“Woke”

[pgwenthold]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

Who signed the Stop WOKE bill into law?

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?
.
.