We can agree that the US policy in South America has been a mess. There are many issues with settling tons of migrants. There are economic issues yes, we don't have infinite resources or jobs. However there are also cultural issues. Let's start with the basics - do they speak the language? Do they have a skill? These are critical points that should not be glossed over.
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
Moreover it's the law world wide. Does Mexico allow US citizens to cross the border with no consequences? Of course not. Open borders is such a bad idea that it boggles the mind. Break up the US. Allow some states to kill themselves with bad policies, like California, and others to continue on a more sane course.
Done well infrastructure is a blessing that totally is worth it. Done poorly and you get... the train to nowhere. Billions spent and little to show for it. For decades.
No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone).
No true Scotsman much? I guess Communism really is great it's just never been implemented the right way too.
By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant
No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true.
Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.
Political correctness, as it stands today, is denial of reality. Reality is that people who come here illegally are by definition illegal aliens. That's as obvious as it gets.
The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith
Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.
While I don't disagree that polarized people are likely easier to control I'm still rooting for the *peaceful* breakup of the US. The common culture has drifted too far apart and basic values are no longer shared.
The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.
I can't speak to the far right or far left, both are a bit loony at times. I can say that I see the far left as imposing through the courts and media absolute nonsense and I find their value system horrific. One of the more telling examples was a UFC fighter getting suspended for saying that a trans fighter in the women division should not be allowed. Let's get this straight, he was suspended for saying that a male shouldn't be hitting a female. That such an obvious statement could get one in trouble is absolutely incredible. Such is the power of political correctness.
But it becomes an issue because you can't even say it. For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship? It's an obvious double standard and it undermines anyone who is calling for equality. The failure to perceive this obvious double standard is why I feel like most left leaning types lack logic. If you're interested in fairness of outcomes tie it to the well established metric of income, not the dubious metric of race. To tie affirmative action to race is to promote racism and says that Obama's two daughters need help while some poor white kids from the Appalachian mountains don't. Tying affirmative action to economics is actually trying to achieve something closer to fairness instead of trying to balance the racial scales regardless of fairness.
...They were designed to remind the people demanding equal rights that they were not equal...
Much like how colleges, and the left, demean the hated white male at every chance while promoting others.
Mozilla, which has kicked out its co-founder for personal political activities which some disagree with, is looking to instill people with privacy. I guess they know better than most that you can't trust people to behave responsibly when others do things they disagree with.
Like movies and other entertainment, there's always fresh young blood to refill the staff.
This. I had a friend who wanted to be a comic book artist when he grew up. He actually made it and did some comics but the work/life balance was extremely poor. Essentially there was a line around the block of people who wanted to do that and if you were tired go away and they will have you replaced immediately. The long line of willing people also kept the pay down. That he left that for IT might say something. The only jobs that I've seen that are both high pay *and* have tons of capable people willing to do them are union jobs. For example there's a line around the block of people who want to be firemen yet they still get cake retirement and lots of pay.
because the Ds at least have a small wing of the party that refuses corporate PAC money. There's gonna be at least 30 of them in the House after the election, maybe 40. I know of no such wing in the GOP. Even Rand Paul seems to be bought and paid for lately, having fallen in line with Trump on the various wars we're fighting (none of which have proper authorization or are even against countries that attacked us).
The Dems also have some folks who support issues that matter. I want single payer healthcare because I've got friends and family that need medical care and who are in medicine. I want a $15 min wage because I want demand side economics instead of supply side. I want to end the wars and stop selling arms to the Saudis. There's a lot of Dems that won't do that (Pelosi, Schumer, etc) but there are some that will. Again, I don't know of any Republicans that support these policies.
What I do know is they all poll in the mid to high 70s. Given that you'd think both sides would support them, but, well, now we circle back to the real problem, corporate PAC money. You can't serve two masters.
There are lots of issues that poll high yet get ignored. Trade deals are generally unpopular. Illegal immigration is very unpopular, despite the press doing every shady thing they can to drum up support ("undocumented immigrants" for example). Besides, I'm a Christian white male. I won't vote democrat because they literally hate me. I would have made an exception for Bernie though.
We all complain about this crap, but we also elect the same sorts of folks who allow it. Over and over again. There were plenty of viable primary challengers this time around who refuse corporate PAC money. Most lost. For all the talk nobody shows up to vote, or if they do they vote the incumbent because they want to be safe, stay the course.
Change often starts at the top. Both Clintons and Trump are both amazingly corrupt. Bernie would have been better but he was kept out by a corrupt Democratic National Party apparatus that had already decided who should be picked. Better luck next time.
3D printed guns are much like the ever feared, at least in Kommiefornia,.50 cal sniper rifle. Both have not been used in crimes yet get inordinate amounts of press.
I hope that the conflation of illegal immigrant vs legal immigrant data gets policed. That debate has seen enough falsely trying to characterize illegals, who largely are bad news almost regardless of metric, with legal ones, who are largely good along most metrics.
the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders. a large part of the stock game is run by algorithms calculating and trading stocks for maximum efficiency. that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet.
Really the world is run by billionaires. If you established a pact that if [bad thing happens] happens a given number of billionaires and their heirs would die then you would see change. If they thought that they would be hunted down bin Laden style change would happen in a hurry. Until then they figure that they can always buy a safe place no matter what and are thus immune.
All you're really doing at that point is pushing conformity, because your idea of what's "better" is going to diverge a lot. I think it'll be gamed, I think it'll be abused, and I think there will be companies that are absolutely obsessed with the technology. Sort of like the way people fixate on personality tests or blood nicotine levels now. It's one more thing for corporate america to waste their money on. The good news, is that you'll be able to spot the crazy ones. And just ignore any company that insists on using it as part of their hiring process.
I think it will be used as a tool to promote diversity. Much easier to fake this data than real world examples of your skills. It will be much less overtly racist, unlike the (white males | Asian males) need not apply system that we have now.
Sadly, the courts have allowed the Federal government for decades to do things outside its scope and power. The limitation of the Federal Government's power listed in the constitution no longer has any relationship to what the government does, and our judges do not care.
What you mean to say is that the Federal courts, including the Federal Supreme Court, have allowed the Federal government free reign. Since the Feds get to decide the limits of their own power is it any surprise that they generally side with themselves and not the states? Doubly so after FDR successfully bullied the Commerce Clause to be applied to literally anything.
you're missing the point, the USA has even bigger body count doing evil than China, and supports a theocracy that engages in systematic oppression and genocide.
I assume you have data to back this up? Mao was responsible for ~45 million deaths. What did the US do to achieve that number?
given the massive amount of automation we're currently doing. We're going to run out of work here. When that happens we either take care of people who do nothing or let them starve. If you do that in a country with an army you'll have wars. Big ones. They'll come to your house to take your stuff. Or you'll get conscripted into an army to do the taking. Meanwhile you'll have fascist dictatorships spring up when they promise food to the starving masses.
You're talking about billions of people with nothing to lose and access to modern military weapons. That's not going to end well for anybody.
I keep hearing about the end of jobs yet when I look around I see no end of things that need to be done. What I hate about UBI is that it's something for nothing, which is never a good policy. If we're going to pay people, why not get something back? For example there are literally millions of lonely old people. Make them visit them and keep them company to qualify for UBI. Make them pick up litter or clean up graffiti. No end of tasks, just an unwillingness to ask something because it's easier to just write the check rather than make the world a better place.
But they're also going to be straddled with a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Let's look at the opposite to see if that's good - you do nothing and we'll take care of you. Does that sound like a good sustainable path to you?
It is a well written piece, backed by reasoned arguments, but the conclusion is not obviously correct. When a word's primary use is an insult, it is not surprising that someone does not take kindly to a doctor using the term in a technically correct but unfamiliar usage.
Rehabilitating words does not seem like an easy thing. Would we have good examples of success there?
There are some examples of words getting embraced. Gay and queer come to mind, though that demographic benefits from the media and Hollywood's love of gays and pedophiles so it's less likely that retard would succeed. However we do have many examples of a medical term devolving into an insult. Let's face it, there will always be retards no matter what we call them. Coming up with a new term each generation seems like a waste of time. That was the point.
PC thinking is fundamentally a denial of reality. Does going from idiot to retard to intellectually disabled actually change anything? Will there always be some who are cruel enough to mock the downs kids no matter what the official term is? Rather than deny reality why not work within it?
In the field of medicine, people renamed a whole bunch of disorders (e.g. Aspergers) because they were named after Nazis. Nobody threw this big of a tantrum.
I present the medical term retarded as a counter example of people throwing a fit over medical terms. If you like there's a great article about the silliness of appeasing the easily offended as the new words then become offenders themselves.
https://medium.com/s/story/the...
You can try and equate the two but it isn't true. One can be polite and still discuss master / slave on USB and other appropriate topics. One cannot be politically correct and do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
We can agree that the US policy in South America has been a mess. There are many issues with settling tons of migrants. There are economic issues yes, we don't have infinite resources or jobs. However there are also cultural issues. Let's start with the basics - do they speak the language? Do they have a skill? These are critical points that should not be glossed over.
...what has happened so fundamentally in our country (US) where people don't care about actual citizenship, and protecting our borders?
If you are here in this country illegally, you have criminally trespassed. You should be deported.
That is the current law.
Moreover it's the law world wide. Does Mexico allow US citizens to cross the border with no consequences? Of course not. Open borders is such a bad idea that it boggles the mind. Break up the US. Allow some states to kill themselves with bad policies, like California, and others to continue on a more sane course.
Done well infrastructure is a blessing that totally is worth it. Done poorly and you get ... the train to nowhere. Billions spent and little to show for it. For decades.
Political correctness is a silencing tactic
No. That's how it is being used but it is far from what it means (or perhaps what it used to mean if we're truly that far gone).
No true Scotsman much? I guess Communism really is great it's just never been implemented the right way too.
By designating something political correctness you are saying that it's trivial and unimportant
No, politically correct means a message that doesn't attempt to alienate either side of a debate, allowing an argument to be put forward that can be used to either further one side or the other, but all in how it is spun. However, some have taken that to be that the message has to be ultra-safe, which isn't true.
Example of a politically correct statement, "The constant migrations of foreigners to the US is a clear demonstration that past and current foreign policy with Central and South America has failed." No one is being called an illegal, no one is indicating any particular President at fault, and so on. This statement can be spun in either direction depending on present company and at face value is equally palatable by whichever side you want to pick.
Political correctness, as it stands today, is denial of reality. Reality is that people who come here illegally are by definition illegal aliens. That's as obvious as it gets.
The idea is to belittle people's concerns and requests to be treated better by implying that they are so inconsequential that the argument/request is ether absurd or not made in good faith
Which actually gets into the "how's it's being used." Politics has become massively polarized at the moment and I'm pretty sure it'll ultimately swing back to something resembling sanity. However, you have those who'd argue for over-reaching PC because they see the other side's argument (as you say) trivial. You have those who'd argue that PS is a cancer and see the other side's argument as hand-waving. Either way, both sides are simply dismissing the other's because they don't want to actually reach some middle ground, instead they rather have the polarity. Polarized voters are easier to predict voters, polarized voters make stronger safe districts for political parties, and once upon time folks kind of realized that polarized politics meant less actual power in the voter's hands.
While I don't disagree that polarized people are likely easier to control I'm still rooting for the *peaceful* breakup of the US. The common culture has drifted too far apart and basic values are no longer shared.
The far right need to allow progress to happen and get over their insecurities. The far left need to just chill the fuck out and stop telling people what they can't do.
I can't speak to the far right or far left, both are a bit loony at times. I can say that I see the far left as imposing through the courts and media absolute nonsense and I find their value system horrific. One of the more telling examples was a UFC fighter getting suspended for saying that a trans fighter in the women division should not be allowed. Let's get this straight, he was suspended for saying that a male shouldn't be hitting a female. That such an obvious statement could get one in trouble is absolutely incredible. Such is the power of political correctness.
White people have nothing to be ashamed about
Yeah, that's not the issue.
But it becomes an issue because you can't even say it. For example there are various pride organizations for every ethnicity, sans white. Why can't we have a white scholarship? It's an obvious double standard and it undermines anyone who is calling for equality. The failure to perceive this obvious double standard is why I feel like most left leaning types lack logic. If you're interested in fairness of outcomes tie it to the well established metric of income, not the dubious metric of race. To tie affirmative action to race is to promote racism and says that Obama's two daughters need help while some poor white kids from the Appalachian mountains don't. Tying affirmative action to economics is actually trying to achieve something closer to fairness instead of trying to balance the racial scales regardless of fairness.
...They were designed to remind the people demanding equal rights that they were not equal...
Much like how colleges, and the left, demean the hated white male at every chance while promoting others.
I'd rather the Chinese collect my browsing habits than Uncle Sam.
Said no one from Falun Gong ever.
Mozilla, which has kicked out its co-founder for personal political activities which some disagree with, is looking to instill people with privacy. I guess they know better than most that you can't trust people to behave responsibly when others do things they disagree with.
Like movies and other entertainment, there's always fresh young blood to refill the staff.
This. I had a friend who wanted to be a comic book artist when he grew up. He actually made it and did some comics but the work/life balance was extremely poor. Essentially there was a line around the block of people who wanted to do that and if you were tired go away and they will have you replaced immediately. The long line of willing people also kept the pay down. That he left that for IT might say something. The only jobs that I've seen that are both high pay *and* have tons of capable people willing to do them are union jobs. For example there's a line around the block of people who want to be firemen yet they still get cake retirement and lots of pay.
because the Ds at least have a small wing of the party that refuses corporate PAC money. There's gonna be at least 30 of them in the House after the election, maybe 40. I know of no such wing in the GOP. Even Rand Paul seems to be bought and paid for lately, having fallen in line with Trump on the various wars we're fighting (none of which have proper authorization or are even against countries that attacked us). The Dems also have some folks who support issues that matter. I want single payer healthcare because I've got friends and family that need medical care and who are in medicine. I want a $15 min wage because I want demand side economics instead of supply side. I want to end the wars and stop selling arms to the Saudis. There's a lot of Dems that won't do that (Pelosi, Schumer, etc) but there are some that will. Again, I don't know of any Republicans that support these policies. What I do know is they all poll in the mid to high 70s. Given that you'd think both sides would support them, but, well, now we circle back to the real problem, corporate PAC money. You can't serve two masters.
There are lots of issues that poll high yet get ignored. Trade deals are generally unpopular. Illegal immigration is very unpopular, despite the press doing every shady thing they can to drum up support ("undocumented immigrants" for example). Besides, I'm a Christian white male. I won't vote democrat because they literally hate me. I would have made an exception for Bernie though.
We all complain about this crap, but we also elect the same sorts of folks who allow it. Over and over again. There were plenty of viable primary challengers this time around who refuse corporate PAC money. Most lost. For all the talk nobody shows up to vote, or if they do they vote the incumbent because they want to be safe, stay the course.
Change often starts at the top. Both Clintons and Trump are both amazingly corrupt. Bernie would have been better but he was kept out by a corrupt Democratic National Party apparatus that had already decided who should be picked. Better luck next time.
3D printed guns are much like the ever feared, at least in Kommiefornia, .50 cal sniper rifle. Both have not been used in crimes yet get inordinate amounts of press.
What basic psychology I ever learned said precisely this...
Basic psychology is also clear that men want one style of job and women another, but that won't stop the tirade of 'tech hates women' and 'diversity'.
If you believe in a supernatural deity, you're a theist. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. It really is that simple.
To a binary thinker yes, it is.
I hope that the conflation of illegal immigrant vs legal immigrant data gets policed. That debate has seen enough falsely trying to characterize illegals, who largely are bad news almost regardless of metric, with legal ones, who are largely good along most metrics.
the world is run by corporations, not people. corporations are run by shareholders. a large part of the stock game is run by algorithms calculating and trading stocks for maximum efficiency. that algorithm does not care about the weather or the long term suitability of our planet.
Really the world is run by billionaires. If you established a pact that if [bad thing happens] happens a given number of billionaires and their heirs would die then you would see change. If they thought that they would be hunted down bin Laden style change would happen in a hurry. Until then they figure that they can always buy a safe place no matter what and are thus immune.
All you're really doing at that point is pushing conformity, because your idea of what's "better" is going to diverge a lot. I think it'll be gamed, I think it'll be abused, and I think there will be companies that are absolutely obsessed with the technology. Sort of like the way people fixate on personality tests or blood nicotine levels now. It's one more thing for corporate america to waste their money on. The good news, is that you'll be able to spot the crazy ones. And just ignore any company that insists on using it as part of their hiring process.
I think it will be used as a tool to promote diversity. Much easier to fake this data than real world examples of your skills. It will be much less overtly racist, unlike the (white males | Asian males) need not apply system that we have now.
Sadly, the courts have allowed the Federal government for decades to do things outside its scope and power. The limitation of the Federal Government's power listed in the constitution no longer has any relationship to what the government does, and our judges do not care.
What you mean to say is that the Federal courts, including the Federal Supreme Court, have allowed the Federal government free reign. Since the Feds get to decide the limits of their own power is it any surprise that they generally side with themselves and not the states? Doubly so after FDR successfully bullied the Commerce Clause to be applied to literally anything.
you're missing the point, the USA has even bigger body count doing evil than China, and supports a theocracy that engages in systematic oppression and genocide.
I assume you have data to back this up? Mao was responsible for ~45 million deaths. What did the US do to achieve that number?
given the massive amount of automation we're currently doing. We're going to run out of work here. When that happens we either take care of people who do nothing or let them starve. If you do that in a country with an army you'll have wars. Big ones. They'll come to your house to take your stuff. Or you'll get conscripted into an army to do the taking. Meanwhile you'll have fascist dictatorships spring up when they promise food to the starving masses. You're talking about billions of people with nothing to lose and access to modern military weapons. That's not going to end well for anybody.
I keep hearing about the end of jobs yet when I look around I see no end of things that need to be done. What I hate about UBI is that it's something for nothing, which is never a good policy. If we're going to pay people, why not get something back? For example there are literally millions of lonely old people. Make them visit them and keep them company to qualify for UBI. Make them pick up litter or clean up graffiti. No end of tasks, just an unwillingness to ask something because it's easier to just write the check rather than make the world a better place.
But they're also going to be straddled with a "if you don't work you don't eat" culture.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Let's look at the opposite to see if that's good - you do nothing and we'll take care of you. Does that sound like a good sustainable path to you?
It is a well written piece, backed by reasoned arguments, but the conclusion is not obviously correct. When a word's primary use is an insult, it is not surprising that someone does not take kindly to a doctor using the term in a technically correct but unfamiliar usage.
Rehabilitating words does not seem like an easy thing. Would we have good examples of success there?
There are some examples of words getting embraced. Gay and queer come to mind, though that demographic benefits from the media and Hollywood's love of gays and pedophiles so it's less likely that retard would succeed. However we do have many examples of a medical term devolving into an insult. Let's face it, there will always be retards no matter what we call them. Coming up with a new term each generation seems like a waste of time. That was the point.
PC thinking is fundamentally a denial of reality. Does going from idiot to retard to intellectually disabled actually change anything? Will there always be some who are cruel enough to mock the downs kids no matter what the official term is? Rather than deny reality why not work within it?
In the field of medicine, people renamed a whole bunch of disorders (e.g. Aspergers) because they were named after Nazis. Nobody threw this big of a tantrum.
I present the medical term retarded as a counter example of people throwing a fit over medical terms. If you like there's a great article about the silliness of appeasing the easily offended as the new words then become offenders themselves. https://medium.com/s/story/the...
Sorry your such a fucking idiot.
Ah the irony of being called a fucking idiot by someone with grammar mistakes. It's like a compliment.
I wonder how that will be interpreted
... also known as "being polite."
You can try and equate the two but it isn't true. One can be polite and still discuss master / slave on USB and other appropriate topics. One cannot be politically correct and do the same.