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

[WeedZ]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 388531]

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]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Wrong!!!

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.

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?

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]

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]

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.

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]

Have you heard of "personal responsibility"?

no

 

[gamesquest1]

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]

who the hell teaches kids crime is ok?

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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