Military contracts would be completely unenforceable in any other setting. Theres a reason why they would be. Let me add that I'm not saying military contracts are bad, but the contract itself doesn't justify the treatment.
Catastrophic insurance is actually worse, because it discourages people from getting that checkup. In the end, it pays the insurance company more to make sure you get that oil change than it does to pay for the engine replacement if you DON'T get that oil change. Most models of public health focus on preemptive medicine, it just pays out better.
"Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. The argument of ISPs against common carrier classification has largely conflated "telecommunications carriers" with "common carriers," assuming that if they were labeled as "common carriers," they would be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act by the FCC. This is incorrect; as noted above, a firm can be a common carrier without being a telecommunications carrier. The FCC proceeding that established that Internet networks are not telecommunications carriers is the Computer Inquiries. A later FCC report, IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), reviewed this policy (this report was not an order and did not have the effect of regulatory law - it is however, an excellent capture of FCC policy at that time)." - From the article you linked.
I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.
No, its a discussion on whether what happened is correct. Nobody stole anything from me and I consider the clones to be the creation of a new genre.
I mean seriously, do you actually base your values on what the laws say? If not, then why in the hell would you have a problem discussing things outside of the law? If you don't think its something worth discussing then why the hell did you read all the way down the thread and post?
Yeah, there's no discounting that. But this guy is starting to describe autism as a personality disorder instead of developmental disorder. That is just crazy.
The point of the matter is, however, that institutional hypersensitivity(schools and businesses) is quite different to you being able to say what you want. If its an institution with democratic controls such as the school system, there is an acceptable mechanism for you to fight what you see as hypersensitivity. If there isn't, its still just a PR move. If the PR move ends up costing public sentiment then the institution will rectify that situation.
In the specific case of Thanksgiving, its a Christian rite that is celebrated to give thanks to God. It has morphed into something quite different. Hypersensitivity as it pertains to endorsing the Christian religion is understandable. Maybe not correct in this particular case since its a national holiday, but understandable. If it troubles you enough though, go start a fight with the school board about it.
Bottom line, this so called Political Correctness has no bearing on you saying what you want to say. Its a false concept.
Censoring yourself in fear of offending a third party is part of being able to be a functioning human being in society. It is not a particular aspect of some new "political correctness." Thats the argument I'm making.
You also have to understand, how others perceive you is an important factor of how you act and perceive yourself. What I'm trying to say is "censorship" regarding offending people is a default state, not an exceptional one. Due to this it shouldn't really be labeled censorship in casual conversation.
In addition, you shouldn't be surprised if individuals react negatively to you if you offend them. You would actually be extremely stupid to believe otherwise. The idea that this sort of thing is some sort of special brand of insidious thought is ludicrous.
This sort of shit is cutting edge though, and mental health + popsci just ends fucking bad. If you're diagnosed by a Psychologist, then cool. If you're diagnosed by a GP, I'd recommend getting diagnosed by a psychologist. If you're diagnosed by yourself or some asshat on the Internet, you weren't diagnosed. Mental health is a complex field, and amateurs running around giving recommendations is about as conductive to things as it is in the medical field. Namely you end up with shit like chellation therapy and the anti-vax movement.
Seriously, these guys shouldn't be jumping on a psychological disorder and claiming everyone has it. What they're looking for is the theory of multiple intelligences. A psychological disorder by definition has a significant impact on your everyday functioning, normally to the point where you can't work or go to school as a normal person. But what else do you expect from a guy who performs mental health diagnosis on celebrities?
The African-American shit was just some semantic shit to try and stem the screwiness of racism. Pretty much none of those words work.
Homosexuality is not a religion, Christianity is. You're comparing apples and oranges, just to be an asshole. Kids learn about Christianity in history class with the rest of the major religions and some of the dead ones, as it should be. If you want homosexuality to be treated as a religion, propose an amendment to the constitution.
No, Cromar has it on the money. Black is not a bad word, its the context you use Black in that can be offensive. What I find hilarious about these anti-PC folks is that they want to be able to say what they want, but when people call them out for being a fuckhead, suddenly its censorship. "Well I don't find offensive what you find offensive, so your arguments are invalid!" Give me a fuckin' break.
Slashdot Mirror
" imagine how bad the US would be without all those "jobs saved"... :-P
Pretty fucking terrible, but it looks like things are going to get there on their own.
Yeah this really heralds the great uprising of WoW nerds.
Get out.
Military contracts would be completely unenforceable in any other setting. Theres a reason why they would be. Let me add that I'm not saying military contracts are bad, but the contract itself doesn't justify the treatment.
You live in a basement don't you.
Catastrophic insurance is actually worse, because it discourages people from getting that checkup. In the end, it pays the insurance company more to make sure you get that oil change than it does to pay for the engine replacement if you DON'T get that oil change. Most models of public health focus on preemptive medicine, it just pays out better.
What they should be, and what they are, are two very different things. I personally agree with you, but this bullshit needs to stop.
"Internet Service Providers have argued against being classified as a "common carrier" and, so far, have managed to do so. The argument of ISPs against common carrier classification has largely conflated "telecommunications carriers" with "common carriers," assuming that if they were labeled as "common carriers," they would be regulated under Title II of the Communications Act by the FCC. This is incorrect; as noted above, a firm can be a common carrier without being a telecommunications carrier. The FCC proceeding that established that Internet networks are not telecommunications carriers is the Computer Inquiries. A later FCC report, IN RE FEDERAL-STATE JOINT BOARD ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE, Report to Congress, 13 FCC Rcd. 11501 (1998), reviewed this policy (this report was not an order and did not have the effect of regulatory law - it is however, an excellent capture of FCC policy at that time)." - From the article you linked.
Perhaps you should read it?
People mod prison rape up all the time. Some folks find shit funny that you don't find funny. It happens.
No, this is either TediousAnalogyGuy or PretentiousAnalogyGuy.
There is also a good deal of transsexuals on slashdot. Personally I wouldn't use slashdot as a dating site.
Yeah, the issue isn't just about you. Its about arresting the spread so those people with issues have a less chance of catching it.
I agree, instead of crates we should put chest high walls.
I'm not saying this detracts from what your going for, but Labeling Theory seems to create a self fulfilling prophecy in the whole thing. I've always considered if an interesting thing. You call them hard criminals, you treat them like hard criminals, they become hard criminals.
Ever since the "spent all my mod points" achivement, its become an obsession of his.
No, its a discussion on whether what happened is correct. Nobody stole anything from me and I consider the clones to be the creation of a new genre.
I mean seriously, do you actually base your values on what the laws say? If not, then why in the hell would you have a problem discussing things outside of the law? If you don't think its something worth discussing then why the hell did you read all the way down the thread and post?
The discussion isn't based upon the legal definition.
Yeah, there's no discounting that. But this guy is starting to describe autism as a personality disorder instead of developmental disorder. That is just crazy.
The point of the matter is, however, that institutional hypersensitivity(schools and businesses) is quite different to you being able to say what you want. If its an institution with democratic controls such as the school system, there is an acceptable mechanism for you to fight what you see as hypersensitivity. If there isn't, its still just a PR move. If the PR move ends up costing public sentiment then the institution will rectify that situation.
In the specific case of Thanksgiving, its a Christian rite that is celebrated to give thanks to God. It has morphed into something quite different. Hypersensitivity as it pertains to endorsing the Christian religion is understandable. Maybe not correct in this particular case since its a national holiday, but understandable. If it troubles you enough though, go start a fight with the school board about it.
Bottom line, this so called Political Correctness has no bearing on you saying what you want to say. Its a false concept.
Censoring yourself in fear of offending a third party is part of being able to be a functioning human being in society. It is not a particular aspect of some new "political correctness." Thats the argument I'm making.
You also have to understand, how others perceive you is an important factor of how you act and perceive yourself. What I'm trying to say is "censorship" regarding offending people is a default state, not an exceptional one. Due to this it shouldn't really be labeled censorship in casual conversation.
In addition, you shouldn't be surprised if individuals react negatively to you if you offend them. You would actually be extremely stupid to believe otherwise. The idea that this sort of thing is some sort of special brand of insidious thought is ludicrous.
This sort of shit is cutting edge though, and mental health + popsci just ends fucking bad. If you're diagnosed by a Psychologist, then cool. If you're diagnosed by a GP, I'd recommend getting diagnosed by a psychologist. If you're diagnosed by yourself or some asshat on the Internet, you weren't diagnosed. Mental health is a complex field, and amateurs running around giving recommendations is about as conductive to things as it is in the medical field. Namely you end up with shit like chellation therapy and the anti-vax movement.
Seriously, these guys shouldn't be jumping on a psychological disorder and claiming everyone has it. What they're looking for is the theory of multiple intelligences. A psychological disorder by definition has a significant impact on your everyday functioning, normally to the point where you can't work or go to school as a normal person. But what else do you expect from a guy who performs mental health diagnosis on celebrities?
The African-American shit was just some semantic shit to try and stem the screwiness of racism. Pretty much none of those words work.
Homosexuality is not a religion, Christianity is. You're comparing apples and oranges, just to be an asshole. Kids learn about Christianity in history class with the rest of the major religions and some of the dead ones, as it should be. If you want homosexuality to be treated as a religion, propose an amendment to the constitution.
No, Cromar has it on the money. Black is not a bad word, its the context you use Black in that can be offensive. What I find hilarious about these anti-PC folks is that they want to be able to say what they want, but when people call them out for being a fuckhead, suddenly its censorship. "Well I don't find offensive what you find offensive, so your arguments are invalid!" Give me a fuckin' break.
I really enjoy the pop-sci junkies that develop the theory before the evidence myself.