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

[Ericthegreat]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[yuyuyup]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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)

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.

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]

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

 

[smf]

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.

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]

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.