoughts or inclinations is deep and personal for many, who wish to either make amends if they are on the left while not acknowledging or understanding what it is they are feeling, or bury it deep under layers of assumed justification on the right. But until the US as a society recognizes that what's going on here is far more complex than just the surface level issues its never going to improve. Ultimately, both extremes in the US are dramatically exaggerating the issue in debilitating ways that do not lead to true equity and abolishment.