San Francisco creates PC terms to protect criminals from "hate speech".

[morvoran]

No search results found. He's a douche, he lies all the time, don't believe a word he says ever.

He's filling the swamp.

Did you use CNN's and MSNBC's web search engines? I bet you did as that would explain why you didn't find anything. Try whitehouse.gov and see the accomplishments of his administration (I included the link, so you don't have to try so hard like you obviously did before). You won't find these on vox.com, either.

In communities that are purposefully prevented from being able to succeed without crime

Oh, you mean Democrat ran communities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc? I agree with you here, then.

In the UK they are thinking of amending the Rehabilitation of Offenders act so that some people can eventually stop disclosing that they went to prison. Because that prevents them getting jobs and the best way of keeping someone from committing crime is by giving them a reason not to commit crime.

Again, Have you heard of personal responsibility??? How about a conscience that tells you not to commit crimes? Maybe people should start using them again.
Does the UK have a sex offender registry? I bet that is being tossed out to. Why should a pedophile disclose to the daycare center what he was convicted for? It's not like they're going to do it again, right?

Yeah, the problem is there is resentment because some people believe that every crime should carry a life sentence.

Yeah, some people like those evil hateful bothersome victims, huh? I bet you think we should throw all hateful bigots that some might call "victims of crime" in jail for holding back these poor criminals that stole from, raped, molested, kidnapped and/or murdered them.
Shame on the rape victims or families of murdered people living a lifetime of fear and emotional stress from them purposely interacting with this defenseless newly protected class of "persons involved in the legal system", SHAME!!!!

 

[smf]

Try whitehouse.gov and see the accomplishments of his administration (I included the link, so you don't have to try so hard like you obviously did before).

It seems like a cult. Weren't most of those things a result of the Obama adminstration that he took credit for?

We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME

Doesn't he understand that most drugs come through the postal service? And most "illegals" entered the country legally but overstayed their visa? Maybe he forgot? That dementia must be hitting hard now.

Oh, you mean Democrat ran communities such as San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Newark, Baltimore, etc? I agree with you here, then.

It doesn't matter who you elect locally, Trump has been pumping the swamp full and his unelected friends control everything.

Again, Have you heard of personal responsibility??? How about a conscience that tells you not to commit crimes? Maybe people should start using them again.

How about a conscience that you don't keep making peoples lives so uncomfortable that they go back to crime?

If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.

Shame on the rape victims or families of murdered people living a lifetime of fear and emotional stress from them purposely interacting with this defenseless newly protected class of "persons involved in the legal system", SHAME!!!!

Victims should certainly get support, but if instead you replace that with revenge then that doesn't help anyone.

 

[gamesquest1]

It seems like a cult.



How about a conscience that you don't keep making peoples lives so uncomfortable that they go back to crime?

If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.



Victims should certainly get support, but if instead you replace that with revenge then that doesn't help anyone.

ok, so do you think a convicted paedo should be allowed to work in a school? i mean, if they do the time, that should be it right? how about a convicted terrorist? should they be able to finish their sentence and go get a job as a pilot?

the idea of disclosing past convictions is to mitigate risk of re-offending, sure those 2 examples are extreme, but how about a guy who was convicted of shitting in food.....should he be allowed to then go work in a food preparation factory, as i mentioned in my last post disclosure of past convictions is done to protect people against the dangers of people re-offending with a crime they have already demonstrated they are willing and able to commit, i would agree that disclosure should only really be necessary if the job role would give them direct access to re-offend in the same way, but for example someone caught selling drugs shouldn't really have to disclose that info to get a job in a call centre, if you were truly reformed you should really be able to understand how and why some jobs may be harder to access, i can agree maybe things are a little too restrictive sometimes, but just zero disclosure isn't the correct answer either

 

[smf]

ok, so do you think a convicted paedo should be allowed to work in a school? i mean, if they do the time, that should be it right? how about a convicted terrorist? should they be able to finish their sentence and go get a job as a pilot?

Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.

i would agree that disclosure should only really be necessary if the job role would give them direct access to re-offend in the same way,

That isn't what happens though. The US really likes to create life sentences.

 

[Deleted User]

I have only two words to say to all of this.... HONK HONK!

 

[gamesquest1]

Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.

and the rest of the post?....you know the bit where i already pre-acknowledged those are extreme examples, and gave a less extreme example to highlight the same principle,

 

[smf]

and the rest of the post?....you know the bit where i already pre-acknowledged those are extreme examples, and gave a less extreme example to highlight the same principle,

You felt the need to lead with extremes & bury the acknowledgement in a wall of text.

So you actually agree with me?

Anyway the UK has certain jobs that require vetting, which will show up any criminal past. For those that don't have any need, then the Rehabilitation of Offenders act gives a time limit to how long you have to tell an employer who asks about a conviction.

 

[gamesquest1]

You felt the need to lead with extremes & bury the acknowledgement in a wall of text.

So you actually agree with me?

read the next line of text that you decided to just ignore its not exactly "buried" don't be so melodramatic, and maybe we do agree if you dont jump to debunk the first line, my argument was that you are simply saying disclosure is bad as a whole, my argument is disclosure is absolutely necessary in some cases, not all, but also not none

 

[smf]

read the next line of text that you decided to just ignore and maybe we do agree

What is the point in trying to decipher what you are saying, if you then backtrack?

 

[gamesquest1]

What is the point in trying to decipher what you are saying, if you then backtrack?

dude, are you on something?

no i didn't backtrack on anything, i made 2 extreme points, to clearly show the obvious flaw in your argument, then toned it down to highlight the principle still applies even on a lesser crime, then clarified that the issue is nuanced and not just a cookie cutter "ALWAYS DISCLOSE" or "NEVER DISCLOSE"

i feel i have covered my opinion on the matter, i hope most people would be able to understand the simple straightforward argument being made, your welcome to disagree, but if there is a flaw in your argument you should maybe re-evaluate your position

 

[morvoran]

Because those are obviously the only two crimes possible and the only two jobs available anywhere.

Oh, like drug smuggling and staying in a country illegally?

It seems like a cult. Weren't most of those things a result of the Obama adminstration that he took credit for?

I'm starting to wonder if people who create usernames with only three letters are of lower morals or highly susceptible to influence. I have seen two cases on here so far that have seemed to be brainwashed by leftist propaganda.

Doesn't he understand that most drugs come through the postal service? And most "illegals" entered the country legally but overstayed their visa? Maybe he forgot? That dementia must be hitting hard now.

Doesn't change the fact that you disagree with.

It doesn't matter who you elect locally, Trump has been pumping the swamp full and his unelected friends control everything.

Just like London? I bet that place is a Utopia with no crime due to it being without Trump's influence.

Victims should certainly get support, but if instead you replace that with revenge then that doesn't help anyone.

Revenge? No. Try "being a victim of a crime". Criminals shouldn't be able to apply for "victimhood".

How about a conscience that you don't keep making peoples lives so uncomfortable that they go back to crime?

How about preventing people from committing crimes in the first place? Taking away the punishments of those crimes is not a good start.

If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.

Wrong.

 

[smf]

to clearly show the obvious flaw in your argument

It doesn't, because that isn't my argument.

You posts are so full of logical fallacy that it hurts to read them

I'm starting to wonder if people who create usernames with only three letters are of lower morals or highly susceptible to influence. I have seen two cases on here so far that have seemed to be brainwashed by leftist propaganda.

No, it's a sign of intelligence.

Just like London? I bet that place is a Utopia with no crime due to it being without Trump's influence.

If London was under Trumps influence then crime would be higher, he thinks it would be better if we had more guns. That is what dumb people think.

How about preventing people from committing crimes in the first place? Taking away the punishments of those crimes is not a good start.

It's hard to prevent crime when you start off with your foot on someones head holding their head under water then punish them if they try to fight back

 

[gamesquest1]

It doesn't, because that isn't my argument.

You posts are so full of logical fallacy that it hurts to read them

dude, you clearly wrote

If someone has gone to prison and then been released then should be the end of their personal responsibility for the past crime.

so should i reply to something you didn't post? your welcome to clarify and say you didn't state your opinion correctly, but i replied to exactly what you stated

i guess i should break out the crystal ball next time so i can see exactly what you intend to say and not what you actually said

 

[smf]

so should i reply to something you didn't post? your welcome to clarify and say you didn't state your opinion correctly, but i replied to exactly what you stated

There are obviously some jobs that would require further vetting, I have mentioned this. I have been mainly talking about kids getting involved in drugs and gangs as that is what the OP was about, while you want to punish them forever and never be able to hold down a job as some form of revenge to heal your broken soul.

 

[gamesquest1]

There are obviously some jobs that would require further vetting. I have been mainly talking about kids getting involved in drugs and gangs.

ok, fair enough, but i would also argue as a business i would like to know if the person I'm going to employ has a track record of stealing money/items from his/her employers, as i said in my post i feel disclosure should only be of relevant crimes, if a job doesn't involve handling cash / high value items then a past conviction for stealing from tills, wouldn't really be relevant. drug charges wouldn't really be too relevant short of for getting jobs in places where they might gain access to people trying to get clean

we aren't too far from each other i think things need to be a bit more in regards to protecting potential future victims, your more on the side of preventing people not getting a job because the owner of the business wants to err on the side of caution...neither of us are at the extreme end of the debate

 

[smf]

ok, fair enough, but i would also argue as a business i would like to know if the person I'm going to employ has a track record of stealing money/items from his/her employers, as i said in my post i feel disclosure should only be of relevant crimes, if a job doesn't involve handling cash / high value items then a past conviction for stealing from tills, wouldn't really be relevant.

So someone who is 18 steals from a till because they need money for medicine for their child, should for the rest of their life be unable to get a job that involves a till? It seems kinda harsh & arbitary.

You should make sure you have systems in place so that nobody can steal money from your tills, because there will always be a first time for everyone & so taking on someone who stole once 50 years ago is probably a better bet as they know what it's like to get caught.

 

[gamesquest1]

So someone who is 18 steals from a till because they need money for medicine for their child, should for the rest of their life be unable to get a job that involves a till? It seems kinda harsh & arbitary.

nope, i have said in another post, there should be a "times up" lets just arbitrarily say 5 years for example of non re-offending and it gets "sealed".

you also dont need to colour your examples so much, im sure the vast majority of thieves do it for reason other than the poor poor children. how about if i said "so your saying a guy who steals £10,000,000 from the bank he works at should be free to go work in another bank without giving them a heads up". the vast majority of the crimes we are talking about would not be the poor altruistic victim of society simply trying to feed the homeless dying babies OR the cold blooded manipulative conman stealing the pensions from little old grannies, lets leave the straw men out of it

 

[Deleted User]

Careful, your logic may trigger a leftist. They'll be like, "Um, excuse me, we don't use those right wing racist hate terms around here. We prefer legally aborting an over developed fetus, exercising your right to love somebody, and spreading the wealth of others to the less fortunate."



Why fix the issues when you can just spin the meaning of words to make people think everything's fine? Dung on the streets is now "street fertilizer" and homelessness is "new age camping".

sigh
So technically far leftist. Not all. sorry I'm just really frustrated with people always in casting everyone in a single umbrella. I wish people would realize that the views pointed are at their uttermost extreme.
honestly I find it a bit stupid piracy is well, Piracy. So using "pirates" pretty much matches.
Left views I agree on
Health care needs to be fixed in someway
Cutting immigration to the country is not a solution and the "immigration crisis" is likely overblown.
guns need better regulations
Left views I don't agree on
Drugs and unbanning them (We already have enough to worry about)
Going so far left or out of democracy.
Guns being completely banned (now that's just stupid.)
Open borders (That's equally fucking stupid. It's just as dumb as saying no immigration as well)
PC culture (State things as they are. No reason to change it unless for a extremely good reason.)
and a few others.

 

[SG854]

Thinking about it, it seems like It doesn't usually work for the generation which commonly uses the unnecessary language, but the next generation tends to not latch on as much. Sometimes. depends on the issues it came from and if the issues are still present and to what degree. You can see this in how older folk tend to keep their problematic language and its intent, without a thought for the damage it does because they honestly think "it didn't mean anything bad back then".

The thing being left out I alluded to before: Language usage is different given different age/etc groups, and a change of language can help improve things in the future, if not immediately.

Another thing being left out: It's a push in the right direction, if done properly. but you are correct, there is a natural tendency for pushback. But you shouldn't confuse "natural" with "good". sometimes you have to accommodate for certain natural tendencies for things like tribalism or adverseness to change, but this shouldn't be confused with fighting an unwinnable or dumb battle.

etc., etc.

Word usage tends to trend with usefulness. if a word's usefulness is destructive/hateful in nature, social pressures will attempt to move to a non-destructive/hate word. But it's slow and painful at times, especially if the destructiveness/hatefulness is aimed at a group not as powerful as the one using the word. Because people suck.

Does it actually work though? Too much can or may. Does it work, yes or no?

It's probably not tribalism that's behind the push back. You're downgrading peoples intelligence on this topic. People's push back is because they feel it wont work and its more language manipulation and euphemisms.

Our culture has changed to be less Euphemistic. The older generation, specifically conservatives were the ones trying to control language, censor it (on radio) and create euphemisms. And they do it for the same reasons people are trying to change language for prisoners. To make situation better, to change people behavior through words to maintain a more peaceful way and not treat people like the words. And guess how much hate conservatives got for trying to change and control language. It was the liberals and the younger generation that pushed back against conservatives. People perceived it as dishonest, manipulative, trying to hide from reality. And people hate controlling language especially when they want to express themselves, they feel its a control on their freedom. Its against liberal ideology for telling it like it is. That's how our society changed, we are more upfront and direct now, it makes us feel more real, honest and less manipulative to people.



And this is what this Prison language thing feels like to people just more language control, so there's going to be push back.



George Carlin is right about words. People think if you change the words they'll somehow bullshit themselves and bullshit others and change the condition. But someone has to be really stupid to be swayed by euphemisms.

 

[morvoran]

If London was under Trumps influence then crime would be higher, he thinks it would be better if we had more guns. That is what dumb people think.

Maybe if Londoners were allowed to have guns, it is possible that less of them would be killed by knives and be able to defend themselves. If they didn't have a Labour party mayor, I'm sure crime would be way lower than it is now. The labour party has been said to be worse than the far left democrats in the US which explains why London is being destroyed from within.

It's hard to prevent crime when you start off with your foot on someones head holding their head under water then punish them if they try to fight back

Oh, here goes the victimhood. I guess people commit crimes because they have guns to their heads, right? Pesky things, those guns, huh?

sorry I'm just really frustrated with people always in casting everyone in a single umbrella.

I did say "may trigger", not "would trigger". Meaning, in a way, not all (but most) leftists would be triggered.

Cutting immigration to the country is not a solution and the "immigration crisis" is likely overblown.

How about "illegal immigration"? Should that be cut? Since you are against open borders, I would think you would say "yes".
Would you agree that all legal immigrant applicants should be allowed in regardless if they can or will assimilate into the US society and eventually learn to take care of themselves? Should we offer free welfare services for life to all immigrants who refuse to work? What about immigrants with criminal backgrounds such as MS-13 members? We shouldn't cut them out of the immigration process?

Left views I don't agree on
Drugs and unbanning them

I agree that cannabis, LSD, GHB, and mushrooms should be legal. Everything else I don't think should be legal.