Well that was a waste

[Pakuni]

I'm sure eons of evolutionary programming is why Marquette fans get angry when we lose to Wisconsin.

Unlike anger, obtuseness is a choice.

[rocket surgeon]

What usually happens:

1.  A word is used to describe someone
2.  For a variety of reasons, such as being used as an insult or being considered an incomplete definition, people propose a new word or phrase.
3.  That word/phrase is adapted and you go back to #1.

It's why we have gone from "imbecile" to "retarded" to "person with developmental disabilities." 

I don't understand why this is a problem.

     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

[TheyWereCones]

Unlike anger, obtuseness is a choice.

Awfully convenient to just call someone obtuse instead of actually respond.  Hopefully others in your life are able to make you happy since it's out of your hands.

[The Sultan]

     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

I guess I've just not had much of a problem so I haven't put that much thought into it.

[Pakuni]

Awfully convenient to just call someone obtuse instead of actually respond.  Hopefully others in your life are able to make you happy since it's out of your hands.

I don't believe your question was sincere.
Read up on the limbic system.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Thoreau and Frost would be proud of the diversions Scoop takes.

[Uncle Rico]

https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness. 

[Cheeks]

I like this definition:
"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Pretty sure it wasn't a hidden cabal of elitists who tried to shut down the Mapplethorpe exhibit, have banned classic books from schools, protested "The Last Temptation of Christ" or issued a fatwa for Salman Rushdie.

Don't for a moment think there aren't elitists on both sides that want to control what people should or should not be upset by.  The elitists, in my opinion, did push for those bannings.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

In all respect (I do appreciate a lot of your basketball insight), are you honestly saying that you have no control over your feelings?

Over your initial feelings? No. Someone says something or does something meaningful to you you're going to feel something. Anger, joy, suspicion, boredom, something. But just because you feel that initially, doesn't mean you have to show it, to act on it or even stay feeling that way.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

I'm not sure if this is an honest question but I think it is a good one if it is.

There may be some instances where it started with some "guys decide what and when something is offensive" but I think those examples are few and far between. I think it usually starts because other people make a term offensive by using that term offensively. People start to make jokes and stereotypes that center around specific words and phrases. Eventually, people are going to push back.

I would also say that oftentimes these things have always been offensive but our society needs time to recognize it. We used to think all sorts of things were acceptable behavior but eventually realized that we were wrong.

[brewcity77]

https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness.

If Newsom signs this, it's just a matter of time for the NCAA to allow all players to profit off their likeness. They can talk tough, but NCAA rules do not supersede state law and they aren't booting 6.8% of their membership (24 D1 schools in California) out because of geography.

[Cheeks]

https://twitter.com/danmurphyespn/status/1171238144437575680?s=21

California moves a step closer to allowing college athletes to earn off their likeness.

Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

[rocket surgeon]

Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

  california just adding to the growing list some really really head turning stuff

[Uncle Rico]

Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

I'm just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue. 

[Cheeks]

I'm just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL

[Uncle Rico]

So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL

World's tiniest violin for poor Stanford. 

[forgetful]

Stanford and USC publicly oppose it as do other schools here.


California also today made it illegal today to suspend a kid for talking back to his teacher, being a disturbance in class, etc....Calif....oh California...such good decisions here.....  https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/california/articles/2019-09-09/california-law-bars-suspensions-for-talking-back-to-teachers

Suspensions always have been, and continue to be bad forms of punishment. Kids that don't really want to be in school, being punished by being removed from school.

It's like punishing a person for eating junk food, by only letting them have cake for dinner.

The students are still being punished for creating disturbances, they are now just a more useful form of punishment.

[Pakuni]

Don't for a moment think there aren't elitists on both sides that want to control what people should or should not be upset by.  The elitists, in my opinion, did push for those bannings.

Freemasons, Elders of Zion or Trilateral Commission?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I'm just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.

[Pakuni]

So much so that the most prestigious university in the state, Stanford, says it is a wrong decision.  LOL

They oppose something that could lower their revenues?
Who'd have imagined that.

[Uncle Rico]

So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.

.

No, the compensation for student athletes aspect

[Pakuni]

So you are advocating for students to be able to yell at and talk back to their teachers?  No consequences?

Good luck to those kids in the job market when they graduate,  assuming they do graduate or apply for jobs.

Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

[rocket surgeon]

I'm just glad California has the foresight to do the right thing with regards to this issue.

yeah, just leave them continue to disrupt class for the 99% that are really there trying to learn-great idea

[MU82]

Did you read what the legislation does, or are you simply taking Cheeks' word for it?

First, this law has already existed for four years  kids up to 3rd grade, without apocalyptic consequences. This law only extends it through eighth grade.

Second, it does not prevent teachers from removing disruptive or defiant kids from class. It does not mean "no consequences." It just requires districts to do something other than keeping young kids - again, we're talking about grade schoolers here - home from school.  It changes nothing for high school kids.

Third, this has been the policy in the LA district since 2013, again, without  apocalyptic consequences. In fact, graduations have gone up ... though I'm not sure there's a proven causation there.

Fourth, this had the endorsement of state school administrator and parent-teacher organizations. The state teacher's union took no official stance.

Watch it, Pakuni ... facts not always welcome here.

yeah, just leave them continue to disrupt class for the 99% that are really there trying to learn-great idea

Case in point.

[jesmu84]

     many of us here want to know how you guys decide what and when something is offensive. 

#2-a variety of reasons?  i get the part where people who change the definition because they feel uncomfortable rather than warm and fuzzy.  the incomplete definition part is vague. 

the understanding of why this is a problem part?  exhibit A for elitism...us unwashed just want to know how these word changes happen and who is the arbiter

Who is "you guys"?

Did those same "guys" weaponize the word 'snowflake'?