Take a seat, have a drink, let's talk! - 013 School bullies: how serious a problem?

2456789

Comments

  • Campbell2Campbell2 Epsilon Rho Rho house, Bending State University
    edited April 2015 Posts: 299
    I feel much more secure thanks to 24/7 surveillance. What a blessing it is to know we are never alone, never have to be afraid of being mugged or beaten up. Feeling immensely relieved that our trustworthy police thanks to CCTV is able to follow my every move. Should some miserable whiny freak with daddy issues decide to smash my skull it's great consolation for me to know he will be brought to book right when the budget deficit allows to send an actual copper after the him, yay! Just look how immensely safe we all live thanks to public surveillance, we should double the cams and cut down on the lazy public sector. [populist-drone mode off]
  • Posts: 7,653
    I frankly do not give a damn, it give some folks an extra sense of safety so whatever tickles their fancy.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I don't live in the UK anymore, so I am not subject to 24/7 surveillance. Having said that, I wouldn't mind it, if it's for security purposes. Unlike the UK, we have the opposite problem in North America - there is absolutely no way a large continent like this can be completely tracked, so if someone wants to do something nefarious, they are more likely to be able to get away with it.

    As an aside to the previous discussion about social media, it is in this area that I do not want to be 'surveilled'. Unbeknownst to many, social media is tracked (even when tracking is turned off) and governments do have access to what the user thinks is 'private'.

    So I don't use social media much if at all (I'm not that interesting to begin with, and I can't be bothered with what someone has done during the day or the myriad 'selfies' that are populating these sites).
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    I'm OK with them as long as I don't get caught.



    I don't mind them around certain areas like public transportation, malls, ATM's or high security places. Not a fan of them on highways.
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,591
    They're there to ensure our safety. Just as long as they don't get more invasive then they are now, I'm fine with them.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I have no problem with this; out of restrooms, yes.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 1,181
    I think private businesses should definitely have the right to use security cams if they choose to do so. The only thing that concerns me is controlling exactly who has access to view these and preventing them from being hacked. I definitely find the red-light cameras around stoplights atrocious. A straight up money grab. Honestly, I think some of these invasions of privacy will only continue to get worse and worse. Stationary cams are at least stationary. What about all of these drones flying now? Those seem like an extreme invasion of privacy to me.
  • I remember when I was young, you could enter your local shop with only the French equivalent of one dollar, and you could leave the shop with a Coke bottle, a bag of chocolate bars, a piece of bread, two or three apples, some nuts, one or two magazines, etc.. Nowadays, it's almost impossible, because of these cameras.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    ;)
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I hate them. I have to comb my hair every day now.
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    When I see a security camera, I usually do a three minute routine. ;)
    Start with a song, a couple of gags then finish with my tribute to lady
    Gaga.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 2015 Posts: 4,509
    I think that Silva was very happy with those camera's.

    maxresdefault.jpg
    Cheese :D
  • Posts: 12,526
    M_Balje wrote: »
    I think that Silva was very happy with those camera's.

    maxresdefault.jpg
    Cheese :D

    Yep! I think he was! :))
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,157
    <center><font color=#E9AB12 size=6><b>003
    </b>Are you annoyed by the current emphasis on being PC?</font>

    url2.jpeg
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Topic 3: Oh hell yes. Political correctness is an awful disease. It makes me angry. Political Correctness is pretty much a "Niceness" Shield to make everyone pander to others. To forcefully respect people. It's damaging the media and some governments. It's pretty much saying. If this offends me, I want it gone to pander to me. I hate political correctness. I'm not an asshole or insensitive but there's a way of being tasteful without censorship and pandering.
  • RC7RC7
    edited April 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Murdock wrote: »
    Topic 3: Oh hell yes. Political correctness is an awful disease. It makes me angry.

    Don't let the far left's hijacking of this rhetoric cloud your judgement. It's a pretty touchy subject, but it's not as clear cut as being right or wrong. Most people don't actually understand what political correctness is, or its origins.

    This bit of stand up is about 8 years old now, but is still very relevant and unequivocally brilliant. Particularly the bit about Richard Littlejohn, who for those non-Brits is your typical right-wing bigot.




  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    RC7 wrote: »
    Murdock wrote: »
    Topic 3: Oh hell yes. Political correctness is an awful disease. It makes me angry.

    Don't let the far left's hijacking of this rhetoric cloud your judgement. It's a pretty touchy subject, but it's not as clear cut as being right or wrong.

    My opinions on Political correctness aren't formed by the left and right. I don't really follow politics until election season, but when PC elicits Censorship that's where it crosses the line.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Yes and....no.

    It's not an easy answer.

    No
    I'm not annoyed that PC has stopped bigots from making unsubstantiated, ignorant remarks in public about people they just happen not to like, or who are different from them, or who don't fit their narrow minded view of the world. In that respect, PC is a definite benefit, because it limits the ability for people to spew hatred at other people without any basis in fact - it especially protects minorities of all kinds (whether it be gays, racial minorities, or people with disabilities). These are all good things. It also prevents stereotyping.

    Yes
    I am annoyed that PC sometimes prevents us from saying things that are factual, just for fear of hurting someone. That is quite different from making a statement that is blatantly incorrect or not based in fact (as noted in the previous paragraph).

    I am a big believer in free speech, and freedom of expression, as long as the statements are factual and not designed to provoke or incite hatred.

    Balancing that freedom of expression (which I support) with the possibility of offence is tricky however, and not easy. People have varying degrees of sensitivity, and take umbrage to different things, even if they are factually correct.

    So in these cases (when a statement is based in fact), is the person who is aggrieved then at fault for taking offence? Or is it the the one doing the so called 'offending' who is at fault?

    From my point of view, it depends on how the offensive factual remark was delivered.
    1. Has it actually caused anger or is one just worried about causing potential offence?
    2. If it riled, was it a genuine mistake?
    2. If it offended, was there an actual intention to provoke or annoy?
    3. If it angered, was there a history of such statements that could cause offence by the deliverer?
    4. Most importantly, what was the tone in which the statement was delivered?

    So I think it's a matter of context and tone, whether facts are available to support the statement, and whether it actually caused disgust.

    As an example:
    1. calling someone whose origins are from Africa or the Caribbean the 'n' word is wrong and PC is correct in this instance. The statement is intended to insult and will do so.
    2. calling someone whose origins are from south east Asia the 'p' word is also wrong, and once again PC is correct. The statement is also intended to disrespect and will do so.
    3. calling muslims terrorists or stating that they have a predilection for terrorism or violence is factually incorrect (given the % of peaceful muslims in existence vs. the number of violent ones) and PC is also correct in preventing this. The statement is ignorant (lacking in fact) and is intended to defame.

    4. however, hypothesizing that the shortage of women in science and engineering could be explained by innate biological differences in mathematical ability based on standard deviation analysis is not factually incorrect and yet the then president of Harvard University, Larry Summers, was forced to resign over it. Summers should have perhaps qualified his hypothesis by saying it remains to be seen, but I don't think he should have had to resign over it - it may have offended, but it is not incorrect, and the intention was not to offend.
    5. saying that there are aspects of the Quran that encourage violence which should be disowned by moderates (given some murders are being committed in the name of Islam) is also not factually incorrect. The statement is likely to offend, but it is up to the offended in this case to show why it is wrong imo.
    6. Renaming Christmas trees in some US schools to "Holiday" trees to avoid causing potential offence to non-Christians is wrong. The holiday is Christmas and it should be called a Christmas tree.
    7. Renaming blackboards to chalkboards to potentially avoid offending is also going too far imo - which some schools have done.

    Overall I think PC is a good thing. Difficult question really.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Great Post @bondjames. =D>
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,081
    Goodness... Holiday trees and chalkboards? =))

    Indeed it's not a simple matter. PC has its positives, but also obvious negatives. The perpetual state of being offended by something is not a good thing, but the media certainly laps it up. The moral outrage over anything and everything is tiring and infuriating. It's good to have some guidelines so that all sorts of crazies can't just say anything without any consequences, but too much control and policing is not good either and is harmful, too.

    Is blandness the only way forward? I hope not.
  • KerimKerim Istanbul Not Constantinople
    Posts: 2,629
    Yes, minus the racist and sexist terms.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    I'm not politically correct in any way, but either way, it doesn't bother me. Be politically correct all you want, I don't give two sh*ts.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    I don't think the emphasis on PC is anything new (or "current"). It's been an emphasis for about 25 years, at least. What we see with the anti-PC crowd (here in the States) is a resistance to change because for 200+ years, the white, ruling class in this country has gotten away with whatever the hell they want, and that's ending, and it pisses them off. When we use the word "retarded" as a point of making fun of others, it's time to get away from the term "retarded" (which was once the standard) and change it. When we use the name "Redskins" for a football team, a term that is as offensive as it gets, and hold on to it because of tradition, it's time to re-think our use of language. And when we use expressions like "Too many Indians and not enough Chiefs" or call someone an "Indian Giver," that's an offensive use of language. I think @BondJames is alluding to this. But...

    I disagree with @Bondjames on some points:

    1. There is no scientific research that supports the assertion that men have an innate or natural ability to be better at math and science than women. Summers shouldn't have been canned for suggesting it, but it was a reckless statement. What instead may be true is that boys and girls encounter gender biases that provide males an advantage in learning math and science at an earlier age. This is cultural, rather than biological.

    2. The Christmas Tree / Holiday Tree controversy is borne out of the separation of church and state issues our country has. Again, for 200+ years, white Christians got the notion that their religion was the law of the land, when, in fact, that whole idea violated the Constitution and the framers' ideas about the nation. Heck, Christians STILL think they have some "right" to place themselves and their beliefs over anyone and anything else, and some members of the current SCOTUS have unfortunately begun to agree with them. Point is, the resistance to the terms "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday Trees" is a lack of acceptance on the part of Christians that their belief is just that: a belief. Furthermore, wishing someone "Happy Holidays" is just tactically smart, and any business owner would agree. Play it safe. Respect all religions, and acknowledge that we celebrate an entire "Holiday" season from Thanksgiving to New Year's Day. Funny, but Christians want to say "Merry Christmas" for three weeks, prior to when Christmas even takes place. We don't wish people a "Happy Easter" "Happy Fourth" weeks in advance. So why is this the case with Christmas?

    Rant over.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited April 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Just to clarify @TripAces, Larry Summers did not say that women lacked an innate or natural ability to be better at math or sciences. He observed that there was a statistically different standard deviation between men and women in this respect (an accurate observation) and this could be attributed to ability (a hypothesis that is to be proven or disproven).

    In a nutshell, he observed that even if on average, they were the same, there is increased variability on the boy's side (higher and lower). That is a fact. It was misprepresented in the media, misunderstood amongst certain groups, and he paid for it.

    As I suggested earlier, he should have been more careful with his remarks, but his statement was not wrong. It was not inaccurate. I don't think it was intended to offend. However I agree that it was careless given his position, as it was apt to be misunderstood.

    I remember being surprised when the furor erupted, because I expected that in a respected academic institution such as Harvard, people should be able to put forth a hypothesis based on accurate observations without being unjustly vilified. So I think this is an example of PC going too far.

    Regarding the Christmas tree thing, yes, I agree that there may be a sense of entitlement among some about their holiday, and I agree that it makes better business sense to say "Happy Holidays", but that does not make saying "Merry Christmas" wrong either.

    My point actually was about renaming the Christmas tree to a Holiday tree, which has occurred in some schools. That is PC going too far imo.
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 2,081
    Um, ok, I'm clueless, so help me out: do non-Christians have trees similar to Christmas trees at the same time of year? I assumed not, hence I thought Holiday tree was a funny expression - why should that type of neutrality be needed at all... BUT if they do have the trees then it makes sense they wouldn't want to call them Christmas trees, and presumably haven't done so far, either, right? This is not an issue where I live, since neither the tree nor the holiday itself is religiously named and doesn't thereby refer to Christianity specifically. This is also the case in many other countries. But I can see the possible problem with the English language, even with holiday wishes and what not. That is simply not the case everywhere.
    bondjames wrote: »
    misrepresented in the media, misunderstood amongst certain groups

    This happens all the time, with all sorts of stuff. It's frustrating and at times infuriating. Sometimes I get the impression that media is not even interested in correctly reporting, but rather in creating a Story. Misrepresenting opinions is very easy. Take out the context or "simplify" what is said and you very quickly have a quite different opinion - no longer that of the person who said it, though... but they're the ones who will get the shit for it. And quite often trying to explain what they actually said and meant doesn't work, because many people still go with the misrepresentation that took place earlier, and just think "oh, now he's trying to backpedal..."

    Funny how I was just having some discussion on that type of situation. That guy we were talking about won't be losing his job, thank goodness, different type of position, but anyway... I like people having opinions that may not be entirely PC, and not being afraid to voice them, and being able to back them up. It's also ok, if people disagree. But all this business of being offended... It should be possible to have discussion and different opinions without being offended so easily. The person I was talking with went "but he used these words, so it's his fault if people misunderstood, he should be more careful", and my position was that no, if media ignores the context and just picks out some words they are seriously misrepresenting what the guy really said, even though yes, he used those words, but the whole meaning gets distorted if words are out of context and most of what he said is ignored. It seemed obvious to me he didn't mean to offend, and certainly wasn't ignorant of what he was talking about, either.

    Another guy gave a very un-PC interview for which he got shit, of course, and later apologized, and seeing some quotes I thought, ok, looks kinda bad, but since I like this guy I want to read the interview to get the full picture. So I searched and found and and read, and while it was indeed un-PC (quite refreshing I though), the stuff that had been taken out of context didn't seem that bad to me in the interview and I found myself agreeing with most of what he said. I thought it was ridiculous he had to apologize for it. He'll probably never now get the Oscar he should have gotten ages ago. I hope he'll keep getting good work, though.
    We all hide and try to be so politically correct. That’s what gets me. It’s just the sheer hypocrisy of everyone, that we all stand on this thing going, “Isn’t that shocking?”

    -Gary Oldman

    http://www.playboy.com/articles/gary-oldman-playboy-interview

    I actually liked him even more after reading that interview.
    I'm not politically correct in any way, but either way, it doesn't bother me. Be politically correct all you want, I don't give two sh*ts.
    :D
  • edited April 2015 Posts: 1,181
    I would say I agree with you guys mostly. I'm not big on political correctness in general. I'm a supporter of the facts. Sometimes facts are unpleasant to us. George Carlin had some good rants about Political Correctness/Beliefs/Environmental Subjects. One of my favorites was the one where he says people are worried about everything. He says "Save the trees, Save the bees, Save the whales, Hey Save those snails!!

    But I guess I go by this most of the time. I try to keep things to myself unless I have something productive to say to someone. I'm against personal attacks or insults obviously, but I don't think its necessary to sugarcoat everything.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,789
    To ME, the term 'Politically Correct' is much like 'Conservative' in that they started out meaning something & ended up being a f**kin' joke.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    We need dear @Birdleson in on this discussion. Obviously, you are all too tame.
    (just joshing!)

    I have mixed thoughts on this. I will write more later; not time just now.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    I'll just say I agree with @bondjames and @kerim. In those nutshells.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I find the PC attitude annoying mostly because I recognise the truth in the assumptions it stands for, a lot of behaviour should be rethought and stated differently.

    And about that fella that lead a huge scientific organisation and him telling that women are less, women are not less and saying that for somebody in his position is a sackable offense in my book. What is factual is that the scientific world is quite conservative and as such still dominated by a male group.

Sign In or Register to comment.