Jump to content


The Democrat Utopia


Recommended Posts

Just now, Archy1221 said:

That needs mandated by the government?  Strange but ok:dunno

Companies have mandates on how they market their goods all of the time. If you'd like I can go through some other examples of government mandates on how products are marketed. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Companies have mandates on how they market their goods all of the time. If you'd like I can go through some other examples of government mandates on how products are marketed. 

My industry is full of them, more so than just about any industry out there.  So I will pass.

 

Im just happy to know that after all these struggling years of shopping for toys, the government of CA is FINALLY making sure that those citizens don’t have to feel uncomfortable of what isle they walk down.  
 

Hoping they next mandate that the healthy food section at grocery stores is mixed in with the sugary food section so it doesn’t discriminate against those who feel bad walking down the sugary snack isle. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

My industry is full of them, more so than just about any industry out there.  So I will pass.

 

Im just happy to know that after all these struggling years of shopping for toys, the government of CA is FINALLY making sure that those citizens don’t have to feel uncomfortable of what isle they walk down.  
 

Hoping they next mandate that the healthy food section at grocery stores is mixed in with the sugary food section so it doesn’t discriminate against those who feel bad walking down the sugary snack isle. 

Again, this isn't even about what you are making it about. Its not about making "those citizens" more comfortable. Its about making a girl more comfortable in selecting a nerf gun that she wanted or making a boy more comfortable in getting a doll house he wanted. Kids have fun with all kinds of toys and we shouldn't make them feel like less of a boy or girl for wanting the wrong toy. 

 

Its funny how you see the term gender neutral and immediately go to "those citizens". It illustrates your grasp on these issues 

  • Plus1 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Ulty said:

So we still don’t know what actual policies she is worried about, and we don’t know what “trouble” actually means here.

 

What we do know is that he said something that was unintentionally offensive to someone else, it was brought to his attention, and now he has adjusted his communication so he does not offend that person anymore.

 

Is that a bad thing? 

People withdrawal due to these new policies versus adjust and engage. They end up being too afraid to say anything except what is needed to conduct business. Pronouns or phrases they used for decades have been redefined and are now offensive. In most cases, people do not mean to offend but are still called out, in this case through HR. Think of all the things that even university professors have deemed racist or offensive. Yoga, sheet music, advanced math classes, Fs. To most people, even many of my liberal friends, this type of stuff seems nonsensical. 
 

Many years ago a friend of mine was reprimanded by his union boss for saying ‘good morning girls’ to two women the he felt he knew and had a friendly relationship with. He was a very kind and talkative older gentlemen near retirement. Grandpa type. I could tell when he told me about the event that he still could not comprehend why he got in trouble and that his feelings were hurt because he genuinely like the two women. After it happened, he just avoided saying anything to them because he didn’t know what would get him in trouble. It seems like many of the policies being adopted lately are intended to be inclusive and the real result is they drive people apart.

 

To answer knapplc’s question,  she was frustrated with new company policies that were similar to the ones that got her husband in trouble. She didn’t offer a list, just pointed to questions in an online form that suggested pitfalls for people. Her husband did not get fired or cancelled, but I suspect the relationship with his students is now much more formal....strained....guarded. It won’t be personable anymore.

  • Plus1 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

That needs mandated by the government?  Strange but ok:dunno

 

 

Definitely doesn't need to be mandated by the government. Also doesn't need to be misrepresented by stooge conservative 'satire' to be something it clearly isn't. Also strange.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, nic said:

People withdrawal due to these new policies versus adjust and engage. They end up being too afraid to say anything except what is needed to conduct business. Pronouns or phrases they used for decades have been redefined and are now offensive. In most cases, people do not mean to offend but are still called out, in this case through HR. Think of all the things that even university professors have deemed racist or offensive. Yoga, sheet music, advanced math classes, Fs. To most people, even many of my liberal friends, this type of stuff seems nonsensical. 
 

Many years ago a friend of mine was reprimanded by his union boss for saying ‘good morning girls’ to two women the he felt he knew and had a friendly relationship with. He was a very kind and talkative older gentlemen near retirement. Grandpa type. I could tell when he told me about the event that he still could not comprehend why he got in trouble and that his feelings were hurt because he genuinely like the two women. After it happened, he just avoided saying anything to them because he didn’t know what would get him in trouble. It seems like many of the policies being adopted lately are intended to be inclusive and the real result is they drive people apart.

 

To answer knapplc’s question,  she was frustrated with new company policies that were similar to the ones that got her husband in trouble. She didn’t offer a list, just pointed to questions in an online form that suggested pitfalls for people. Her husband did not get fired or cancelled, but I suspect the relationship with his students is now much more formal....strained....guarded. It won’t be personable anymore.

 

So... nothing actually happened to all the "victims" here.

 

People who don't understand today's culture as it evolves withdraw, complaining about the younger generation. That's been happening since the dawn of time. Horace wrote about it 2000 years ago.

 

The Grandpa type used an outdated and easily understandably offensive term to refer to women. He doesn't understand why they were offended and now his feelings are hurt. Clearly he was at fault, but he's the "victim," not the women he called "girls."

 

Your Berkeley professor friend's wife is frustrated with new policies. Her husband wasn't disciplined or reprimanded, just educated about the concerns of his students. Rather than learning from that experience, he's going to withdraw and not be personable anymore. And he's the "victim."

 

Sorry. But all of these examples are pretty easily rectified by some internal growth, not withdrawal.

 

This reminds me of one of the recent favorite conservative insults to liberals - "snowflake."

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

So... nothing actually happened to all the "victims" here.

 

People who don't understand today's culture as it evolves withdraw, complaining about the younger generation. That's been happening since the dawn of time. Horace wrote about it 2000 years ago.

 

The Grandpa type used an outdated and easily understandably offensive term to refer to women. He doesn't understand why they were offended and now his feelings are hurt. Clearly he was at fault, but he's the "victim," not the women he called "girls."

 

Your Berkeley professor friend's wife is frustrated with new policies. Her husband wasn't disciplined or reprimanded, just educated about the concerns of his students. Rather than learning from that experience, he's going to withdraw and not be personable anymore. And he's the "victim."

 

Sorry. But all of these examples are pretty easily rectified by some internal growth, not withdrawal.

 

This reminds me of one of the recent favorite conservative insults to liberals - "snowflake."

He was reprimanded.....I think...it depends on what that means. Her words were that he got in trouble. Whether that was a stern talking to in the deans office and more training I do not know. The story came up in context of my question regarding the pros and cons of her new company. The first con she mentioned was the that she would rather work for less $ at a small company than for a large woke company. I suspect this was because of what happened to her husband. We can all conjecture on what we think that was, but whatever it was created her opinion above. AND she is a self proclaimed liberal. Feel free to believe otherwise, but I think the wheels are starting to come off the progressive bus. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, nic said:

He was reprimanded.....I think...it depends on what that means. Her words were that he got in trouble. Whether that was a stern talking to in the deans office and more training I do not know. The story came up in context of my question regarding the pros and cons of her new company. The first con she mentioned was the that she would rather work for less $ at a small company than for a large woke company. I suspect this was because of what happened to her husband. We can all conjecture on what we think that was, but whatever it was created her opinion above. AND she is a self proclaimed liberal. Feel free to believe otherwise, but I think the wheels are starting to come off the progressive bus. 

 

That sounds TTTOOOOTTTEESSS like a liberal caricature would totes magotes sound.

 

Totes.

 

Cool story.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
On 10/10/2021 at 11:41 AM, nic said:

People withdrawal due to these new policies versus adjust and engage. 

...

To answer knapplc’s question,  she was frustrated with new company policies that were similar to the ones that got her husband in trouble. She didn’t offer a list, just pointed to questions in an online form that suggested pitfalls for people. 

What "new policies"? You have yet to identify an actual company/university policy that you or her or her husband finds questionable. Earlier you said that she was one of your employees, and now you say that she was frustrated with "new company policies," so it would stand to reason if you are her manager that you would know what policies she might be talking about. And obviously it seems like you have concerns about these mysterious policies too. 

 

Let's make it easier: if you can't identify your own company policy that is causing so much consternation, then let's identify any policy that any reputable company, corporation, or university has (public universities typically post all of their policies online), that you feel is representative of cancel culture or is too woke. Then we can discuss what is unreasonable about these policies and how they can be changed. Is that fair?

 

 

On 10/10/2021 at 11:41 AM, nic said:

They end up being too afraid to say anything except what is needed to conduct business. Pronouns or phrases they used for decades have been redefined and are now offensive. In most cases, people do not mean to offend but are still called out, in this case through HR. 

Language evolves, and sometimes it evolves rather quickly. Let's use psychiatric and disability language for example. Back in the day, doctors and psychologists used words like "idiot" and "imbecile" as actual medical terms. I think these words were even used in early versions of the DSM Manual (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me). Later, these words became commonly used as pejorative insults, so the language changed. For many years, the R-word was used instead. It became used in a derogatory way as well. So language evolved again, and we don't use the R-word anymore (unless you are intentionally being an a$$hole). 

 

Now think about the word "queer." That word has been used as a derogatory term for a hell of a long time, but has largely been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community (that's what the Q stands for) as an acceptable term, but the context regarding how the word is used still matters. Not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community likes that word, and it can still be triggering to some. And it can still be used inappropriately. 

 

With pronouns, the vernacular has changed really quickly, and it is hard to keep up. So when you mention "Pronouns or phrases they used for decades," let's talk about "they" as an example. You and I likely grew up using "they" as nothing more than a plural pronoun and not as someone's personal identity. It still feels weird to use "they" as a singular pronoun instead of "he or she." It doesn't sound like the proper English that we learned. But times have changed. Is there a reason to stubbornly dig your heels in and refuse to use "they" if that is what someone prefers? What harm does it do to you to learn to use a word a little bit differently? What harm does it do to the older man in your example to refer to professional women as "women" instead of "girls?" It does no harm at all to make that change, but using respectful language or using someone's preferred name or pronouns can show that you are making an effort at respecting them. 

 

 

On 10/10/2021 at 11:41 AM, nic said:

Many years ago a friend of mine was reprimanded by his union boss for saying ‘good morning girls’ to two women the he felt he knew and had a friendly relationship with. He was a very kind and talkative older gentlemen near retirement. Grandpa type. I could tell when he told me about the event that he still could not comprehend why he got in trouble and that his feelings were hurt because he genuinely like the two women. After it happened, he just avoided saying anything to them because he didn’t know what would get him in trouble. It seems like many of the policies being adopted lately are intended to be inclusive and the real result is they drive people apart.

Let's think critically about this a little bit further. In the business world, a "reprimand" is typically a disciplinary action, right? Does a union boss have the authority to discipline? Isn't the job of a union leader to look out for the fairness and just treatment of their fellow union members? Further, can you think of any real policy that would lead to someone being disciplined for mistakenly calling someone "girls"? Is it more likely that this was an educational conversation with the older gentleman? Now, if you said something that unintentionally offended someone else, wouldn't you want to know about it? 

 

What happens when that same older man makes a mistake in any other aspect of his job? Does he learn and improve, or does he just stop doing his job? Look, when we make mistakes (and we all make mistakes), we need to acknowledge the mistake, suck it up, and do better next time. That's not too much to ask.

 

 

15 hours ago, nic said:

He was reprimanded.....I think...it depends on what that means. Her words were that he got in trouble. Whether that was a stern talking to in the deans office and more training I do not know. 

Again, let's think critically about this situation. There is a huge difference between a reprimand, and "huge trouble," versus a conversation with the Dean or more training. Hell, we all need more training, that is not a bad thing. And a conversation with the Dean is not a disciplinary action. Call it conjecture or call it critical thinking, but what do you think actually happened in this situation? Think about what is reasonable. Is this really what "cancel culture" is?

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

2 hours ago, Ulty said:

What "new policies"? You have yet to identify and actual company/university policy that you or her or her husband finds questionable. Earlier you said that she was one of your employees, and now you say that she was frustrated with "new company policies," so it would stand to reason if you are her manager that you would know what policies she might be talking about. And obviously it seems like you have concerns about these mysterious policies too. 

 

Let's make it easier: if you can't identify your own company policy that is causing so much consternation, then let's identify any policy that any reputable company, corporation, or university has (public universities typically post all of their policies online), that you feel is representative of cancel culture or is too woke. Then we can discuss what is unreasonable about these policies and how they can be changed. Is that fair?

 

 

Language evolves, and sometimes it evolves rather quickly. Let's use psychiatric and disability language for example. Back in the day, doctors and psychologists used words like "idiot" and "imbecile" as actual medical terms. I think these words were even used in early versions of the DSM Manual (I may be wrong, feel free to correct me). Later, these words became commonly used as pejorative insults, so the language changed. For many years, the R-word was used instead. It became used in a derogatory way as well. So language evolved again, and we don't use the R-word anymore (unless you are intentionally being an a$$hole). 

 

Now think about the word "queer." That word has been used as a derogatory term for a hell of a long time, but has largely been reclaimed by the LGBTQ+ community (that's what the Q stands for) as an acceptable term, but the context regarding how the word is used still matters. Not everyone in the LGBTQ+ community likes that word, and it can still be triggering to some. And it can still be used inappropriately. 

 

With pronouns, the vernacular has changed really quickly, and it is hard to keep up. So when you mention "Pronouns or phrases they used for decades," let's talk about "they" as an example. You and I likely grew up using "they" as nothing more than a plural pronoun and not as someone's personal identity. It still feels weird to use "they" as a singular pronoun instead of "he or she." It doesn't sound like the proper English that we learned. But times have changed. Is there a reason to stubbornly dig your heels in and refuse to use "they" if that is what someone prefers? What harm does it do to you to learn to use a word a little bit differently? What harm does it do to the older man in your example to refer to professional women as "women" instead of "girls?" It does no harm at all to make that change, but using respectful language or using someone's preferred name or pronouns can show that you are making an effort at respecting them. 

 

 

Let's think critically about this a little bit further. In the business world, a "reprimand" is typically a disciplinary action, right? Does a union boss have the authority to discipline? Isn't the job of a union leader to look out for the fairness and just treatment of their fellow union members? Further, can you think of any real policy that would lead to someone being disciplined for mistakenly calling someone "girls"? Is it more likely that this was an educational conversation with the older gentleman? Now, if you said something that unintentionally offended someone else, wouldn't you want to know about it? 

 

What happens when that same older man makes a mistake in any other aspect of his job? Does he learn and improve, or does he just stop doing his job? Look, when we make mistakes (and we all make mistakes), we need to acknowledge the mistake, suck it up, and do better next time. That's not too much to ask.

 

 

Again, let's think critically about this situation. There is a huge difference between a reprimand, and "huge trouble," versus a conversation with the Dean or more training. Hell, we all need more training, that is not a bad thing. And a conversation with the Dean is not a disciplinary action. Call it conjecture or call it critical thinking, but what do you think actually happened in this situation? Think about what is reasonable. Is this really what "cancel culture" is?

 

OR maybe some people come here and just make stuff up.....

  • Plus1 2
  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment

Greenwald's rant seems totally out of left field so I figured I'd better get a different source on whatever's going on with Eric Clapton.

 

As it turns out, whatever Greenwald is focusing on, it's not the point. Deflect, distract, demur. Weird tactic from a journalist, no?

 

 

 

 

 

Eric Clapton continues vaccine denial, donates $1,360 to anti-vax band

 

Eric Clapton thinks he can change the world — or at least the world’s perception of COVID-19 vaccines.

 

The 76-year-old rocker — who has repeatedly railed against the vaccines and associated mandates in recent months — has now helped bankroll an anti-vax band, Rolling Stone reported.

 

According to the publication, Clapton donated £1,000 (USD $1,360) to British rockers Jam For Freedom through a GoFundMe set up to help pay for legal fees they acquired after “breaching COVID regulations” at a gig.

 

Jam For Freedom has been playing shows across the UK in recent months, blasting the COVID shots in their songs. One of their tracks features the lyric: “You can stick your poison vaccine up your arse.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, funhusker said:

OR maybe some people come here and just make stuff up.....

 

My liberal friend the Berkeley Professor is being victimized by liberal cancel culture is exactly the caricature conservatives have of "Peak Liberalism gets owned."

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

Greenwald's rant seems totally out of left field so I figured I'd better get a different source on whatever's going on with Eric Clapton.

 

As it turns out, whatever Greenwald is focusing on, it's not the point. Deflect, distract, demur. Weird tactic from a journalist, no?

 

 

 

 

 

Eric Clapton continues vaccine denial, donates $1,360 to anti-vax band

 

Eric Clapton thinks he can change the world — or at least the world’s perception of COVID-19 vaccines.

 

The 76-year-old rocker — who has repeatedly railed against the vaccines and associated mandates in recent months — has now helped bankroll an anti-vax band, Rolling Stone reported.

 

According to the publication, Clapton donated £1,000 (USD $1,360) to British rockers Jam For Freedom through a GoFundMe set up to help pay for legal fees they acquired after “breaching COVID regulations” at a gig.

 

Jam For Freedom has been playing shows across the UK in recent months, blasting the COVID shots in their songs. One of their tracks features the lyric: “You can stick your poison vaccine up your arse.”

 

Thanks, you've made Greenwald's point. 

 

The "problem" is Clapton's anti-vax stance evidently. So...why did Rolling Stone talk about 40 year old allegations of racism to discredit him...when the issue is vaccines?

 

 

  • Oh Yeah! 1
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...