 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
find on The Onion:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an accurate
news source, and not much would change.
Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 31/03/2012 17:43, Warp nous fit lire :
> This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
> find on The Onion:
>
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
>
> The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
>
> The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an accurate
> news source, and not much would change.
>
> Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
> world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
>
Time to read 1984 again.
A shame it's becoming so true. I wonder what is worse: self-complaining
idiots that play offended on details, up to the point to make a
competition of it, or the other soup-serving groups...
They should all get a sense of humor and of relativity, maybe not in
that order. I'm afraid it will never happen, in name of PC.
"If we did not talk about hunger, nobody will die from starvation."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012/03/31 11:43, Warp a écrit :
> This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
> find on The Onion:
>
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
>
> The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
>
> The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an accurate
> news source, and not much would change.
>
> Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
> world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
>
That's political correctness taken to a new hight in absurdity and
stupidity.
Alain
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 31/03/2012 23:03, Alain nous fit lire :
> Le 2012/03/31 11:43, Warp a écrit :
>> This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
>> find on The Onion:
>>
>>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
>>
>>
>> The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
>>
>> The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an
>> accurate
>> news source, and not much would change.
>>
>> Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
>> world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
>>
>
> That's political correctness taken to a new hight in absurdity and
> stupidity.
I never got that PC. I have far more respect for the king/warriors in
the thirteenth warrior (old king is unable to lead battle anymore, but
nobody dares to say that; instead all agrees that the best place for the
king is as last defenses of the women & children; There is no shame to
be different as long as not stubborn to insist on strict equality for
all: you should done as much as you can for others, and nobody should
despise another one.)... alas, there is no more place in todays world
for duel when two disagrees.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 31.03.2012 23:03, schrieb Alain:
> That's political correctness taken to a new hight in absurdity and
> stupidity.
PC /is/ absurd and stupid down to its core; it's an attempt to cure a
disease by treating the symptoms alone.
For instance, as long as there is racism, /any/ term used to denote a
group of people that happens to be discriminated will /inevitably/
become "politically incorrect" over time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
> There is no shame to
> be different as long as not stubborn to insist on strict equality for
> all: you should done as much as you can for others, and nobody should
> despise another one.)... alas, there is no more place in todays world
> for duel when two disagrees.
Moreover, trying to shield people from hurt feelings by imposing a
form of newspeak can be actually more harmful than good.
In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.
I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.
This is especially true for people who deliberately *choose* to consider
some things negative that most people deem as completely normal. If they
*choose* to deliberately get offended by what's normally considered ok
than that's *their* own fault. They do not get to dictate what words others
can and cannot use.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.04.2012 13:19, schrieb Warp:
> In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
> be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
> exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
> resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
> such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
> even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.
... plus, there's evidence that an idle immune system will start busying
itself with other stuff, such as developing allergies.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012/04/01 07:19, Warp a écrit :
> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>> There is no shame to
>> be different as long as not stubborn to insist on strict equality for
>> all: you should done as much as you can for others, and nobody should
>> despise another one.)... alas, there is no more place in todays world
>> for duel when two disagrees.
>
> Moreover, trying to shield people from hurt feelings by imposing a
> form of newspeak can be actually more harmful than good.
>
> In human biology, extreme hygiene, especially on children, can actually
> be more harfmul than good in the long run: The immune system does not get
> exposed to the harmful microbes of the world, and thus doesn't build up
> resistance to them. If this continues for long, especially on young people,
> such a person can become very weak to diseases that normally people wouldn't
> even notice, or would only cause small symptoms.
>
> I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
> unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
> you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
> them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.
>
> This is especially true for people who deliberately *choose* to consider
> some things negative that most people deem as completely normal. If they
> *choose* to deliberately get offended by what's normally considered ok
> than that's *their* own fault. They do not get to dictate what words others
> can and cannot use.
>
Any child that is not exposed to armfull microbes and other germs is
highly suceptible to devlop alergies.
In a similar way, if you are not exposed to so called "objectionable"
words, you may become overly sensitive to them or other that may vaguely
look or sound similar.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
Btw, even if it made even some semblance of sense to ban such "offensive"
words from school tests, there are some words listed in the article that
still don't make sense even in that context.
For example banning the word "dinosaur" makes no sense. The rationale
given is that it could potentially offend creationists. But if you look at
creationists, the *love* dinosaurs. Every single "creation museum" in
existence probably has a big dinosaur on its facade (or at the very least
inside), as well as every single piece of creationist childrens' book, etc.
If there's one animal that creationists just adore, it's the dinosaur.
Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
word "reptile" or the word "bird".
And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the coelacanth?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> > Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
> > word "reptile" or the word "bird".
> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 01/04/2012 18:31, Warp nous fit lire :
> Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>
> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>
From the old and venerable laws, atheists are to be offered one chance
as infidel / non-believer, after what they will be put to death (well,
the law will "save their souls").
Notice, that strict interpretation of the law does not warrant life even
if they convert. Indeed, freshly converted ones should be put to death
right after conversion, to save their cleansed souls.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>
>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>
> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>
I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2012 11:33 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 01/04/2012 5:31 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>>> On 01/04/2012 5:08 PM, Warp wrote:
>>>> Banning the word "dinosaur" makes exactly as much sense as banning the
>>>> word "reptile" or the word "bird".
>>
>>> They should ban "spider" because some people hate spiders. And using the
>>> same logic they should ban the word "republicans".
>>
>> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>>
>
> I would not think so. They will want a name to hang on the evil ones.
>
Yeah, they only ban that word if its "by itself" on a bus ad, where the
only other content is a web address, showing where to find out about it.
Its perfectly fine if you want to use it in a much longer sentence,
like, "Those damn atheists are ruining the country!". :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: What do we need The Onion for anymore?
Date: 2 Apr 2012 01:11:13
Message: <4f7934f1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.
They also ought to ban "censorship."
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 01.04.2012 13:19, schrieb Warp:
> I believe the same is true of the mind: If you never get exposed to
> unpleasant ideas and words, if you are raised in a protective bubble where
> you are shielded from ever hearing them, when you do finally encounter
> them in real life, you may get emotionally scarred.
Or you resort to the only way of dealing with conflicts that you've ever
come into contact with: Draw your gun and open fire.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
> > I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
> Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.
> They also ought to ban "censorship."
Do you know what would be absolutely marvelous? If they banned the word
"God" for being too controversial and that would, ironically, cause a
huge controversy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 08:23:33 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 4/1/2012 9:31, Warp wrote:
>> > I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
>
>> Yes, but that would raise actual actionable problems.
>
>> They also ought to ban "censorship."
>
> Do you know what would be absolutely marvelous? If they banned the
> word
> "God" for being too controversial and that would, ironically, cause a
> huge controversy.
Now that would be entertaining to watch.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012-04-01 12:08, Warp a écrit :
> And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
> the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
> dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
> instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
> wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
> trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the coelacanth?
>
The coelacanth is not a fossil. It's 6000 years old, just like all
other creatures.
;)
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2012/04/03 07:55, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2012-04-01 12:08, Warp a écrit :
>
>> And if they ban the word "dinosaur", are they also going to ban all
>> the orders, families, genuses and species that belong to the superorder
>> dinosauria? (If "dinosaur" is banned, what stops some teacher from using
>> instead something like "theropod", "coelophysoid" or "efraasia" if he
>> wants to be clever?) And how about other extinct clades such as the
>> trilobites or ammonites? How about "living fossils" such as the
>> coelacanth?
>>
>
> The coelacanth is not a fossil. It's 6000 years old, just like all other
> creatures.
>
> ;)
>
I though that the creation was dated to 5000 years... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/04/2012 2:36 PM, Alain wrote:
>>
>> The coelacanth is not a fossil. It's 6000 years old, just like all other
>> creatures.
>>
>> ;)
>>
>
> I though that the creation was dated to 5000 years... :P
Nope, Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall
preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC.
And only one Angel can dance on the head of a pin. (They are quite
territorial, you know) ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31-3-2012 17:43, Warp wrote:
> This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
> find on The Onion:
>
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
>
> The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
>
> The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an accurate
> news source, and not much would change.
>
> Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
> world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
>
Let's be a bit more realistic about that. It is not that these words
will be forbidden in any publication in NY.
What apparently is the case in this article is that someone pointed out
that if you want to test e.g. comprehensive reading the subject of the
test my matter.
If you have a text where cancer plays a role and the person that is
tested just lost a close relative to this disease, it is quite likely
that this person will perform below their capacities. Hence in this case
the test is not only measuring what it should.
A similar case can be made for some of the other words.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> I really wonder if they want to ban the word "atheist" as well.
It reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdnWwlZCsSw
I think the technical term for that is dehumanization.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/31/2012 10:43 AM, Warp wrote:
> This is *exactly* the type of spoof news article you could expect to
> find on The Onion:
>
>
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/26/war-on-words-nyc-dept-of-education-wants-50-forbidden-words-removed-from-standardized-tests/
>
> The scary thing? It's not on The Onion. It's real.
>
> The Onion can stop doing satirical spoofs. They could become an accurate
> news source, and not much would change.
>
> Every time I think my faith in humanity is gone, the stupidity of the
> world somehow succeeds in surpassing itself.
"In the beginning, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then He
made school boards." -- Mark Twain
That quote comes from over a century ago, too.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
