# San Francisco creates PC terms to protect criminals from "hate speech".



## morvoran (Aug 23, 2019)

GOOD NEWS, EVERYBODY!!!  Those of us who may or may not download software illegally are no longer to be call "Pirates".  We are to be referred to as "Persons who are involved in the downloading of digital media."  Thanks to San Francisco we can now erase the stigmatization of illegally downloading software, so we will no longer be thought of as criminals.  Maybe GBAtemp will change its rules to reflect this change? (No, I am not being serious.)

--------
From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The words “felon,” “offender,” “convict,” “addict” and “juvenile delinquent” would be part of the past in official San Francisco parlance under new “person first” language guidelines adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

Going forward, what was once called a convicted felon or an offender released from jail will be a “formerly incarcerated person,” or a “justice-involved” person or simply a “returning resident.”

Parolees and people on criminal probation will be referred to as a “person on parole,” or “person under supervision.”

A juvenile “delinquent” will become a “young person with justice system involvement,” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”

And drug addicts or substance abusers will become “a person with a history of substance use.”

“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor *Matt Haney *said.
--------

My favorite is the drug addicts one.  Now instead of calling my siblings meth heads, I will now call them people with history of substance abuse.

I would like to know your opinion on this matter.  Is this just going to far or was this needed to protect our "persons with justice system involvement" to be protected from "hate speech" in order to assimilate back into society?


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2019)

Has this sort of thing ever worked to achieve much of anything? I tend to look more to the mental health world and the historical cycling of terms there.

After invalid fell out of fashion (not sure when as I have cook books going to about the 70s using it, though those look like older things getting reprints or reused for device bundled cook books) we got retard.

Retard is not so popular any more (to some it probably joins cunt in terms of words that might get you in trouble, though UK wise cunt is rather milder than in the US) so we got special needs, though for some this too enjoys diminished status.

On the street then at least in the UK we got... not sure how it was spelled but thalid/flid (as in thalidomide baby, which is odd because a lot of those were just physical), retard got popular for a while though even by the 90s and 2000s that was frowned upon, cripple was always fun (you also have the Cockney rhyming slang raspberry, as in raspberry ripple. Though today you will likely hear it more as raspberry spot for disabled parking space), and some time back I heard the term scopey (one of the bigger disability charities in the UK is called Scope). I had left schools by the time autism and Asperger's (then a separate diagnosis, by some measures still is but probably not for long) became known to more than psychiatrists but dyslexia at least was commonly known (if few accommodations made) so not sure what goes there.

Trying to keep straight the list of names for user of the mental healthcare system also gets fun -- I only have minor interactions with such things and trying to keep straight the distinction between patient, resident, service user and the half dozen other preferred terms for people what are in receipt of mental healthcare treatment, observation or assistance in a given facility is no fun at all, especially when getting it wrong (not in front of a patient either*) might get you the classic sharp intake of breath.

*one time I was helping a shift lead (not a terribly computery person) at some elderly care facility make a spreadsheet to fill in observations a doctor asked for. I tap in patient name at the top as you do and proceed to figure out the meat of the project. Much like I had someone get hyper focused on the background colour of a website once she pretty much defocused there and almost got twitchy before informing me of the "error" some minute and a half later.


Anyway usual boo those that would try to police my words for no particular reason or gain (such that there ever is one).


----------



## DBlaze (Aug 23, 2019)

"We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done"
So what do we call killers, rapists and pedophiles?
"Person with involvement of taking ones life", "Person who was formerly extremely sexually frustrated" and "Person who used to love kids a little too much"?


----------



## Paulsar99 (Aug 23, 2019)

Lol would this really change anything? Murder is murder, rape is rape, robbery is robbery, and so on.


----------



## b17bomber (Aug 23, 2019)

Glad to see the city is tackling the important issues, besides pesky things like dung on the streets and rampant homelessness.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 23, 2019)

Unleanone999 said:


> Lol would this really change anything? Murder is murder, rape is rape, robbery is robbery, and so on.


Careful, your logic may trigger a leftist.  They'll be like, "Um, excuse me, we don't use those right wing racist hate terms around here.  We prefer legally aborting an over developed fetus, exercising your right to love somebody, and spreading the wealth of others to the less fortunate."




b17bomber said:


> Glad to see the city is tackling the important issues, besides pesky things like dung on the streets and rampant homelessness.


Why fix the issues when you can just spin the meaning of words to make people think everything's fine?  Dung on the streets is now "street fertilizer" and homelessness is "new age camping".


----------



## Bullseye (Aug 23, 2019)

This is just utter nonsense... but wanting Trump dead and hating on him and calling him names is still ok... 

Double morale...


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Aug 23, 2019)

That's ridiculous but not surprising. Pregnant women are now in some places called "pregnant people".

Women are the only ones who can actually get pregnant. Men can't.


----------



## Panzerfaust (Aug 23, 2019)

thats already a thing in germany. if the media refers to "a man" or "a group of men" then you can be 100% sure it's someone who is not german. mostly middle-easterns, arabs or africans. they say "sea rescue" but in reality it's smuggling. the call ppl refugees, but in reality most of them are undocumented immigrants, who are mostly healthy young men. i guess black / african / afroamerican ppl are now colored ppl here, but I'm not sure, cause it changes everytime. saying "gypsies" is also racist here, the are now "gyratory europeans" (I dont know, whether I translated it correct or not. such stupid shit can only exist here). the list goes on and on. A good friend of mine is a research assistent in math at an university and he is forced to use gender neutral language in the tests and emails he's writing. This crippled crap is so far away from beeing german, that it's realy hard to understand for a normal person.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 23, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> Women are the only ones who can actually get pregnant. Men can't.


 What about transgender men? They can get pregnant.  This is most likely the reason for saying "pregnant people".



Panzerfaust said:


> thats already a thing in germany. if the media refers to "a man" or "a group of men" then you can be 100% sure it's someone who is not german.


That is how the "news" is in the US as well.  If a person of color commits a crime, it's a man or a woman.  If a white person did it, they are labeled a white supremacist who committed a hate crime.  Very biased media here in the states.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 23, 2019)

b17bomber said:


> Glad to see the city is tackling the important issues, besides pesky things like dung on the streets and rampant homelessness.




I think you meant to say "facilities location confusion" and "residence challenged." 

Check that privilege.


----------



## Josshy0125 (Aug 23, 2019)

This is so silly. Next thing you know murderers will fight for their right to be called "body puncturers" or something because being called a murderer is too demeaning. What the fuck is up with the world and their obsession over subtle things regarding identity these days? Its absolutely ludacris!


----------



## Viri (Aug 23, 2019)

If I break into your house, am I an "undocumented home owner"?


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 23, 2019)

here's the source:

https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...upervisors-sanitizes-language-of-14292255.php


I've read a lot about "person-first" words. The  goal is to have people known as having an attribute/descriptor, not to be known as that attribute or only by that attribute/descriptor. You're putting the person first instead, attribute/descriptor secondary. The thinking being this will get people to see the person as they truly are; just a human person who has this thing going on along with the rest of their ilfe, rather than them being encompassed by a particular label. Folks aren't just one single "thing".

I've only seen one research paper on the issue and it didn't seem to help too much in the one particular instance they tested for, but it might prove beneficial in a more general way (it was a tiny study anyway).

I dunno, it's something. I mean, I can understand wanting to do this in an official capacity, to be as accurate as possible. Which is all this really is; a desire for accuracy and clarity. It's not going to hurt anything. The goals are valid enough, though don't know how successful it'll be. 

after reading the article, the goal in this particular case is so folks that have been rehabilitated and are trying to find jobs or become contributing members of society can do so without this stigma. They did their time, they served their sentence, and are still stuck as "criminal". Thus the wanting to change the language a little bit to help the problem. not sure it'll work, but can't hurt to try.


----------



## Viri (Aug 23, 2019)

Panzerfaust said:


> thats already a thing in germany. if the media refers to "a man" or "a group of men" then you can be 100% sure it's someone who is not german. mostly middle-easterns, arabs or africans. they say "sea rescue" but in reality it's smuggling. the call ppl refugees, but in reality most of them are undocumented immigrants, who are mostly healthy young men. i guess black / african / afroamerican ppl are now colored ppl here, but I'm not sure, cause it changes everytime. saying "gypsies" is also racist here, the are now "gyratory europeans" (I dont know, whether I translated it correct or not. such stupid shit can only exist here). the list goes on and on. A good friend of mine is a research assistent in math at an university and he is forced to use gender neutral language in the tests and emails he's writing. This crippled crap is so far away from beeing german, that it's realy hard to understand for a normal person.


Something like that happened here too. Gee, I wonder what race they are...!

Also, if I was one of the victims, I'd be pretty livid at this decision. I bet they continued to do it, because why not? The city is going to give you special treatment.

If you're part of a group, and robbing people, you deserve to be shamed on camera. IMO, doing stuff like this actually causes even more racism.



Spoiler



https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2...illance-videos-of-crime-to-avoid-stereotypes/


----------



## morvoran (Aug 23, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Can't see what's wrong with that.


So what you're saying is that, for example, we shouldn't label Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibalistic murderer, rather, he was a "person of exquisite taste for exotic meats who prematurely put other persons to rest"?  I think it's best to call a duck what it is, a duck.


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 23, 2019)

morvoran said:


> So what you're saying is that, for example, we shouldn't label Jeffrey Dahmer a cannibalistic murderer, rather, he was a "person of exquisite taste for exotic meats who prematurely put other persons to rest"?  I think it's best to call a duck what it is, a duck.



that's definitely not the goal, method, or situation that's outlined in the article. And I doubt Jeffrey Dahmer would ever have gotten out of prison . The focus is obviously on reformed criminals, troubled youths, and the like. Because currently, once you get into the system, you're far far more likely to return to the system. It has a way of institutionalizing you. This is an attempt to help people actually be free on the outside once they're out.

again, i'm not sure how successful this will be. applaud the goal, uncertain of the means. But it makes sense, so long as you restrict it to this specific purpose.


----------



## dAVID_ (Aug 23, 2019)

I think the same logic behind this is the same logic behind the following hypothetical statement:
If we out law the use of the word "n****" then racism will no longer be an issue.
Discrimination is not just a matter of how you speak to other people, it is inherently a cultural problem.
I'm not saying that referring to black people by "n****" is acceptable, just that discrimination isn't such a simple issue.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 23, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> that's definitely not the goal, method, or situation that's outlined in the article


This is the very last line of the article---
“We don’t want people to be forever labeled for the worst things that they have done,” Supervisor *Matt Haney *said.

What I said seems to be exactly the goal of this situation.


----------



## Xzi (Aug 23, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> I think the same logic behind this is the same logic behind the following hypothetical statement:
> If we out law the use of the word "n****" then racism will no longer be an issue.
> Discrimination is not just a matter of how you speak to other people, it is inherently a cultural problem.
> I'm not saying that referring to black people by "n****" is acceptable, just that discrimination isn't such a simple issue.


It is a pretty simple issue in the end: discrimination is a means by which to keep the working class divided and fighting over scraps so they don't organize to overthrow the people taking the whole pie for themselves.

This story in particular is boring though, usually the only local news worth discussing comes from Florida.


----------



## FAST6191 (Aug 23, 2019)

Viri said:


> If I break into your house, am I an "undocumented home owner"?


That is a matter of time and realisation. Squatter's rights or adverse possession might well come into play there.

https://homeguides.sfgate.com/squatters-rights-law-california-45887.html

If you can stay there and making property tax payments for 5 years you might well become the new owner.


----------



## chrisrlink (Aug 24, 2019)

i think it's more to do with discrimination of felons in the workforce tbh like it or not ex cons need to work and eat too snd what they say about "this will not count against you in employment opportunities is complete bullshit just to cover theirs asses in a lawsuit it's like you can fire a guy because he's black or asian as long as that isn't the "real" (as on the termination report)  reason for firing them


----------



## Maq47 (Aug 24, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> I think the same logic behind this is the same logic behind the following hypothetical statement:
> If we out law the use of the word "n****" then racism will no longer be an issue.
> Discrimination is not just a matter of how you speak to other people, it is inherently a cultural problem.
> I'm not saying that referring to black people by "n****" is acceptable, just that discrimination isn't such a simple issue.


I'm Caucasian, and your words offend me. /s


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 24, 2019)

I dont get it, who are these "guidelines" for, the local courts?


----------



## DuoForce (Aug 24, 2019)

San Fransisco is a fucking joke of a city.  San Andreas fault needs to erupt already


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Aug 24, 2019)

I defffffinitely did not get to page two.....still better than Tronald Dump.
Moving right along,


FAST6191 said:


> Has this sort of thing ever worked to achieve much of anything?



Yes, people (in the U.S.) are pretty dumb.
Dove & Pigeon VS. Ex-con & formerly incarcerated person.

The real deal will affect



Spoiler: Optional comedy






 




Chuckle up.

----


WeedZ said:


> I dont get it, who are these "guidelines" for, the local courts?



Probably prospective employers.


----------



## CMDreamer (Aug 24, 2019)

Now this comes to context:


----------



## Dungeonseeker (Aug 24, 2019)

The world is going to shit...

Last week a very prominent sports presenter here in England said, and I quote...



> That's a very hair raising start to the season, unless of course you happen to be Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy



The joke being Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy are bald. Now Alan and Danny found this to be very funny and laughed their asses off, unfortunately the viewers didn't. The SJW brigade attacked him on Twitter for being prejudice towards bald people.

It was a fucking joke morons. And FTR that was me being prejudice towards them. 

Idiocracy is slowly changing from a comedy to a documentary.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> What about transgender men? They can get pregnant.  This is most likely the reason for saying "pregnant people".


Why not just pregnant woman if it's a woman and pregnant man if it's a man? No need to degender people when context exists.
It's ironic they want to degender people for the sake of including trans people, when trans people are the ones who care the most about gender acknowledgement.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 24, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Why not just pregnant woman if it's a woman and pregnant man if it's a man? No need to degender people when context exists.
> It's ironic they want to degender people for the sake of including trans people, when trans people are the ones who care the most about gender acknowledgement.



I am on your side of this matter and agree we need to stick to the two gender societal norms, but to the left, it is discriminating to use "gendered" language of any kind as it's unfair/unkind to the 60+ genders they believe there are.  We aren't allowed to say "mankind", it's "personkind".  No longer call policemen, firemen, or congressmen by those hateful names, it's policeperson, fireperson, and congressperson.

This way of thinking is starting to spread to other factions of society which is why San Francisco is changing more terms.


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 24, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I am on your side of this matter and agree we need to stick to the two gender societal norms, but to the left, it is discriminating to use "gendered" language of any kind as it's unfair/unkind to the 60+ genders they believe there are.  We aren't allowed to say "mankind", it's "personkind".  No longer call policemen, firemen, or congressmen by those hateful names, it's policeperson, fireperson, and congressperson.
> 
> This way of thinking is starting to spread to other factions of society which is why San Francisco is changing more terms.


humankind, actually. police-officer, firefighter, and congress...congressman/congresswoman. Don't think they've offered a better terminology than that. I'm cool with congressperson though.

I mean, if you have issues with things, that's fine. But at least get the details right or you're just arguing with yourself.


----------



## Deleted-481927 (Aug 24, 2019)

Saiyan Lusitano said:


> That's ridiculous but not surprising. Pregnant women are now in some places called "pregnant people".
> 
> Women are the only ones who can actually get pregnant. Men can't.



non binary people who are assigned female at birth can, which is what its meaning.


----------



## DCG (Aug 25, 2019)

CMDreamer said:


> Now this comes to context:



Honk-Honk.
Welcome in clown world 
Seriously, I think the west is dying...


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> humankind, actually. police-officer, firefighter, and congress...congressman/congresswoman. Don't think they've offered a better terminology than that. I'm cool with congressperson though.
> 
> I mean, if you have issues with things, that's fine. But at least get the details right or you're just arguing with yourself.



*Sigh* Sorry, I forgot to add that I was poking fun at silly leftists and how they say silly things.  Forgot that I have to explain myself for people that don't recognize humor.

For your reference:
*Justin Trudeau tells woman to say 'peoplekind' not 'mankind'
*
Can't get further to the left than that person.


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> *Sigh* Sorry, I forgot to add that I was poking fun at silly leftists and how they say silly things.  Forgot that I have to explain myself for people that don't recognize humor.
> 
> For your reference:
> *Justin Trudeau tells woman to say 'peoplekind' not 'mankind'*
> ...


....did you read the article? You should read the article.

the "silly" part of the left is hardly the whole. Same as the right has the bonkers fundamentalist, the left also has some bonkers folk. The similarity between the two extremes is in their lack of understanding of how the world works to a painful degree. 

The trick is to not confuse the fringe for the mainstream. Also to be able to separate an idea, method, or goal from a particular "team". This ain't competitive sports, this is cooperative play. Also best not to confuse politians with actual ideologies.

This topic has a very limited, very specific goal. Help ex-convict become productive members of society by helping remove an unnecessary stigma. Will it work? who knows. But I don't think it's a bad goal to try for.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 27, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> ....did you read the article? You should read the article.
> 
> the "silly" part of the left is hardly the whole. Same as the right has the bonkers fundamentalist, the left also has some bonkers folk. The similarity between the two extremes is in their lack of understanding of how the world works to a painful degree.
> 
> ...


That's _Sapir_-_Whorf_ hypothesis stuff. I think a linguist like Steven Pinker can give good insight in this. You can look to racist language and people trying to control it to see if it works. The n word was banned and stigmatized. A new word came in. But people ended up using that new word in a negative context and it became stigmatized too. Its a never ending process. Then a new word, people of color, came in to replace that new word. The only reason people of color is not banned and considered offensive 20 yrs after is because a change of culture and not a change of language as Steven Pinker says. Its culture you need to change not language if you want to see progress, if not then new words that come in will be the new word to be used in a negative context and become the new offensive word in a never ending loop.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

This is literally nothing, it was non-binding to begin with, and it's not implemented and never will be.  According to THE SAN FRANSISCO CHRONICLE: 

The nonbinding resolution passed last month.

The mayor didn’t sign off on the new language proposal.

Mayor *London Breed *“doesn’t implement policies based on nonbinding resolutions, but she is always happy to work with the board on issues around equity and criminal justice reform,” said her spokesman, *Jeff Cretan*."


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> ....did you read the article? You should read the article.


  Yes, I read it.  Seemed to describe the situation without taking sides, but I did forgot whom the audience was.  I only sourced it to show that I wasn't just making my own "new words" as it seemed you were thinking, but rather, a far left leaning person, who I would think is well known, making his own words up and "forcing" them on someone.



osaka35 said:


> This topic has a very limited, very specific goal. Help ex-convict become productive members of society by helping remove an unnecessary stigma. Will it work? who knows. But I don't think it's a bad goal to try for.


 Will it work? No.  It is a bad goal and all wrong when you try to change what words should be used and force others to use them.  
These terms may not be forced upon us now, but it sets a bad precedent for the future if society ever gets that low.  Thank God that the US has freedom of speech.  
I hate to think of a day when if a loved one is murdered, during my interview with a cop, I state that the perp was a "murderer", and I get arrested or fined for my "hate speech".  You think this is non-sense, look at what happens in the UK when "misgendering" a transgender person. 



yuyuyup said:


> This is literally nothing, it was non-binding to begin with, and it's not implemented and never will be.


Hopefully, every thing you said will stay true.  The fact that it made it to the Mayor to be signed off on in the first place shows how low society in places like California is falling.  When people want to force their own "language" on others and the government agrees, we will have lost our great country.  That, truly, frightens me.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Hopefully, every thing you said will stay true.  The fact that it made it to the Mayor to be signed off on in the first place shows how low society in places like California is falling.  When people want to force their own "language" on others and the government agrees, we will have lost our great country.  That, truly, frightens me.



Well it's too bad that articles like this become proliferated without mentioning that part, the part that in the liberal town of SAN FRANSISCO, the mayor refuses to implement it.  The resolution was never intended to actually be implemented, the people who passed it aren't that stupid.  It was passed as a call for treating ex-cons like human beings, so they can GET A JOB, instead of SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT TIT for the rest of their lives.  But gee, that's just my 2 cents


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> The resolution was never intended to actually be implemented, the people who passed it aren't that stupid.


. When their idea of fixing a problem is to cover it up with new words instead of going after the root of the issue, yeah, that can be classified as "stupid".   Eventually, and quite possibly, these new terms could be stigmatized and hurt more people than they help.



yuyuyup said:


> It was passed as a call for treating ex-cons like human beings, so they can GET A JOB, instead of SUCKING ON THE GOVERNMENT TIT for the rest of their lives.


 I 100% agree that if you do your time, you should be allowed to re-enter society.  Trying to add criminals into a system of protected groups is where I disagree.  Next, people will try to do away with the sex offender registry because it harms a pedophile's ability to become a daycare worker or nanny.  

I don't have the "right" answer here, but I can say that this idea is stupid.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Aug 27, 2019)

b17bomber said:


> Glad to see the city is tackling the important issues, besides pesky things like dung on the streets and rampant homelessness.


They did start getting help for homeless who have family's that could be contacted (so they could sign them up to be institutionalized), but they need to get them all help, no matter if they say they don't need it, at least until they've been on meds for a bit and can make a decision for themselves, also they do things like this, but no one is actully going to use the pc terms....


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 27, 2019)

can we please stop saying people were "banned" from gbatemp and just refer to them as "
sharers of legally questionable content who are no longer members of the community" or " member with lack of consciousness programmed to mass-post helpful links to purchase items from their creators store for the purposes of generating commission".....its just flows of the tongue much better


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I don't have the "right" answer here, but I can say that this idea is stupid.


 Let's look at the header of the "resolution" itself:

"Resolution recognizing the harmful impacts of the institutionalization of the use of pejorative
language to refer to formerly incarcerated people, and urging the City and County of San Francisco to adopt person-first language. "

Oh man they want to urge the city to adopt "person-first language."  Is it really so wrong for politicians to urge the language?  Is this REALLY a slippery slope to normalizing pedophiles?  That seems like fear mongering, and it sounds like you're trying to ascribe such things to liberals.  Trump's Attorney General William Barr's father hired Epstein to be a highschool teacher, JUST SAYIN


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 27, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Let's look at the header of the "resolution" itself:
> 
> "Resolution recognizing the harmful impacts of the institutionalization of the use of pejorative
> language to refer to formerly incarcerated people, and urging the City and County of San Francisco to adopt person-first language. "
> ...


as has been the case with things like "retard" as a pejorative changing the word will not change the problem, you just change the pejorative to whatever new word/term you make, yeah even when you say something like "special" it still will always end up being used as a pejorative because its the core idea itself your at odds with not the word, the word used to refer to the thing in question is incidental, if you want to change people minds, try to change their minds, there is no shortcut by changing the word

like saying "people are scared of snakes and thats bad, so we will rename all snakes fluffies instead because it sounds nicer......give it time and "fluffies" will be used with the exact same connotations as snake, if people are going to be scared of snakes, it really doesn't matter what word you label them as people will just learn to be scared of fluffies too, and all your doing is making more "bad words"


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> as has been the case with things like "retard" as a pejorative changing the word will not change the problem, you just change the pejorative to whatever new word/term you make, yeah even when you say something like "special" it still will always end up being used as a pejorative because its the core idea itself your at odds with not the word, the word used to refer to the thing in question is incidental, if you want to change people minds, try to change their minds, there is no shortcut by changing the word
> 
> like saying "people are scared of snakes and thats bad, so we will rename all snakes fluffies instead because it sounds nicer......give it time and "fluffies" will be used with the exact same connotations as snake, if people are going to be scared of snakes, it really doesn't matter what word you label them as people will just learn to be scared of fluffies too, and all your doing is making more "bad words"


 Well you might be right, but that doesn't mean it's a slippery slope into normalizing pedophilia, I'm sorry but that's outrageous.  Many "slippery slopes" have failed to occur throughout history; the slippery slope of gay marriage normalization, interracial marriage, banishing slavery, etc.  (Abolishing slavery was said to be a slippery slope on the path to doom all "protective institutions.")  We aren't talking about abolishing frickin slavery here, we're talking about a NON-BINDING resolution, which will NOT be implemented, to URGE inclusive language, IN SAN FRANSISCO (I don't think they would be up-in-arms if this was actually implemented.)  Would it be effective?  Harmful in other ways?  It doesn't really matter to me, because it's moot.  This is being blown WAAAAAAAAY out of proportion in order to lash out at the SJWs.  But I mean, THIS is the big outrage?  Over a non-binding resolution that was tits-up before it was even passed?  Geez


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> Is this REALLY a slippery slope to normalizing pedophiles?


 pedos have been trying to "snake" (or "fluffy" as snakes are now called) their way into the LGBTQ+ community for years.  Look at the promoted quotes, "love is love" & "love has no age".  These were actually added to several LGBT events.  I'm not saying this is the purpose of the resolution, but people find ways to attach their agendas to things.



yuyuyup said:


> Oh man they want to urge the city to adopt "person-first language." Is it really so wrong for politicians to urge the language?


 Yes, it is wrong for the government to control or change speech.  That is society's job.



yuyuyup said:


> This is being blown WAAAAAAAAY out of proportion in order to lash out at the SJWs


 This is a thread in a subcategory of a forum on a gaming related website that's not truly a "mainstream" site.  Calm down, we're not changing the world.  It's not like we're on the floor of Congress.  We're having a discussion, not creating laws.


----------



## tabzer (Aug 27, 2019)

I'm still interested in seeing the death penalty for "adults with who have demonstrated peculiar interest in adolescents."


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> pedos have been trying to "snake" (or "fluffy" as snakes are now called) their way into the LGBTQ+ community for years.  Look at the promoted quotes, "love is love" & "love has no age".  These were actually added to several LGBT events.  I'm not saying this is the purpose of the resolution, but people find ways to attach their agendas to things.


 May I have the proof of pedophiles added to LGBT events


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> May I have the proof of pedophiles added to LGBT events


Here's one about a Snapchat filter to promote pride month.

*Snapchat releases pro-pedophilia “love has no age” filter for LGBTQP Pride Month designed to normalize adults “hooking up” with children*


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 27, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Here's one about a Snapchat filter to promote pride month.
> 
> *Snapchat releases pro-pedophilia “love has no age” filter for LGBTQP Pride Month designed to normalize adults “hooking up” with children*


I looked up the filter, it seems to have originated from the "Ad Council," I agree that "age" was a terrible inclusion.  If this wasn't just a mistake, then I think it's fair to ask if there are further examples of pushing pedophilia from this campaign?  Because if we're being honest, out of the context of DIFFERENT ages, there are examples of appropriate age-related advocacy (for instance, elderly are having more sex these days, and it would be important to inform this age group of STD risks/protection.)  We might differ on this, but I'd sooner believe they were trying to include such age-related advocacy in the "no labels" umbrella, and didn't consider the obvious implication.  The "Love Has No Labels" campaign is backed by major corporations (P&G, etc.)  Do the P&G shareholders really want to push for normalizing pedophiles, or are they trying to sell soap/dog food/candy/tv dinners/etc etc.  I don't think that risking a huge push for pedophilia is worth the risk to the stockholders.  They did pull the terrible filter, so if this was deliberate, it's a bizarre way to implement such subterfuge.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 27, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I looked up the filter, it seems to have originated from the "Ad Council," I agree that "age" was a terrible inclusion.  If this wasn't just a mistake, then I think it's fair to ask if there are further examples of pushing pedophilia from this campaign?  Because if we're being honest, out of the context of DIFFERENT ages, there are examples of appropriate age-related advocacy (for instance, elderly are having more sex these days, and it would be important to inform this age group of STD risks/protection.)  We might differ on this, but I'd sooner believe they were trying to include such age-related advocacy in the "no labels" umbrella, and didn't consider the obvious implication.  The "Love Has No Labels" campaign is backed by major corporations (P&G, etc.)  Do the P&G shareholders really want to push for normalizing pedophiles, or are they trying to sell soap/dog food/candy/tv dinners/etc etc.  I don't think that risking a huge push for pedophilia is worth the risk to the stockholders.  They did pull the terrible filter, so if this was deliberate, it's a bizarre way to implement such subterfuge.


This all sounds like a discussion for another thread as it's swaying away from the actual topic.

If you're interested in pedos, try searching for yourself. The proof is out there.  I won't provide you with a cover sheet with a NAMBLA header or go undercover to provide video of them trying to infiltrate the LGBT community.
When they say "love has no labels", how can this not be leading to a slippery slope?  Inter-racial relationships were once taboo, now accepted. Same with same sex relationships.  Now transgender (which has been, and still is, considered a mental disorder in science) is now considered as a minority group and accepted.  With accepting that "love is love", "love has no age", "love has no labels", how long until people start to accept "the love between a kid and adult" as acceptable and "progressive"?
This is why we need to call a duck a duck, a snake a snake, a junkie a junkie, a criminal a criminal, and a pedo a pedo.  Any deviation from what is right and moral will always lead to immoral becoming the new moral.

As far as P&G is concerned, if they could exploit and make money from it, they would endorse pedophilia in a heartbeat. Corporations are not a good source of morality as money is the root of all evil and that's all they truly care about.  Look at how Gillette lost them $8billion with the toxic masculinity campaign.  They dropped that topic like a hot brick because they were losing money regardless of it being "the right thing to do".


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That's _Sapir_-_Whorf_ hypothesis stuff. I think a linguist like Steven Pinker can give good insight in this. You can look to racist language and people trying to control it to see if it works. The n word was banned and stigmatized. A new word came in. But people ended up using that new word in a negative context and it became stigmatized too. Its a never ending process. Then a new word, people of color, came in to replace that new word. The only reason people of color is not banned and considered offensive 20 yrs after is because a change of culture and not a change of language as Steven Pinker says. Its culture you need to change not language if you want to see progress, if not then new words that come in will be the new word to be used in a negative context and become the new offensive word in a never ending loop.


there are far more opinions than just pinker  his stuff is usually close to being sound, but always leaves out a few things here and there to stay in the same position. you've got to expand your readings. I've read his stuff, and while he makes good points, they're incomplete points. kind of like nihilist points of view. not wrong necessarily, just incomplete.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Here's one about a Snapchat filter to promote pride month.
> 
> *Snapchat releases pro-pedophilia “love has no age” filter for LGBTQP Pride Month designed to normalize adults “hooking up” with children*


"If you support the LGBTQ agenda, you also support pedophilia and child rape"

"the Cult of LGBTQ"

You talk a lot about people being brainwashed by propaganda. If this is the kind of sources you look to for current events, you might want to take a step back and reevaluate. This stuff is straight poison for people looking to reinforce their hate.

Outright biased viewpoints and expressions, very hateful, and just garbage. This is coming from someone that is against PC culture.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 28, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> there are far more opinions than just pinker  his stuff is usually close to being sound, but always leaves out a few things here and there to stay in the same position. you've got to expand your readings. I've read his stuff, and while he makes good points, they're incomplete points. kind of like nihilist points of view. not wrong necessarily, just incomplete.


That's true for about anyone. There's always something someone is going to leave out. So your not going to do much by telling me this, and instead you can just bring up an opposing view instead of saying there's more than just Pinker. And I know all about more opinions than Pinker, I've been debating topics for a long time to know not just to settle for one, so no need to educate me on that.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> This all sounds like a discussion for another thread as it's swaying away from the actual topic.
> 
> If you're interested in pedos, try searching for yourself. The proof is out there.  I won't provide you with a cover sheet with a NAMBLA header or go undercover to provide video of them trying to infiltrate the LGBT community.
> When they say "love has no labels", how can this not be leading to a slippery slope?  Inter-racial relationships were once taboo, now accepted. Same with same sex relationships.  Now transgender (which has been, and still is, considered a mental disorder in science) is now considered as a minority group and accepted.  With accepting that "love is love", "love has no age", "love has no labels", how long until people start to accept "the love between a kid and adult" as acceptable and "progressive"?
> ...


Well gee I'm not sure you have much standing when it comes to what's right and moral, you left out incredibly pertinent details about the original San Fransisco Chronicle article.  Why wouldn't you be entirely up-front about this article?  Why create an entire discussion thread, but try to obfuscate crucial points?  Doesn't seem very productive, or right, or moral.


----------



## osaka35 (Aug 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That's true for about anyone. There's always something someone is going to leave out. So your not going to do much by telling me this, and instead you can just bring up an opposing view instead of saying there's more than just Pinker. And I know all about more opinions than Pinker, I've been debating topics for a long time to know not just to settle for one, so no need to educate me on that.


Thinking about it, it seems like It doesn't usually work for the generation which commonly uses the unnecessary language, but the next generation tends to not latch on as much. Sometimes. depends on the issues it came from and if the issues are still present and to what degree. You can see this in how older folk tend to keep their problematic language and its intent, without a thought for the damage it does because they honestly think "it didn't mean anything bad back then". 

The thing being left out I alluded to before: Language usage is different given different age/etc groups, and a change of language can help improve things in the future, if not immediately. 

Another thing being left out: It's a push in the right direction, if done properly. but you are correct, there is a natural tendency for pushback. But you shouldn't confuse "natural" with "good". sometimes you have to accommodate for certain natural tendencies for things like tribalism or adverseness to change, but this shouldn't be confused with fighting an unwinnable or dumb battle. 

etc., etc.

Word usage tends to trend with usefulness. if a word's usefulness is destructive/hateful in nature, social pressures will attempt to move to a non-destructive/hate word. But it's slow and painful at times, especially if the destructiveness/hatefulness is aimed at a group not as powerful as the one using the word. Because people suck.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 28, 2019)

WeedZ said:


> If this is the kind of sources you look to for current events, you might want to take a step back and reevaluate. This stuff is straight poison for people looking to reinforce their hate.


 Let's play two lies and a truth..... 

1. I am an evil crab person using subterfuge on GBAtemp to cause a civil war amongst you deplorable humans.  I accidentally exposed my ulterior motive.

2. I have been brainwashed by "hate" sites and have been pushing their agenda by brainwashing leftist to our side.

3. I didn't read the article, didn't know anything about the source that I never have been on before, or even notice that they put a "p" in the LGBTQP in the title of the story.  I do not like having a bunch of searches for pedo stuff in my Google search history and gave the first source I saw for the "love has no age" issue to give an example yuyuyup was asking for.  That's why I stated if they wanted more examples to look it up themselves. My only reason for sourcing that site was only to provide evidence of my prior statement and never intended to push an agenda or rhetoric with that source.  Regardless if you see this as an excuse or reason, that is the situation.  
Still the Snapchat filter using a pedo term was real, used by the LGBTQ, and the source was evidence as such.  I'm surprised Google even had that site as a top result seeing that their algorithm is designed to not push far-right wing sites.

(Hint: #3 is the truth)



WeedZ said:


> You talk a lot about people being brainwashed by propaganda.


 I still stand by my prior statements related to this to be true.  How about the phrase, "Trump is a racist"?  How many times do you think the MSM has said this since he started running for president till today?  Enough for people to believe it without any proof whatsoever when there is plenty of evidence proving otherwise.  

The democrats work hard to make criminals look good while doing all they can to make *OUR* president look bad.  Sounds like pushing propaganda to me.  They don't want people to be labeled by bad words, but only if you're not a Republican/Conservative.



yuyuyup said:


> Well gee I'm not sure you have much standing when it comes to what's right and moral, you left out incredibly pertinent details about the original San Fransisco Chronicle article.  Why wouldn't you be entirely up-front about this article?  Why create an entire discussion thread, but try to obfuscate crucial points?  Doesn't seem very productive, or right, or moral.


 Not sure what you're getting at here.  I stand by facts and truth.  I cannot and will not try to force you to believe what is "right and moral".  The culture of the people around you, the websites you visit, and tv channels you watch will determine that for you.  I'm not a democrat, so I don't trick people to think my way with propaganda, either.  

I have no clue what you mean by leaving out pertinent details, not being up-front about this article, or how I obfuscated crucial points.  I posted the article in its entirety to the OP, added a couple of lines of my own (both as a play on words using the subject of the story), and left it for others to decide what it meant to them.  

The only thing you could say I added to the story was the title of this thread that I used to summarize it.  Nowhere in the first post did I push any agenda or rhetoric.


----------



## Captain_N (Aug 28, 2019)

PC is what allows the fragile snow flakes to prosper. Hard truth melts their azz.


----------



## smf (Aug 28, 2019)

This is good, stigmatizing people as some form of bizarre torture doesn't work.

The nutters in this thread are a good example of what people have to face. You make it too hard and they'll just turn back to crime, which is really not what you want.



morvoran said:


> How about the phrase, "Trump is a racist"?  How many times do you think the MSM has said this since he started running for president till today?  Enough for people to believe it without any proof whatsoever when there is plenty of evidence proving otherwise.



What "plenty of evidence"? Nobody is saying he dresses in white robes and burns crosses on peoples lawns. He seems to have put a lot of effort in to appear prejudiced.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I have no clue what you mean by leaving out pertinent details, not being up-front about this article, or how I obfuscated crucial points.  I posted the article in its entirety to the OP, added a couple of lines of my own (both as a play on words using the subject of the story), and left it for others to decide what it meant to them.


You did NOT post the whole SFChronicle article, you did NOT include the information about how this resolution is both non-binding, and won't be implemented at all.  Those ARE in the SFChronicle article, so maybe you got ahold of a butchered version of the article.  I looked up the SFChronicle article itself, not some blog who is conveniently cutting out the pertinent information.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I still stand by my prior statements related to this to be true.  How about the phrase, "Trump is a racist"?  How many times do you think the MSM has said this since he started running for president till today?  Enough for people to believe it without any proof whatsoever when there is plenty of evidence proving otherwise.
> 
> The democrats work hard to make criminals look good while doing all they can to make *OUR* president look bad.  Sounds like pushing propaganda to me.  They don't want people to be labeled by bad words, but only if you're not a Republican/Conservative.


It works both ways though. The truth is, if youre not an influential party member, then you're fodder. Both sides have their agendas and need the voters support to push those agendas. You say "they" (the Democrats) push this and that, as if that's anyone here. As if you're likely to even run in to anyone that's pushing anything, irl or online.

Same goes for the conservative party. They have their goals, and like any political party, they have very little to do with the well being of the average joe. These parties are funded by corporations. These corporations are what run the government and therefore the country. They only care about their bottom line.

Its brainwashed to think that a group of billionaires, on either side of the fence, has your best interests at heart. I dont know if trump is a racist, a good guy, or what. But I do know hes not altruistic. Trump cares about trump. Same as most any politician in the last 100 years.

You have a hate for "librals", same as they have a hate for conservatives. That divide and animosity is what keeps this machine running.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 28, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> You did NOT post the whole SFChronicle article, you did NOT include the information about how this resolution is both non-binding, and won't be implemented at all.  Those ARE in the SFChronicle article, so maybe you got ahold of a butchered version of the article.  I looked up the SFChronicle article itself, not some blog who is conveniently cutting out the pertinent information.



Still doesn't take away from the *FACT* that San Francisco *DID create new phrases for criminals* regardless if they did or didn't impose them, for whatever reason, moral or immoral.  Because the story I posted was not complete to your terms nor contained any changes made to the story isn't the point of this thread.  The whole point of this thread was to point out that this situation was even realistically considered for the government to impose such language.  Like you, others could go look up the original story if they wanted to nitpick every detail not contained in this thread.

Here's my correction:  I posted the full story that was available *at the time I created this thread*.  

Hope that resolves this.



WeedZ said:


> You have a hate for "librals"


  I don't hate (or have hate for) anybody.  I love everybody including liberals.  That's why I have discussions with them on here instead of just blocking them.  I just hope that what I say may help them look at the other side to see that it's not so bad as they've been told.  Not trying to force them to think my way.



WeedZ said:


> But I do know hes not altruistic.


  Eh, you may want to do more research on Trump and the things he's done since being in office.  Try searching non-biased sources though.  EX. CNN will not have any positive things to say.  If he cared for himself so much, why stay in a position where he gets bashed everyday?  Everybody who is bashing him now, loved Trump before he ran for president.



WeedZ said:


> Same goes for the conservative party. They have their goals, and like any political party, they have very little to do with the well being of the average joe.


 I can agree with you on the fact that not all Republicans have our best interest at heart, but the Democrats are way, way worse as far as caring for their own constituents.  Look at California, New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore.  Democratic leaders in those cities are not really helping their citizens move out of poverty, homelessness, and horrid living conditions while they live in big mansions far away from them.  New York City improved a lot after Rudy Giuliani was mayor.  



WeedZ said:


> You say "they" (the Democrats) push this and that, as if that's anyone here.


  As a mod, I would think you'd know better than that.   /jk
Seriously, though, I will agree with you about the members here as I have only seen people having discussions and never pushing somebody to think like them so far, but there have been people who work or have worked for facebook and google coming forward to say that they are pushing their left leaning agenda on the american people either by using algorithms or blocking content.  Even the story this thread is about shows how the dems are working on changing how we see criminals or drug users.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Because the story I posted was not complete to your terms nor contained any changes made to the story isn't the point of this thread.


My terms are reasonable.  I put in the work to hunt down the actual article, I expect you to do the same BEFORE creating the topic.  And I think it is absolutely outrageous that you don't think the entirety of the article is important enough to the "point of this thread."  Whether it was a mistake or deliberate (I trust your excuse,) you DID fail to post the whole article.  It was not a long article, it didn't need such abridging.  By trimming away the NUANCES of the nature of the Resolution, you obscure the true intent of the resolution, by accident or otherwise.


----------



## Juggalo Debo (Aug 28, 2019)

I just know all this pc bullshit is getting Crazy as hell.... If ur a criminal then that's fine but dont expect me to call u anything else than what u are or i might be nice enuff to call u ur name....  LMAO


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 28, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> My terms are reasonable.  I put in the work to hunt down the actual article, I expect you to do the same BEFORE creating the topic.  And I think it is absolutely outrageous that you don't think the entirety of the article is important enough to the "point of this thread."  Whether it was a mistake or deliberate (I trust your excuse,) you DID fail to post the whole article.  It was not a long article, it didn't need such abridging.  By trimming away the NUANCES of the nature of the Resolution, you obscure the true intent of the resolution, by accident or otherwise.


im sure if someone made a non-binding resolution about changing all references to migrants to something like "cheap low skilled workers who can do our shit jobs for crappy wages because american citizens expect too much to do them" you would jump on with that as the lead.

The "non-binding" detail isn't really that important, the fact people are coming up with a plan to try force control over peoples language is pretty insane, and to think there is probably a shit ton of people charging huge sums of cash to come up with  these ideas is absolutely crazy, why are people getting paid with tax payers dollars to come up with "non-binding" resolutions, if you think something is worth doing, do it and face the backlash when people say "WTF IS THIS SHIT!"

You don't get to announce in a party "lets all just strip off and have sex right here right now........if you want, im not forcing you to do it its totally non-binding, but this is the plan lets all sign up now!!!" and then complain people call you a fucking weirdo....."why are you calling me a weirdo, i did say "non-binding" you're totally ignoring the nuance mom", i have seen this argument given in a few topic recently, when people make bold propositions but dont want to hear the opposing opinion or shut down any objections to their stupid plans......."but i did say or not, so i'm immune from criticism in regards to my plan", come up with a dumb idea, you get called dumb simple as.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> im sure if someone made a non-binding resolution about changing all references to migrants to something like "cheap low skilled workers who can do our shit jobs for crappy wages because american citizens expect too much to do them" you would jump on with that as the lead.
> 
> The "non-binding" detail isn't really that important, the fact people are coming up with a plan to try force control over peoples language is pretty insane, and to think there is probably a shit ton of people charging huge sums of cash to come up with  these ideas is absolutely crazy, why are people getting paid with tax payers dollars to come up with "non-binding" resolutions, if you think something is worth doing, do it and face the backlash when people say "WTF IS THIS SHIT!"
> 
> You don't get to announce in a party "lets all just strip off and have sex right here right now........if you want, im not forcing you to do it its totally non-binding, but this is the plan lets all sign up now!!!" and then complain people call you a fucking weirdo....."why are you calling me a weirdo, i did say "non-binding" you're totally ignoring the nuance mom", i have seen this argument given in a few topic recently, when people make bold propositions but dont want to hear the opposing opinion or shut down any objections to their stupid plans......."but i did say or not, so i'm immune from criticism in regards to my plan", come up with a dumb idea, you get called dumb simple as.



It's San Fransisco, they're in charge of their own local government, if they want to pass a non-binding resolution for San Fransisco, then what's the problem?  The Board of Supervisors are determined by election, and voters made their decision at the ballot box.  They pay local tax etc (San Fran is extremely expensive place to live.)  Do you wanna make a bet that I can't find a goofy "resolution" coming from the Republicans?  Because I'll take that bet, but I won't bother googling that unless you bet me.

The language in the Resolution itself says "URGES," the "non-binding" aspect literally dispels the notion that it would be forced.  There is nothing being forced upon anyone, and on top of that, the resolution will never be adopted, and I'm guessing was never even DESIGNED to be adopted.  You might discount these things, and that's fine.  But this thing is a nothingburger with no ketchup.

*nonbinding*
adjective
non·bind·ing | \ ˌnän-ˈbīn-diŋ   \
*Definition of nonbinding*
*: *having no legal or binding force *: *not binding


Synonyms
bad, inoperative, invalid, nonvalid, nugatory, null, null and void, void


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 28, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> It's San Fransisco, they're in charge of their own local government, if they want to pass a non-binding resolution for San Fransisco, then what's the problem?  The Board of Supervisors are determined by election, and voters made their decision at the ballot box.  They pay local tax etc (San Fran is extremely expensive place to live.)  Do you wanna make a bet that I can't find a goofy "resolution" coming from the Republicans?  Because I'll take that bet, but I won't bother googling that unless you bet me.
> 
> The language in the Resolution itself says "URGES," the "non-binding" aspect literally dispels the notion that it would be forced.  There is nothing being forced upon anyone, and on top of that, the resolution will never be adopted, and I'm guessing was never even DESIGNED to be adopted.  You might discount these things, and that's fine.  But this thing is a nothingburger with no ketchup.
> 
> ...


if there is stupid "non-binding" "resolutions" made by republicans I'm all for calling them dumb idiots too, calling out wasteful idiocy should a non-partisan issue, idk i'm just more of a stickler for issues of authoritarianism, and if either side shows obvious desires they want to control what people say or think (with the usual exceptions of calling for or advocating violence) then i am more inclined to go hard on that issue, second thing i would have objections to is bilking money by creating BS committees and thinktanks to justify funnelling money to their friends and family for pointless work, they might as well go dig ditches in the desert and pay themselves for it

personally i think a lot of government spending if not the vast majority is full of corruption and backroom deals to syphon money out of the system for their own ends, perfect example is how much these government contracts are worth, i have heard from several people how much government agencies over pay on certain items and have contracts for wayyyyyy too much of certain items, here in the UK i know a few people who work in the NHS and by all accounts they pay ridiculous sums of money for items that half the time just end up getting binned the falling months to make room for the next delivery of totally un-needed stacks of office paper


----------



## morvoran (Aug 28, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> By trimming away the NUANCES of the nature of the Resolution, you obscure the true intent of the resolution, by accident or otherwise.


 Not sure what the issue is here.  You seem to think that I went through and cut out the parts I didn't like to press some sort of agenda.  Nope, I copied and pasted all there was at the time that I saw.  Doesn't matter either way as you could (and did) go look up the story just like anybody else could.  That's why I included the source.  The facts you are, seemingly, skipping over is that what I posted still gives the general idea of the matter - that a city government was trying to change language and what those changes were.  Instead of working on the underlying issues, they cover it up with "polite phrases".  If I wrote the article and left out "important details", I could see your argument as valid.  All I did was create a thread.

Instead of being perturbed by me posting threads, why not point that effort to the issues that really matter such as with government creating pc terms for criminals?



yuyuyup said:


> I put in the work to hunt down the actual article, I expect you to do the same BEFORE creating the topic.


Wow, I hope you took 15 minute breaks during all that hard work.  How long did it take you to search "San Francisco creates new phrases" and find the post by the SFC?
Do you see the effect of government changing language?  Now you're calling basic simple internet searching "work".


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Wow, I hope you took 15 minute breaks during all that hard work.  How long did it take you to search "San Francisco creates new phrases" and find the post by the SFC?
> Do you see the effect of government changing language?  Now you're calling basic simple internet searching "work".


I'm not even sure why you're responding to me; YOU started this thread, YOU refused to do a drop of research before starting this, and you admit to this.  Why is this conversation still in play, you literally admitted that you made a mistake by posting an incomplete article.  Oh, unless of course it WASN'T a mistake?  Did you do it deliberately, or by mistake?


----------



## morvoran (Aug 28, 2019)

yuyuyup said:


> I'm not even sure why you're responding to me; YOU started this thread, YOU refused to do a drop of research before starting this, and you admit to this.  Why is this conversation still in play, you literally admitted that you made a mistake by posting an incomplete article.  Oh, unless of course it WASN'T a mistake?  Did you do it deliberately, or by mistake?


Because you're focusing on a ridiculously moot point that does not pertain to the underlying situation of the content I posted instead of discussing the true issue of government attempting to control speech and protecting bad people.  

I never admitted making a mistake because I didn't (maybe you would refresh my memory with your master researching skills).


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Here's my correction: I posted the full story that was available *at the time I created this thread*.


You admitted there that the article WAS incomplete, or else you wouldn't have made the "correction."  It was your mistake to post the butchered article, you should have looked up the original article to avoid this, it's your responsibility, and you owned up to it.

The "underlying situation" you posit is debunked entirely once you look at the missing details.  There is ZERO reasonable concern of the big bad government actually forcing language change.  Hey, the Ad Council gets govt funds, and THEY promote "anti-racist-language" ads all the time, that would be the FEDERAL government literally changing the language.  Why are you wasting energy on piddly small potatoes?  You should be taking on the Ad Council, not a friggin San Fransisco Board of Supervisors.  The San Fransisco Board of Supervisors aint spamming anti-racist ads in 50 states.  San Fransisco is rich as hell, if they didn't like what the Board was doing, they would buy better politicians.


----------



## SpiffyJUNIOR (Aug 28, 2019)

The root of SF's problems is the fact there is zero enforcement:

Pitch a tent on a city sidewalk? No consequences.
Harass and stalk people? No consequences.
Steal, chop, and sell bikes? No consequences.
Assault people and destroy property? No consequences.
Sell drugs or do them? No consequences.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 28, 2019)

smf said:


> The nutters in this thread are a good example of what people have to face. You make it too hard and they'll just turn back to crime, which is really not what you want.


 Have you heard of "personal responsibility"?  Because people *choose* to commit crimes, they should have to do the time *and* deal with the consequences of their actions afterwards.
Maybe we could just not arrest criminals and put them in jail? Look at San Francisco as an example of what kind of society this creates.  Maybe we should coddle law breakers and give them free money since they have such hard lives due to their own actions.  Maybe then they wouldn't break laws in the first place.  Those poor, poor people are just so misunderstood, huh?



smf said:


> What "plenty of evidence"? Nobody is saying he dresses in white robes and burns crosses on peoples lawns. He seems to have put a lot of effort in to appear prejudiced.


 Maybe do a search for good things Trump and look at what he really says and does instead of just believing what others have told you.




yuyuyup said:


> else you wouldn't have made the "correction."


  Maybe you should read that "correction" again.  I don't think you read it or understood what I was really saying.



yuyuyup said:


> It was your mistake to post the butchered article


  Again, I didn't cut anything out of the story and only pasted what was available at the time I copied it.  Believe me or not, I'm not lying.  Maybe they didn't post their whole story, maybe their website messed up, maybe my browser messed up, maybe the rest was hidden and I didn't notice.  These are all moot points as you obviously did what anybody else could do and know the whole story now by *looking it up yourself*. Should I have also included all the comments from the site?  Should I have posted updates every few hours to make sure that I don't leave anybody's opinion out?  Give me a break.



yuyuyup said:


> you should have looked up the original article to avoid this


  Um, I'm sure that the San Francisco Chronicle was the original source of the original article.



yuyuyup said:


> it's your responsibility, and you owned up to it


  I have no responsibilities here.  What are you talking about?  I'm not a reporter in real life or on this site.  I'm just a regular member that posted a thread, and it's your fault that you read it.  Look up "personal responsibility".  It might help you in life.



yuyuyup said:


> The "underlying situation" you posit is debunked entirely once you look at the missing details.


 Wrong!!!



yuyuyup said:


> There is ZERO reasonable concern of the big bad government actually forcing language change. Hey, the Ad Council gets govt funds, and THEY promote "anti-racist-language" ads all the time, that would be the FEDERAL government literally changing the language.


  Just FYI, you contradicted yourself in this statement.



yuyuyup said:


> You should be taking on the Ad Council, not a friggin San Fransisco Board of Supervisors.


 Wow, okay, troll much?  This article is about the San Fransisco Board of Supervisors, not the Ad Council.  Have you read the first post, the title of the thread, or the story?



yuyuyup said:


> San Fransisco is rich as hell, if they didn't like what the Board was doing, they would buy better politicians.


  Exactly, you're getting it.  Now you have a chance to understand what the true underlying issue is and why this whole situation is a bad thing to support.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 28, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Exactly, you're getting it.  Now you have a chance to understand what the true underlying issue is and why this whole situation is a bad thing to support.


gee you're so much smarter than me


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Have you heard of "personal responsibility"?  Because people *choose* to commit crimes, they should have to do the time *and* deal with the consequences of their actions afterwards.



So kids grow up being taught that crime is ok, they commit crime, get caught, they try to sort themselves out but your sadistic treatment of them ends up pushing them back into crime. The cycle continues because you enjoy punishing them more than you want to cut crime.



morvoran said:


> Maybe do a search for good things Trump and look at what he really says and does instead of just believing what others have told you.



No search results found. He's a douche, he lies all the time, don't believe a word he says ever.

He's filling the swamp.


----------



## WeedZ (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Have you heard of "personal responsibility"?





smf said:


> no


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> So kids grow up being taught that crime is ok, they commit crime, get caught, they try to sort themselves out but your sadistic treatment of them ends up pushing them back into crime. The cycle continues because you enjoy punishing them more than you want to cut crime.


who the hell teaches kids crime is ok?  if you create a system where nobody is punished for bad behaviour even in some cases "rewarded" with special groups designed to "help" them, you just incentivise more kids to copy the behaviour so they too get access to all the additional support and  group activities that are only made available when you pander to give more support to the bad kids than the kids who actually try to do well in school

truth is these kinds of systems are in place in the UK too, when i was in school in the last year or so, some of these "programs" were added to the "solution" to bad behaviour, kids who had been for lack of a better word, absolute arseholes where given free laptops under the guise that giving them laptops would magically "fix" them, they were also given a free trip to Greece if they didn't cause too much shit in classes, I'm sorry but to me that did nothing but made me and many other kids in the school wonder what the hell we were doing wrong, we do our work, try our hardest, put up with all the shit of the idiots, and the idiots get given laptops and a holiday.......i know 3 kids actually did cause trouble and disrupt classes and flunk tests so they could be enrolled in the program so they could get a free laptop, classes got a whole lot more hectic for a few weeks at the start of the year as people tried to get a spot in the program, fortunately the school had set a cap of 10 people so it didn't carry on the whole year, but the program certainly didn't "fix" anything, it just bred a atmosphere of resentment and jealousy with the rest of the class and smugness from the idiots


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> who the hell teaches kids crime is ok?



In communities that are purposefully prevented from being able to succeed without crime



gamesquest1 said:


> truth is these kinds of systems are in place in the UK too, when i was in school in the last year or so, some of these "programs" were added to the "solution" to bad behaviour, kids who had been for lack of a better word, absolute arseholes where given free laptops under the guise that giving them laptops would magically "fix" them, they were also given a free trip to Greece if they didn't cause too much shit in classes, I'm sorry but to me that did nothing but made me and many other kids in the school wonder what the hell we were doing wrong, we do our work, try our hardest, put up with all the shit of the idiots, and the idiots get given laptops and a holiday.......



I don't think bribing people with free trips and laptops is the way forward, but there is a difference between that and what I'm saying.

In the UK they are thinking of amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders act so that some people can eventually stop disclosing that they went to prison. Because that prevents them getting jobs and the best way of keeping someone from committing crime is by giving them a reason not to commit crime.



osaka35 said:


> Because currently, once you get into the system, you're far far more likely to return to the system. It has a way of institutionalizing you. This is an attempt to help people actually be free on the outside once they're out.



Yeah, the problem is there is resentment because some people believe that every crime should carry a life sentence.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Aug 29, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> that's definitely not the goal, method, or situation that's outlined in the article. And I doubt Jeffrey Dahmer would ever have gotten out of prison . The focus is obviously on reformed criminals, troubled youths, and the like. Because currently, once you get into the system, you're far far more likely to return to the system. It has a way of institutionalizing you. This is an attempt to help people actually be free on the outside once they're out.
> 
> again, i'm not sure how successful this will be. applaud the goal, uncertain of the means. But it makes sense, so long as you restrict it to this specific purpose.


Thank you for talking actual sense.


gamesquest1 said:


> can we please stop saying people were "banned" from gbatemp and just refer to them as "
> sharers of legally questionable content who are no longer members of the community" or " member with lack of consciousness programmed to mass-post helpful links to purchase items from their creators store for the purposes of generating commission".....its just flows of the tongue much better



I don't know why everyone on this thread is giving these mundane examples where they paraphrase until the original meaning is almost completely obscured. The correct person-first variant of your example is "member who was banned", except of course, this isn't very useful because being banned from a site does not restrict your opportunities in life. The language change proposal is not for the purposes of negating or mitigating the crime in question; it is to avoid defining a person who may want to try and get better entirely by the illegal thing they have done.

I'm so done with people on here's lack of reading comprehension and immediate response to just about anything with "crazy leftist snowflakes these days". It's boring, lazy, and shows an incapacity to analyse and empathise.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> In communities that are purposefully prevented from being able to succeed without crime
> 
> I don't think bribing people with free trips and laptops is the way forward, but there is a difference between that and what I'm saying.
> 
> ...


tbh i actually agree in that regard, i would say in the interest of allowing people to get past a bad point in their lives maybe only relevant crimes should be disclosed (maybe some grading system, i.e theft, violence, fraud etc)

personally if i had a shop i think its only fair i get to know if the guy I'm hiring has past convictions for stealing money from tills, likewise if i ran hostel for abused women i think knowing the guy your hiring was a convicted rapist might be pertinent to the role.

sure there might be a totally reformed rapist who suffers for the stigma, but there is a point that people need to be allowed to protect their interests and that of their customer etc, making people fresh out of prison free to basically jump right back into a position they would have history of abusing probably isn't even good for the person in question, fresh out of prison they might be more desperate for cash and its kinda in their best interests in the long run to not be tempted by  being given the keys to the vault fresh out of jail

that said i do think these things should come with a time limit i.e if you robbed a shop 7 years earlier and haven't done anything similar since i would say you should be given a second fresh chance....but if you end up with another conviction after having the mandatory disclosure of the last record removed it should probably end up on record permanently for employers to know about


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> No search results found. He's a douche, he lies all the time, don't believe a word he says ever.
> 
> He's filling the swamp.


  Did you use CNN's and MSNBC's web search engines?  I bet you did as that would explain why you didn't find anything.  Try whitehouse.gov and see the accomplishments of his administration (I included the link, so you don't have to try so hard like you obviously did before).  You won't find these on vox.com, either.



smf said:


> In communities that are purposefully prevented from being able to succeed without crime


  Oh, you mean Democrat ran communities such as *San Francisco*, Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc?  I agree with you here, then.



smf said:


> In the UK they are thinking of amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders act so that some people can eventually stop disclosing that they went to prison. Because that prevents them getting jobs and the best way of keeping someone from committing crime is by giving them a reason not to commit crime.


  Again,* Have you heard of personal responsibility???   *How about a conscience that tells you not to commit crimes?  Maybe people should start using them again.  
Does the UK have a sex offender registry?  I bet that is being tossed out to.  Why should a pedophile disclose to the daycare center what he was convicted for?  It's not like they're going to do it again, right? 



smf said:


> Yeah, the problem is there is resentment because some people believe that every crime should carry a life sentence.


 Yeah, some people like those evil hateful bothersome victims, huh?  I bet you think we should throw all hateful bigots that some might call "victims of crime" in jail for holding back these poor criminals that stole from, raped, molested, kidnapped and/or murdered them.
Shame on the rape victims or families of murdered people *living a lifetime of fear and emotional stress* from them purposely interacting with this defenseless newly protected class of "persons involved in the legal system", *SHAME!!!!  *


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Try whitehouse.gov and see the accomplishments of his administration (I included the link, so you don't have to try so hard like you obviously did before).



It seems like a cult. Weren't most of those things a result of the Obama adminstration that he took credit for?

_We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME_

Doesn't he understand that most drugs come through the postal service? And most "illegals" entered the country legally but overstayed their visa? Maybe he forgot? That dementia must be hitting hard now.



morvoran said:


> Oh, you mean Democrat ran communities such as *San Francisco*, Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc?  I agree with you here, then.



It doesn't matter who you elect locally, Trump has been pumping the swamp full and his unelected friends control everything.



morvoran said:


> Again,* Have you heard of personal responsibility???   *How about a conscience that tells you not to commit crimes?  Maybe people should start using them again.



How about a conscience that you don't keep making peoples lives so uncomfortable that they go back to crime?

If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.



morvoran said:


> Shame on the rape victims or families of murdered people *living a lifetime of fear and emotional stress* from them purposely interacting with this defenseless newly protected class of "persons involved in the legal system", *SHAME!!!!  *



Victims should certainly get support, but if instead you replace that with revenge then that doesn't help anyone.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> It seems like a cult.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ok, so do you think a convicted paedo should be allowed to work in a school? i mean, if they do the time, that should be it right? how about a convicted terrorist? should they be able to finish their sentence and go get a job as a pilot?

the idea of disclosing past convictions is to mitigate risk of re-offending, sure those 2 examples are extreme, but how about a guy who was convicted of shitting in food.....should he be allowed to then go work in a food preparation factory, as i mentioned in my last post disclosure of past convictions is done to protect people against the dangers of people re-offending with a crime they have already demonstrated they are willing and able to commit, i would agree that disclosure should only really be necessary if the job role would give them direct access to re-offend in the same way, but for example someone caught selling drugs shouldn't really have to disclose that info to get a job in a call centre, if you were truly reformed you should really be able to understand how and why some jobs may be harder to access, i can agree maybe things are a little too restrictive sometimes, but just zero disclosure isn't the correct answer either


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> ok, so do you think a convicted paedo should be allowed to work in a school? i mean, if they do the time, that should be it right? how about a convicted terrorist? should they be able to finish their sentence and go get a job as a pilot?



Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.



gamesquest1 said:


> i would agree that disclosure should only really be necessary if the job role would give them direct access to re-offend in the same way,



That isn't what happens though. The US really likes to create life sentences.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2019)

I have only two words to say to all of this.... HONK HONK!


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.


and the rest of the post?....you know the bit where i already pre-acknowledged those are extreme examples, and gave a less extreme example to highlight the same principle,


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> and the rest of the post?....you know the bit where i already pre-acknowledged those are extreme examples, and gave a less extreme example to highlight the same principle,



You felt the need to lead with extremes & bury the acknowledgement in a wall of text.

So you actually agree with me?

Anyway the UK has certain jobs that require vetting, which will show up any criminal past. For those that don't have any need, then the Rehabilitation of Offenders act gives a time limit to how long you have to tell an employer who asks about a conviction.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> You felt the need to lead with extremes & bury the acknowledgement in a wall of text.
> 
> So you actually agree with me?


read the next line of text that you decided to just ignore its not exactly "buried" don't be so melodramatic, and maybe we do agree if you dont jump to debunk the first line, my argument was that you are simply saying disclosure is bad as a whole, my argument is disclosure is absolutely necessary in some cases, not all, but also not none


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> read the next line of text that you decided to just ignore and maybe we do agree



What is the point in trying to decipher what you are saying, if you then backtrack?


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> What is the point in trying to decipher what you are saying, if you then backtrack?


dude, are you on something?

no i didn't backtrack on anything, i made 2 extreme points, to clearly show the obvious flaw in your argument, then toned it down to highlight the principle still applies even on a lesser crime, then clarified that the issue is nuanced and not just a cookie cutter "ALWAYS DISCLOSE" or "NEVER DISCLOSE"

i feel i have covered my opinion on the matter, i hope most people would be able to understand the simple straightforward argument being made, your welcome to disagree, but if there is a flaw in your argument you should maybe re-evaluate your position


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.


 Oh, like drug smuggling and staying in a country illegally?



smf said:


> It seems like a cult. Weren't most of those things a result of the Obama adminstration that he took credit for?


 I'm starting to wonder if people who create usernames with only three letters are of lower morals or highly susceptible to influence.  I have seen two cases on here so far that have seemed to be brainwashed by leftist propaganda.



smf said:


> Doesn't he understand that most drugs come through the postal service? And most "illegals" entered the country legally but overstayed their visa? Maybe he forgot? That dementia must be hitting hard now.


  Doesn't change the fact that you disagree with.



smf said:


> It doesn't matter who you elect locally, Trump has been pumping the swamp full and his unelected friends control everything.


  Just like London?  I bet that place is a Utopia with no crime due to it being without Trump's influence.



smf said:


> Victims should certainly get support, but if instead you replace that with revenge then that doesn't help anyone.


  Revenge?  No.  Try "being a victim of a crime".  Criminals shouldn't be able to apply for "victimhood".



smf said:


> How about a conscience that you don't keep making peoples lives so uncomfortable that they go back to crime?


 How about preventing people from committing crimes in the first place?  Taking away the punishments of those crimes is not a good start.



smf said:


> If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.


 Wrong.


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> to clearly show the obvious flaw in your argument



It doesn't, because that isn't my argument.

You posts are so full of logical fallacy that it hurts to read them



morvoran said:


> I'm starting to wonder if people who create usernames with only three letters are of lower morals or highly susceptible to influence.  I have seen two cases on here so far that have seemed to be brainwashed by leftist propaganda.



No, it's a sign of intelligence.



morvoran said:


> Just like London?  I bet that place is a Utopia with no crime due to it being without Trump's influence.



If London was under Trumps influence then crime would be higher, he thinks it would be better if we had more guns. That is what dumb people think.



morvoran said:


> How about preventing people from committing crimes in the first place?  Taking away the punishments of those crimes is not a good start.



It's hard to prevent crime when you start off with your foot on someones head holding their head under water then punish them if they try to fight back


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> It doesn't, because that isn't my argument.
> 
> You posts are so full of logical fallacy that it hurts to read them


dude, you clearly wrote


> If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.


so should i reply to something you didn't post? your welcome to clarify and say you didn't state your opinion correctly, but i replied to exactly what you stated

i guess i should break out the crystal ball next time so i can see exactly what you intend to say and not what you actually said


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> so should i reply to something you didn't post? your welcome to clarify and say you didn't state your opinion correctly, but i replied to exactly what you stated



There are obviously some jobs that would require further vetting, I have mentioned this. I have been mainly talking about kids getting involved in drugs and gangs as that is what the OP was about, while you want to punish them forever and never be able to hold down a job as some form of revenge to heal your broken soul.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> There are obviously some jobs that would require further vetting. I have been mainly talking about kids getting involved in drugs and gangs.


ok, fair enough, but i would also argue as a business i would like to know if the person I'm going to employ has a track record of stealing money/items from his/her employers, as i said in my post i feel disclosure should only be of relevant crimes, if a job doesn't involve handling cash / high value items then a past conviction for stealing from tills, wouldn't really be relevant. drug charges wouldn't really be too relevant short of for getting jobs in places where they might gain access to people trying to get clean

we aren't too far from each other i think things need to be a bit more in regards to protecting potential future victims, your more on the side of preventing people not getting a job because the owner of the business wants to err on the side of caution...neither of us are at the extreme end of the debate


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> ok, fair enough, but i would also argue as a business i would like to know if the person I'm going to employ has a track record of stealing money/items from his/her employers, as i said in my post i feel disclosure should only be of relevant crimes, if a job doesn't involve handling cash / high value items then a past conviction for stealing from tills, wouldn't really be relevant.



So someone who is 18 steals from a till because they need money for medicine for their child, should for the rest of their life be unable to get a job that involves a till? It seems kinda harsh & arbitary.

You should make sure you have systems in place so that nobody can steal money from your tills, because there will always be a first time for everyone & so taking on someone who stole once 50 years ago is probably a better bet as they know what it's like to get caught.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> So someone who is 18 steals from a till because they need money for medicine for their child, should for the rest of their life be unable to get a job that involves a till? It seems kinda harsh & arbitary.


nope, i have said in another post, there should be a "times up" lets just arbitrarily say 5 years for example of non re-offending and it gets "sealed".

you also dont need to colour your examples so much, im sure the vast majority of thieves do it for reason other than the poor poor children. how about if i said "so your saying a guy who steals £10,000,000 from the bank he works at should be free to go work in another bank without giving them a heads up". the vast majority of the crimes we are talking about would not be the poor altruistic victim of society simply trying to feed the homeless dying babies OR the cold blooded manipulative conman stealing the pensions from little old grannies, lets leave the straw men out of it


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> Careful, your logic may trigger a leftist.  They'll be like, "Um, excuse me, we don't use those right wing racist hate terms around here.  We prefer legally aborting an over developed fetus, exercising your right to love somebody, and spreading the wealth of others to the less fortunate."
> 
> 
> 
> Why fix the issues when you can just spin the meaning of words to make people think everything's fine?  Dung on the streets is now "street fertilizer" and homelessness is "new age camping".


_sigh_
So technically far leftist. Not all. _sorry I'm just really frustrated with people always in casting everyone in a single umbrella. I wish people would realize that the views pointed are at their uttermost extreme._
honestly I find it a bit stupid piracy is well, Piracy. So using "pirates" pretty much matches.
Left views I agree on
Health care needs to be fixed in someway
Cutting immigration to the country is not a solution and the "immigration crisis" is likely overblown.
guns need better regulations
Left views I don't agree on
Drugs and unbanning them (We already have enough to worry about)
Going so far left or out of democracy.
Guns being completely banned (now that's just stupid.)
Open borders (That's equally fucking stupid. It's just as dumb as saying no immigration as well)
PC culture (State things as they are. No reason to change it unless for a extremely good reason.)
and a few others.


----------



## SG854 (Aug 29, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Thinking about it, it seems like It doesn't usually work for the generation which commonly uses the unnecessary language, but the next generation tends to not latch on as much. Sometimes. depends on the issues it came from and if the issues are still present and to what degree. You can see this in how older folk tend to keep their problematic language and its intent, without a thought for the damage it does because they honestly think "it didn't mean anything bad back then".
> 
> The thing being left out I alluded to before: Language usage is different given different age/etc groups, and a change of language can help improve things in the future, if not immediately.
> 
> ...


Does it actually work though? Too much can or may. Does it work, yes or no?

It's probably not tribalism that's behind the push back. You're downgrading peoples intelligence on this topic. People's push back is because they feel it wont work and its more language manipulation and euphemisms.

Our culture has changed to be less Euphemistic. The older generation, specifically conservatives were the ones trying to control language, censor it (on radio) and create euphemisms. And they do it for the same reasons people are trying to change language for prisoners. To make situation better, to change people behavior through words to maintain a more peaceful way and not treat people like the words. And guess how much hate conservatives got for trying to change and control language. It was the liberals and the younger generation that pushed back against conservatives. People perceived it as dishonest, manipulative, trying to hide from reality. And people hate controlling language especially when they want to express themselves, they feel its a control on their freedom. Its against liberal ideology for telling it like it is. That's how our society changed, we are more upfront and direct now, it makes us feel more real, honest and less manipulative to people.



And this is what this Prison language thing feels like to people just more language control, so there's going to be push back.



George Carlin is right about words. People think if you change the words they'll somehow bullshit themselves and bullshit others and change the condition. But someone has to be really stupid to be swayed by euphemisms.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> If London was under Trumps influence then crime would be higher, he thinks it would be better if we had more guns. That is what dumb people think.


  Maybe if Londoners were allowed to have guns, it is possible that less of them would be killed by knives and be able to defend themselves.  If they didn't have a Labour party mayor, I'm sure crime would be way lower than it is now.  The labour party has been said to be worse than the far left democrats in the US which explains why London is being destroyed from within.



smf said:


> It's hard to prevent crime when you start off with your foot on someones head holding their head under water then punish them if they try to fight back


  Oh, here goes the victimhood.  I guess people commit crimes because they have guns to their heads, right? Pesky things, those guns, huh?



monkeyman4412 said:


> _sorry I'm just really frustrated with people always in casting everyone in a single umbrella._


  I did say "may trigger", not "would trigger".  Meaning, in a way, not all (but most) leftists would be triggered.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Cutting immigration to the country is not a solution and the "immigration crisis" is likely overblown.


  How about "illegal immigration"?  Should that be cut?  Since you are against open borders, I would think you would say "yes".  
Would you agree that all legal immigrant applicants should be allowed in regardless if they can or will assimilate into the US society and eventually learn to take care of themselves? Should we offer free welfare services for life to all immigrants who refuse to work?  What about immigrants with criminal backgrounds such as MS-13 members?  We shouldn't cut them out of the immigration process?



monkeyman4412 said:


> Left views I don't agree on
> Drugs and unbanning them


  I agree that cannabis, LSD, GHB, and mushrooms should be legal.  Everything else I don't think should be legal.


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> you also dont need to colour your examples so much,



I was just following your terrorist/pilot extreme example.



morvoran said:


> Maybe if Londoners were allowed to have guns, it is possible that less of them would be killed by knives and be able to defend themselves.



While there is gun crime in the UK, because all hand guns are illegal and the criminals know that the chances are low that they will come across someone else with a gun then they are only used in a limited number of circumstances as there is no point in taking the risk.

If the US has anything to show then all that would happen is there would be ten times the number of gun deaths. I know which I'd rather take my chances against.

I worry more about the "good guy with a gun", under the apparent "good" exterior is someone who every day leaves the house with the thought that today might be the day they get to kill someone.



morvoran said:


> I agree that cannabis, LSD, GHB, and mushrooms should be legal.  Everything else I don't think should be legal.



I'm not sure I'd agree that they should be legal, but I also don't think that harsher criminal sentencing is working. Addiction should be treated as a mental health problem rather than a criminal problem. If someone has gone beyond the point where they can function for themselves then there should be some way the state can step in and help.



morvoran said:


> Would you agree that all legal immigrant applicants should be allowed in regardless if they can or will assimilate into the US society and eventually learn to take care of themselves? Should we offer free welfare services for life to all immigrants who refuse to work?  What about immigrants with criminal backgrounds such as MS-13 members?  We shouldn't cut them out of the immigration process?



We were all immigrants who refused to assimilate once. I don't know if you should give free welfare services to anyone for life if they refuse to work. Mostly immigrants are harder working than natives.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> If the US has anything to show then all that would happen is there would be ten times the number of gun deaths. I know which I'd rather take my chances against.


 I might agree with you here since the US has over 5 times the population with some cities having a much denser population than the entire UK.



smf said:


> While there is gun crime in the UK, because all hand guns are illegal and the criminals know that the chances are low that they will come across someone else with a gun then they are only used in a limited number of circumstances as there is no point in taking the risk.


 I heard that UK residents are nice chaps, but this is pushing it.  A criminal looking at a potential victim in Longon, "Oy, that bugger looks like he might not 'ave a gun, it wouldn't be proper of me to use mine to steal from 'im, guvna."  Is this how things work over there?



smf said:


> I worry more about the "good guy with a gun", under the apparent "good" exterior is someone who every day leaves the house with the thought that today might be the day they get to kill someone.


  I would worry more about the "bad guy with a gun" who leaves their home knowing that they are going to kill someone.



smf said:


> I'm not sure I'd agree that they should be legal, but I also don't think that harsher criminal sentencing is working. Addiction should be treated as a mental health problem rather than a criminal problem.


 Oh, so they shouldn't be legal, but at the same time, shouldn't be a "criminal" problem?  That's not how the law works.



smf said:


> We were all immigrants who refused to assimilate once. Mostly immigrants are harder working than natives.


First, I was never an immigrant.  I was born in the USA and have always been a resident here.  I speak English, love this country, and I do not fly a foreign flag in my front yard.
Second, I would like to see these statistics where you pulled the immigrants are harder working than natives.  "Please don't say from your head, please don't say from your head....Damn!"
While I can agree *some* immigrants may work harder then natural born citizens, you can't say most if you don't know their backgrounds.  
A lot of immigrants that come here are richer and have better education than most of our poor, so of course, they won't need to work harder to buy a home, find a job, and/or start a business to make it here.  A lot of countries teach english in their schools (with some countries making it mandatory) on top of it being one of the easiest languages to learn, so they don't need to work harder to learn our language.  
Also, with our welfare programs, non-white immigrants are highly likely to be approved for welfare assistance thanks to affirmative action laws.  I didn't and don't recieve any of these benefits which means I have to work harder to have as much as them on top of my taxes going to them to help get those benefits.

Speaking of drugs, are you a "person with a history of substance abuse"?  You said most drugs come into the US by postal service, so would you please post some of whatever you're on to me, so I can see the world through your frame of mind?  I would love to walk around and see dancing unicorns, rainbows, and clowns everywhere without having to go to a pride parade.


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I heard that UK residents are nice chaps, but this is pushing it.  A criminal looking at a potential victim in Longon, "Oy, that bugger looks like he might not 'ave a gun, it wouldn't be proper of me to use mine to steal from 'im, guvna."  Is this how things work over there?



More like

"If I get caught with a gun then I go to prison even if I don't use it, if I go with a knife then I will just get community service and a tag."

It really does work. The way the US does it is so dumb.

Most thefts in London are committed by unarmed pick pockets. Violence tends to come from gang wars.

That doesn't make it right, but it's better.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 29, 2019)

smf said:


> It really does work. The way the US does it is so dumb.


. Yeah things like "freedoms" and "rights" are such idiotic things.  Why have any of them?  Maybe we can take away the right to leave your house, that will stop even more crimes.



smf said:


> That doesn't make it right, but it's better.


 A matter of opinion.  I don't think it's better.



smf said:


> "If I get caught with a gun then I go to prison even if I don't use it, if I go with a knife then I will just get community service and a tag."


 We have gun laws and our felons are not allowed to have guns, but guess what.  They still obtain them somehow even with the stigma of going back to prison.  Maybe they're not aware they're breaking the law?  Just FYI, the cities/states with the strictest gun laws also have the most gun violence here.  Why is this?  Because persons with involvement in the legal system have other people holding them down? (You can't blame Trump for this.) Try to remember that it's much easier to deal with 60 million people than 300 million.


----------



## smf (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> . Yeah things like "freedoms" and "rights" are such idiotic things.  Why have any of them?  Maybe we can take away the right to leave your house, that will stop even more crimes.



You can keep your freedom to shoot or be shot at. It's absurd to suggest that the opposite to playing at cowboys is to lock everyone up.



morvoran said:


> We have gun laws and our felons are not allowed to have guns, but guess what.  They still obtain them somehow even with the stigma of going back to prison.  Maybe they're not aware they're breaking the law?



Felons need to be able to defend themselves too, because everyone else has guns. Its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. In the UK that doesn't come into play.

Get rid of all your guns and the death penalty and killings would go down.

The US has 26 times the gun deaths per capita than the UK, there is no way that is just caused because there are more people.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 29, 2019)

morvoran said:


> . Yeah things like "freedoms" and "rights" are such idiotic things.  Why have any of them?  Maybe we can take away the right to leave your house, that will stop even more crimes.
> 
> A matter of opinion.  I don't think it's better.
> 
> We have gun laws and our felons are not allowed to have guns, but guess what.  They still obtain them somehow even with the stigma of going back to prison.  Maybe they're not aware they're breaking the law?  Just FYI, the cities/states with the strictest gun laws also have the most gun violence here.  Why is this?  Because persons with involvement in the legal system have other people holding them down? (*You can't blame Trump for this*.) Try to remember that it's much easier to deal with 60 million people than 300 million.


Hmm let's see. How can I make argument for the thing in bold.
oh right.
Trump bashed video games and pretend that it caused violence, meanwhile doing and advocating nothing to actually improve gun laws or anything to prevent mass shootings (Just like the rest of the politicians. And if your one of the idiots that believe it. Go look at the countless many studies and also check who is doing them. Many studies have found no evidence and video games reduces violence, or inconclusive results)
Oh and who does that help creating a false argument so they don't have to fix actual issues
NRA (and lazy politicians)
You know what it doesn't help solve?
People dying.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> And if *your* one of the idiots


 I'm sure you should have used, "you're" here.  Your = possessive; you're = "you are". And you accuse me of being an idiot... sheesh



monkeyman4412 said:


> Trump bashed video games and pretend that it caused violence, meanwhile doing and advocating nothing to actually improve gun laws or anything to prevent mass shootings


 He said this one time while reading off a prompter which makes me think it a writer added this nonsense.  I don't believe for one second that he believes (or pretends) this to be true either as he has never brought this up before or since.
What have the democrats ever done to stop these things?  They've been complaining for years about something needs to be done.  All they have done is take guns from honest people and put them into the hands of criminals while protecting those same criminals such as trying to change how we refer to them.



monkeyman4412 said:


> Oh and who does that help creating a false argument so they don't have to fix actual issues
> NRA  *Democrats* (and lazy politicians) *(and crazy leftists*)


  There, fixed this for you.  This is so true.  Thanks for bringing it to everybody's attention.




smf said:


> Felons need to be able to defend themselves too, because everyone else has guns. Its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. In the UK that doesn't come into play.


 Oh, like that mass shooter in Philadelphia who was protecting himself from those dangerous cops with guns where he shot 6 of them?  All he did was sell drugs to his community, why was he being harassed?  Good thing he was able to escape with his life.



smf said:


> Get rid of all your guns and the death penalty and killings would go down.


  Wrong!  Completely speculation on your part.



smf said:


> The US has 26 times the gun deaths per capita than the UK, there is no way that is just caused because there are more people.


  A lot of our cities have denser populations than in the UK.  Denser population means more crime, more poverty, more deaths.  I've already told you this.


----------



## Deleted User (Aug 30, 2019)

morvoran said:


> I'm sure you should have used, "you're" here.  Your = possessive; you're = "you are". And you accuse me of being an idiot... sheesh


You know I have a life right? I don't really have the time to go thoroughly every single thing to make sure I don't make any tiny mistakes while typing. But moving on you missed a big pretty keyword.
*IF *you're one of those idiots, didn't say you're one of those idiots.
Then again, you write your entire profile based on being a trump supporter so you would of seen that as insult anyways.


morvoran said:


> He said this one time while reading off a prompter which makes me think it a writer added this nonsense.  I don't believe for one second that he believes (or pretends) this to be true either as he has never brought this up before or since.


let me go ahead and refute your nice try to say "trump doesn't believe video games cause violence"


Yeah... just once. Right...
You know, just once is doing it twice, once a year ago and then the other three weeks ago roughly.


morvoran said:


> What have the democrats ever done to stop these things?  They've been complaining for years about something needs to be done.  All they have done is take guns from honest people and put them into the hands of criminals while protecting those same criminals such as trying to change how we refer to them.


I need to ask a question. In what way are Democrats trying to remove guns from honest people? Second off, how would they go about taking it from honest people to criminals? Please inform me, because until I get proof, I smell shit a mile away.
Second off let me ask this. Do you know how laws are passed?
Third let me ask this, have you even considered who wants what in this shitshow?
Let me explain. So if it is truth that democrats want to remove all guns, why would they target violent video games instead of going for the throat? Hint, they don't (all though some do and that's mostly because the "left" is mostly a centered right.)
Let's ask another question. If the president has executive order for threats to the country (which I would consider mass shootings as so) why hasn't he? Here's another question that follows up on that one why rile up people about the borders. Do you realize how often borders are brought up? And the illegals are coming in?
I have to ask a question, do you think every single illegal is some horrible shit robbed individual who wishes to cause harm to others or that the vast majority? do you even consider them as human, I don't want you to answer that question now, but I want you to answer it when you use the word "illegal"?
Now that I asked those questions. Why is it that walmart decided to hide violent games? even going as far as to remove demoing consoles. But keep the guns in. Violent games don't cause violence, people do. Guns don't cause violence, guns are merely a tool of intent. If the education system is left leaning as everyone states. Then the left would equally know that yes? So, let's now look to other side. Republicans want to keep guns (and they have a right to) but you also have to understand that the NRA can lobby for those that they like. A left wing person is less likely to tell the stories the NRA want's to hear, as they want regulations on guns, which means overall less profit. Republicans however, don't want companies to be regulated and let the free market do it's thing, which is fair, after all if a government was in everything problems would arise. However if companies are left unchecked, then the government has to step in to solve it as no one else can. Or else people suffer. In both situations, people suffer. So when calling out a "invasion" of our country, when it isn't true isn't or making people afraid or believe that they are going to be invaded and "illegals" are going to come in and rob them. What is people's response to that?
Self preservation. People buy guns, people buy weapons, people buy and prepare, and then become emotionally entwined with what they were told, as they now have made a investment.
I'm not saying every single illegal person is a white knight. That's impossible. However there is likely more people with good intent that simply can't
Do you understand what I'm trying to get here. There's a side that benefits from it.
On that let's discuss jobs. People claim illegals are out to grab our jobs. Do you have any idea how much out sourcing happens in companies? If people retaliate their below miniumwage or in work conditions that are absolute ass, that company will just find the next desperate person, and other countries that have no government or a corrupt and or broken government. It's much more likely to find willing workers, who will gladly accept the horrible pay and conditions.


----------



## morvoran (Aug 30, 2019)

monkeyman4412 said:


> You know I have a life right?


 No, I don't know you at all.  I can tell proper grammar is not a priority in it, though.



monkeyman4412 said:


> In what way are Democrats trying to remove guns from honest people?


 Other than background checks, what else could they do for more gun control???



monkeyman4412 said:


> how would they go about taking it from honest people to criminals?


 Have you heard of "Operation fast and furious"?



monkeyman4412 said:


> Do you know how laws are passed?


  Yes, I do.

For the rest, tl:dr.  Have you read the title of this thread?  You are going way off this subject.   
It's bad enough I, along with others, went off on another tangent, but you just jumped in midstream with one line that barely relates to this topic with other nonsense included.  I'm not blaming you for this train wreck, but I just realized that we are no longer discussing the topic.  
I am more than willing to discuss these other matters further, but create a new thread if you feel like it. We need to get this one back on track.


----------



## billapong (Sep 24, 2019)

Renaming things is a commonly known tactic, especially in the mental health field as it is somewhat effective on the weak minded. If per say, you want to rename "apple" to "pear", because you suddenly find that the word apple is offensive, the smart people will know that the "pear" was originally an apple and was simply renamed because some people were intolerant. So now a "pear" to the people who are smart is simply an apple that was renamed, so the meaning and stigma is passed along.

On the same side, some people stopped using the common term "n****" and now use "African American", but both words define the same thing. It's sort of a nice gesture, because if a word has become stigmatized the less educated will think differently of the same person, place or thing when simply calling it by another name, but actually nothing has changed. I don't think it's a very effective long term solution to any problem. Should we be focusing on what caused the word to become stigmatized in the first place, because the new word will likely suffer the same fate?


----------

