Social Justice

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Social Justice

Postby iMURDAu » Fri Sep 22, 2017 2:43 pm

Tesseracts wrote:
He added: “I think children would be more balanced in their friendships if they all grew up knowing they all need to be friends with each other.
“These obsessive friendships can be very hurtful for those who are left out of them, and ostracising is as painful as physical bullying.
“These very obsessive friendships do need intervention and careful management by adults.”


Social rejection is a normal part of social development, and is not the same as bullying. I totally understand why they don't want to just leave small children unsupervised and figure everything out for themselves, because that's how bullying happens, but for fucks sake this is not what bullying is. Reading about people intervening in and managing friendships makes me cringe, especially when the people doing this are not parents, not people with any special expertise in child development or psychology, but fucking teachers. Their job is to teach counting. I hate the way we act like a teachers job is to be a substitute parent. I don't trust them to determine what a healthy friendship is, seems they don't even know what bullying is.


Amen to that bolded part. The rest too, but especially that sentence.
  • 7

“This is going to become a bad meme,” Todd observed.
User avatar
iMURDAu
TCS Chomper
TCS Chomper
 
Posts: 6752
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 10:08 am
Location: twitch.tv/beakstore
Show rep
Title: King of Fuh

Re: Social Justice

Postby Tesseracts » Fri Sep 22, 2017 8:47 pm

21616323_1722460817775278_5890137148249207941_n.jpg
21616323_1722460817775278_5890137148249207941_n.jpg (64.25 KiB) Viewed 7529 times
  • 13

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Social Justice

Postby Grimstone » Sat Sep 23, 2017 12:57 am

I can't pick one favorite when it comes to most things. For example: "favorite song".. there are so many songs I know/like it's hard to pick just one.
  • 10

"The struggle itself towards the heights is enough to fill a man's heart."
User avatar
Grimstone
TCS Guerilla
 
Posts: 2160
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:52 am
Show rep
Title: Creature of the Night

Re: Social Justice

Postby NoodleFox » Sun Sep 24, 2017 3:02 am

So I found this little gem of a vid. A college student is reprimanded for saying that being bisexual would get him killed in Muslim countries; it's too offending, says his professor. I don't want to spoil it, but here's a taste:
"BEHAVIOUR INTERVENTION TEAM"
(this screams meme material)

Look, the issue is not whether or not he was being appropriate in bringing it up.

The issue is that they are threatening him with dismissal for it.

Insisting that students behave thoughtfully and kindly towards other students at all times is one thing, not really something I agree with 100% but hey, I get it.
What isn't understandable or reasonable is dismissing a student for being thoughtless or rude.

This didn't take place at a private practice where you might just be called into HR and be told, "Yeah, we don't talk about religion because it's such a contentious topic - this took place at a University, where ideas should not, must not be protected, but challenged. Censorship in society as a whole is already terrible. Censorship in academia is downright poisonous to its very concept.

It reeks of authoritarian thoughtcrime behaviour manipulation like something out of 1984.
  • 7

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Social Justice

Postby Kate » Sun Sep 24, 2017 5:31 am

I kind of wish I could see the whole context. It is very easy to take a snippet out of context, and so far we only have his side of the story it seems. If it is as he describes, yes that's horrible, but if he is continuously bringing up that Islam is bad because ___ or he was doing it out of nowhere, then it might be a legitimate disciplinary action and not policing of thoughtcrimes.
  • 8

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: Social Justice

Postby Marcuse » Mon Sep 25, 2017 5:28 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41384473

Bath Spa University prevents a counsellor specialising in therapy for transgender people from conducting a study into transgender people who reverse reassignment surgery because it would be politically incorrect and:

BBC wrote:...cause criticism of the research on social media and criticism of the research would be criticism of the university and they also added it was better not to offend people


:|
  • 14

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Social Justice

Postby Deathclaw_Puncher » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:26 pm

Gender therapy and dealing with ASDs are seemingly the only two areas of psychiatry where "Do no harm" seems to not apply. Unfortunately, there's roughly a 9% correlative overlap and there seems to be a lot of jerks out there who prioritize their pet theories over their patients or see it as an opportunity to mold people according to their ideal gender roles. And there's still those who Ignore the WPATH v. 2013 Standards of Care in favor of the outdated and offensive Harry Benjamin Standards of Care. There's all sorts of horror stories out there, of people being dismissed as a waste of time because they show up wearing pants, or are both trans and gay, or are mtf and autistic, and all sorts of other bullshit.

Now was it an overreaction? Most likely, but considering the above, it's a valid concern. You don't exactly want a controversial Ray Chandling type (he doesn't believe in the existence of gay trans women, trans men, or female genitalia) to be the one handling the trans students. Outright preventing research into detransitioning still isn't exactly the right way to go about things, though.
  • 5

Last edited by Deathclaw_Puncher on Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 12452
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Queen of the Furrets

Re: Social Justice

Postby Kate » Mon Sep 25, 2017 6:29 pm

I can see why the university wouldn't want the controversy and they have every right not to cosign controversial studies (for example, someone who wants to study whether women are biologically worse at math or whether black people are genetically more prone to violence would surely be met with resistance and a university would have every right to say "no thanks, we don't want that here."). But it's disappointing because this is a real question that we don't have a lot of data on and that affects people. There are people who think they have gender dysphoria, transition, and discover it's not really the solution for them. Studying this can help people make informed decisions in the future and also potentially help those individuals affected.

I can understand the concern about using this to make transitioning more complicated, and surely if the results indicate that there may be other factors for some individuals that would add another hoop to the process. But if it's a hoop that catches people who do not truly have gender dysphoria and helps them solve the underlying problem that they as individuals are experiencing, isn't it worth it? This could potentially reduce the number of people who are dissatisfied with life after transitioning, which would lend legitimacy to transitioning for people who genuinely are helped by it.*

TL;DR: I think it's a study that should be done, but I can understand why the university won't touch it and it's unfortunate that the political climate is such that genuine scientific inquiry cannot happen without:

1) it being taken out of context and used to harass people and make policy that harms people
2) it being taken as a slight against transgenderism in general, because there are certainly people who think any acknowledgment that some people aren't helped and even feel worse after transitioning is bigotry
and
3) universities being in the line of fire from a public that is afraid of 1 and 2.

*ETA: I want to add, I strongly suspect that for at least some individuals, the social pressure doesn't go away after transitioning and they still get flak for being trans that adds to the stress. But a genuine study into this would reveal that to be a potential problem for some people who have chosen to "de-transition" if it is. Which, I'm pretty sure it is, but can only go on anecdotal evidence and common sense so far since, well. It's almost impossible to do a study on this.
  • 16

JT's Art Thread - JamesT's awesome stuff.
User avatar
Kate
Gul DuKate
Gul DuKate
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:08 am
Location: Assembling Future Kate
Show rep
Title: Sheepwoman

Re: Social Justice

Postby 52xMax » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:22 pm

I didn't know where else to put this and I didn't think this was worth a whole thread, but if there's a more suitable existing thread, feel free to relocate this.

Do you guys remember the "fearless girl" statue which was placed in Wall Street in front of the famous bull statue? Remember how all the media embraced her defying attitude against adversity as a symbol of women empowerment and all that?
Well, it turns out the financial firm who put up the statue (as shameless advertising) just settled for 5 million dollars over a lawsuit for pay discrimination against women and minorities.

I'd say it's about time to put that doggy statue in place again.
  • 8

"When in doubt... well, don't ask me!"
User avatar
52xMax
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: In all the wrong places.
Show rep
Title: Salmon the Wise

Re: Social Justice

Postby NoodleFox » Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:49 pm

So California, not to be outdone by Canada in the progressive camp, has been busy passing a bunch of useless legislations as of late, including lessening charges of deliberate infection of HIV from felony to misdemeanor, has now become the first sanctuary state for undocumented immigrants:
Los Angeles (AFP) - California became the first "sanctuary state" for undocumented immigrants Friday, a decision criticized by the Trump administration which believes the move will compromise security.

California's governor, Democrat Jerry Brown, signed the landmark legislation -- Senate Bill 54 (SB54) -- which grants better protections to people who are in the US without permission, including those who have committed crimes.

It also limits cooperation between local police forces and federal authorities in operations to track down undocumented immigrants.

The legislation, which will come into effect on January 1, 2018, is part of a series of laws which protect the almost 3 million undocumented immigrants living in California -- most of whom are from Mexico and Central America.

Brown insisted in his signing statement the measure will not "prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way" -- but it will stop local authorities from assisting.

"They are free to use their own considerable resources to enforce federal immigration law in California," he wrote, adding that the new legislation will not deny ICE access to prisons.

But in a statement, ICE acting director Tom Homan responded: "The governor is simply wrong."

The law will "undermine public safety and hinder ICE from performing its federally mandated mission," Homan said.

Oh hey, it also includes protecting illegal immigrants that have commited crimes.

So brave.

And another legislation Brown signed last week was...about giving misdemeanor charges to health and living assistance facilites for deliberate misgendering of the elderly? That's what I'm reading, at least...
wall of legal jargon
Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Public Health of health facilities, including skilled nursing facilities and intermediate care facilities. A violation of these provisions is a crime.
Existing law, the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973, imposes various requirements on long-term health care facilities, as defined, and prescribes the civil penalties assessed for a violation of those requirements.
Existing law, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of residential care facilities for the elderly by the State Department of Social Services. Under existing law, a person who violates the act, or who willfully or repeatedly violates any rule or regulation adopted under the act, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Existing law also provides for civil penalties for a violation of the act.

Existing law, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person in any housing accommodation on the basis of, among others, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation.
This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Residents’ Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns, or denying admission to a long-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility.
The bill would also provide certain protections to all residents of long-term care facilities during, among other things, physical examinations or treatments, relating to bodily privacy. The bill would define long-term care facility for purposes of these provisions to include skilled nursing facilities, intermediate care facilities, and residential care facilities for the elderly.

The bill would also, among other things, require each facility to post a specified notice regarding discrimination alongside its current nondiscrimination policy in all places and on all materials where the nondiscrimination policy is posted. The bill would require a violation of these provisions to be treated as a violation under the Long-Term Care, Health, Safety, and Security Act of 1973, the California Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly Act, or specified provisions providing for the licensure and regulation of health facilities, which may include the imposition of civil penalties. By expanding the definition of existing crimes, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

So progressive.

They sure have a lot of time on their hands on the taxpayer dollar to pass laws that don't help to lessen the highest debt in the country in which the actual amount is as transparent as granite! Looks like more taxes for the citizens!

Can we just have California secede? They said they wanted to secede, so why don't we let them? Lol, they won't because it'd collapse in on its debt the second they do.

Sanctuary: https://archive.fo/LaPav
SB219: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB219
Debt: http://www.ocregister.com/2017/09/27/will-california-ever-pay-off-its-massive-debt/
  • 1

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Social Justice

Postby Learned Nand » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:30 pm

I've talked about this a little bit in other threads, but California really doesn't have the luxury of pretending that undocumented immigrants aren't here until we have the chance to deport them. They drive, they pay taxes, they send their kids to school, they use healthcare, and they hold jobs. We couldn't stop those things even if we wanted to. While we have a large population of de Facto residents, it does nothing but hurt us if we act like they aren't really here and will be gone any minute. I'm not sure what your criticism of the sanctuary state bill is, but if you have a better solution to the issues posed by a large undocumented population, I am interested to hear it.

I am also not sure what your objection to SB 219 is. LGBT people are a discrete and insular minority who have historically faced discrimination, and as long as we have anti-discrimination laws on the books, it makes sense that those laws should protect them. And just as, for example, repeated use of racial slurs on the part of nursing home staff should probably be considered a violation of anti-discrimination laws, it makes sense that repeated and deliberate denial of a trans person's gender identity also should.

As for California's debt: California has high debt (in raw dollar terms) because we have the largest population of any state in the country, and because we have a high GDP per Capita. If you look at our debt to GDP ratio, we're pretty much exactly average among the states. Of course, a vast majority of Californians (including me) are opposed to secession. But your argument that we would "collapse into debt" upon secession isn't supported by the data. California is one of the least Federally dependent states, and California pays more in Federal taxes than it receives in Federal money.

I don't know what goal you had in mind posting, but I don't think you are going to convince many people if the extent of your argument is to make fun of California's policies without any substantive criticism, and then urge it to secede.
  • 11

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Social Justice

Postby NoodleFox » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:02 pm

Dude, calm down, I'm just expressing my opinion in a dark, snarky, sarcastic manner - sorry if I don't like governments pushing their power more in favor of others and pushing their power more into people's lives; it's how I cope with the 4D reality we live in where saying mean things on the internet will get your door knocked in by the cops in Germany and letting Sweden be okay with a refugee raping someone because "he has ADHD and didn't understand the word "no".

Torture of a black person while saying racist things - Obvious hate crime is obvious
Torture of a white person while saying racist things - Let's not be hasty here.

Deliberately misgender an old person? Not only do you have a criminal record for saying something that might hurt their feelings, but you gotta pay the government, too! Oh man, they must be REAL desperate for taxpayer money! (I'm being sarcastic).

There's more than me outside this forum who will agree with my sentiments - all for equality, but only because we tell them they're still oppressed.

As for the "Well, let's see you come up with a solution", I have no idea if it'd even work, but:
1: It literally takes years to be registered as a U.S. citizen; clear up all the bureaucratic red tape that makes becoming a U.S. citizen extremely difficult (it honestly shouldn't take almost 10 years to be granted citizenship, even if the government has strict guidelines?)
2: Set a time limit for illegals to register for citizenship. If it takes X amount of time for everything to be processed and be granted citizenship, then the state should set up that and then some. I wouldn't know if states with more illegals should get more precedent than those with less as well as illegals who can already speak English having it a wee bit easier, but there's those factors (and probably others that I'm blanking on right now)?
2.5: During this time period, they won't be deported so long as they don't commit any other crimes - get arrested with drug/violent charges and you're out, we gave you a chance.
3: After this set timeframe, those who haven't signed up get deported. Again, we gave you a chance and promised you you won't be deported if you took the steps necessary to start the route to citizenship; don't want to be a citizen of a country, then why are you here?

Again, I have no clue if it'd even work, but hey, I probably did more thinking than most politicians who would rather they just deport them or hide them away a la Underground Railroad: Latino edition (snarky dark humor, don't take it seriously).


Edit for spelling and grammar
  • 2

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Social Justice

Postby Learned Nand » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:10 pm

Concern over government intrusion into people's lives is entirely legitimate, but when that intrusion is designed to protect against discrimination, you are going to want to be careful when making fun of it. It wouldn't be clear, at first glance, whether you think the problem is that the government is overextending, or whether you think it's okay if people discriminate. Additionally, if your concern is government intrusion into people's lives, then you should be pleased that California has opted to intrude less into the lives of undocumented immigrants.

Your proposed solution for the problem of undocumented immigration large aligns with pathway to citizenship bills that have been proposed in, but shot down by, Congress. The problem in this case, though, is that California can't pass such a bill. Congress has complete authority over the rules of naturalization. U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 4. Especially given that the current administration is trying to reduce even the amount of legal immigration, California is justified in assuming that Congress isn't going to be handling the problem any time soon. In the meantime, we have to deal with the problem ourselves.
  • 8

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

Re: Social Justice

Postby NoodleFox » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:29 pm

aviel wrote:Concern over government intrusion into people's lives is entirely legitimate, but when that intrusion is designed to protect against discrimination, you are going to want to be careful when making fun of it.

Making fun of people online shouldn't be grounds of having my door kicked in by the police; no one is forcing you physically, mentally or emotionally to stay online - close the browser if you're offended rather than retaliating by crying to ban so and so to Papa Jack and the thought police on Twitter.

In real life...I'm not as mentally deranged as to scream any sort of slur at strangers, much less scream in general.
Spoiler: show

Image
  • 1

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Social Justice

Postby Learned Nand » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:49 pm

NoodleFox wrote:Making fun of people online shouldn't be grounds of having my door kicked in by the police; no one is forcing you physically, mentally or emotionally to stay online - close the browser if you're offended rather than retaliating by crying to ban so and so to Papa Jack and the thought police on Twitter.

I'm not offended, and I don't think you should be banned, either on the forum on IRL. I thought you might not want to offend people if you could easily avoid it, and that you would want your views on policy to be understood. If you don't care about those things, then my advice can be disregarded.
  • 6

Terry Pratchett wrote:The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.

Click for a Limerick
OrangeEyebrows wrote:There once was a guy, Aviel,
whose arguments no one could quell.
He tested with Turing,
his circuits fried during,
and now we'll have peace for a spell.
User avatar
Learned Nand
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9858
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 9:18 pm
Location: Permanently in the wrong
Show rep
Title: Auditor of Reality

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests