Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,081
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".
