Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Rosa's Law or How much PC is too much PC?
Posts
Not trying to meta mod. Just making a suggestion.
Into MMA, pro wrestling, fitness, health, drinking coffee and reading.
Height: 5' 11" Weight: 217 Goal: 200
Yes, Pro-life makes sense to people that believe abortion is murder and that people that use the term "Pro-choice" are implying that Pro-life people are anti-choice.
Con-fucking-versely, Pro-choice makes sense to people that believe abortion is not inherently awesome but should be a woman's choice and that people that use the term "Pro-life" are implying that Pro-life people are pro-abortion.
It's the same goddamn thing.
#FreeScheck#FreeSKFM
#FreeScheck#FreeSKFM
+1
Even if you are pro-choice (as presumably most of us are), you should be able to understand and empathize with the pro-life argument. It's OK to disagree with a position without calling it crazy.
Is it OK to point out that real life doesn't work the way they think it does?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
It'll be shortened to "I-D."
Maybe into the word "id."
There's a causal relationship. It's not direct, but there is one. This is actually what my undergrad statistics track looked at.
There's a direct correlation between female literacy rates, birth control usage, and female life expectancy. This correlation diminishes in strength when controlling for local economy but it doesn't go away entirely.
Basically, when you start teaching women to read, they start to want to have lives outside the home. (Or, sometimes, that causation is reversed - a country goes to war and needs women to fill roles in jobs and leadership that they hadn't filled before, so they need to be educated.) This means they're more interested in delaying childbirth and having fewer children. Since pregnancy is one of the biggest early-life medical risks for women, this effectively delays and prevents a lot of deaths.
From there, it's a short road to more birth control usage and then abortion rights.
In countries where the female literacy rate is under 50%, men tend to outlive women because of pregnancy-related complications. Where the female literacy rate is over 50%, women tend to outlive men.
Anyway, this is all I'm going to say on the subject. Crunching that data for two years has given me opinions.
There isn't (yet?) a definitive answer to when life begins. While I personally think "at conception" is way too early, it's possible to consistently think otherwise.
The problem isn't that its crazy, its that it's internally inconsistent as stated.
I tried to make this argument in another thread once and it was pages and pages of how much I hated women.
I don't doubt it, its just the information that Cat presented didn't convey causation, only correlation and I felt compelled to point it out.
Funny how that also stands for intelligent design
The position isn't being called crazy the label being used to circumscribe those positions is being called disingenuous. It is also shifting the debate to an area where it is not actually relevant. You can believe that life begins at penetration and it doesn't matter, because the debate is still over the regulation of reproductive health and what options are available to women and their doctors. The label is also disingenuous because it promotes a duality that does not exist. One can simply advocate the position of 'choose life' which threads the needle rather neatly regardless of its broader merits.
Regardless, though, even under these circumstances I do not see using the politically correct labels as unduly narrowing the debate nor of behaving as 'political correctness gone mad.' To be quite honest, whenever I've engaged in these debates the other side typically either doesn't demonstrate any actual pieces of political correctness gone mad, rather they show things that are not actually political correctness at all, let alone show how it imposes any form of harm to anyone, anywhere, at all.
That's one way to frame the debate. The opposing side frames it as bringing an end to the state sanctioned murder of babies and thinks we're all fucked up for operating under the belief that infanticide is a "choice".
Each side frames the debate to portray their cause as righteous and just.
#FreeScheck#FreeSKFM
Additionally, according to Freud, the id is the part of a person's psyche which is all about gratification-seeking. Ironically, someone could actually apply "id-person" to someone who has an intellectual disability and hit somewhere close to home on account of the common social problems many intellectual disabilities are related with, but then the insult would be too smart.
I-D just sounds silly.
Again, I would be more concerned about the intelligence of the kids using the insult than the offensiveness of the term itself.
Totally. I just wanted to pontificate for a minute.
Which still doesn't change the fact that the "pro-life" position as stated is internally inconsistent.
Referring to someone who is mentally ill as someone who is "intellectually disabled" seems to be bringing the two terms closer together. Seems like a reasonable thing to do to me, especially from the stand-point of government agencies where disability is generally considered something that is preventing you from working, be it physical or mental.
No, it is not a framing. It is literally what the debate is about. And not Joe Biden 'literally' but actually literally. Read the bloody primary documents. Roe and Casey do not take up the debate over when life begins, and even acknowledges that the Court is incapable of doing so. Unless you are not interested in the actual legal debate that is what we are talking about. And if you aren't interested in the actual legal debate the entire discussion becomes mooted as that legal debate is all that matters in the legal context of outlawing access to abortions.
You can agree with Roe & Casey. You can disagree with Roe & Casey. However you cannot just ignore Roe & Casey and have your own little conversation over here and pretend its what everything is actually about.
I think this falls under the heading of political correctness, since Hallmark pulled the card in question from store shelves to be sensitive to the concerns of the NAACP. I also think it is a decent example of PC out of control, because, at least to my ear (admittedly listening to a crappy chip through another set of speakers) the card did not seem to say what the NAACP claims. I reserve the right to change my mind should I ever get a hold of one of these monsterous cards to give it a first hand listen.
As to the orignal example from the OP, I've got no beef with changing the language in legal text for PC concerns. It really costs us nothing and it may earn the intellectually disabled a short reprieve. I also agree that it is just a matter of time before the new term is co-opted. As with most of our problems, I believe the solution is going to come from teaching our kids to be better people. This is a stop gap until we figure out a way to do that reliably.
That card clearly said "black holes." I heard an "L," not an "R." I listened to it like half a dozen times, and couldn't hear what they were hearing. And the theme of the card is "the solar system."
Basically, what happened here is some idiot was too fucking stupid to know what a black hole is, because their school obviously failed them (ironic, given it's a graduation card), and complained. The NAACP either didn't look into it before raising a ruckus, or whoever looked into was similarly stupid, and by the time anybody with half a brain (or an education) in that organization realized "oh shit, this is stupid" it was too late....they couldn't back down.
Luckily we live in a society where Hallmark is PC enough to go ahead and pull the card, and give the NAACP a little pat on the head for their trouble.
Fffuuuuu I was coming here to post this. Damn you Tinwhiskers, Dammnnn youuuu
Oh come on, of course it's relevant. It's not relevant to a legal analysis of the caselaw, but just because the courts didn't make decisions on those grounds doesn't mean the topic is irrelevant to the broad question of 'what should society do about abortion.'
I mean I'm about as prochoice as it gets and this is just a dodge.
dappled sunlight / strikes your butt
girl you got a / real sweet butt
You're being pretty silly here. Bringing up supreme court cases is a complete non sequitor to the discussion that the labels groups with two different ideologies self identify with cause friction in reasonably discussing the issue that they fundamentally disagree about.
And the above is most definitely a difference in framing the debate.
#FreeScheck#FreeSKFM
I agree that the scenario probably unfolded quite as you described. I disagree that Hallmark pulling the card and patting the head of the NAACP is a good thing. First of all, I just feel gross at the principle of rewarded some one who is wrong with power over your business. But more importantly, the NAACP is an important structure and this story puts a tarnish on them. It gives ammo to those who want to claim PC is out of control.
This reminds me of the recent "singing chocolate cupcakes = blackface" brouhaha.
#FreeScheck#FreeSKFM
Still doesn't beat the 'White hole' comment from Dalls a few years back.
The tarnish was already on them. I'm going to go ahead and make the bold statement that this is probably not the first time they've flown off the handle because some elderly black person got confused and offended by something silly like this.
Yeah, funny that.
Yes it would be helpful to group two classes together if there were no meaningful distinction between them. This is not such a case. Also, you can already get disability for lifelong mental illness so collapsing the two categories would be pointless.
Data from where?
There only a handful of countries where men live longer than women and, like, less than half of them have female literacy rates under 50%. I'm checking out the CIA World Factbook website. That's not too far off, right?
ok.
And throw musicians in there, too. Nothing fuels stereotypes like literally making your living off fueling stereotypes.
And someone put away Tyler Perry while we're at it.
I was referring to more how abortions are actually reduced and so on.
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Why? Tyler Perry portrays black families as normal, respectable and healthy. Thats a big reason why he's so successful, he doesn't portray blacks as the stereotype.
Sure his movies are still absolute shit but whatever, this isn't the Art Jail thread.
From the perspective of the federal government with regards to benefits, there shouldn't be a meaningful distinction between the two terms. The distinction should be whether or not the disabling condition, be it mental or physical, prevents a person from working at a substantially gainful level.
I wasn't suggesting collapsing the two categories. The point above was that when some people consider "disability" the first thing that comes to mind is a physical injury. By distinguishing between physical and intellectual disability, that's a step (albeit a very small step) in helping the general public understand that disability benefits and programs are for those with either physical or mental conditions.
Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that this was something the current administration could do without getting much opposition--why not do it, then? It doesn't hurt anything and at least on paper there's some sense in doing it.
He doesn't portray Blacks as minstrels and cripplingly reliant on religious platitudes? I have two people who disagree with you: