Politically Correctness

well the highly educated feminists are silent on this. see www.now.org

Selective Service system is a law so Congress needs to amend it. Do they have the stomach? Even deaf males have to register.


Foxrac said:
Interesting, anyone want to allow women to be in military combat so is it PC?

Same with people want to expand Selective Service System registration to include women too.
Click to expand...
 
seb said:
Absolutely! However, someone posted on this forum recently that the deaf community has a 72% unemployment rate. Perhaps one of the reasons is that their command of the English language as used in the hearing world or lack there of, is one of the things that is holding them back. A friend of mine has a son who is profoundly deaf and when Mark was ready to go to school his parents refused to send him to the deaf school the district wanted them to send him to. Instead they insisted that he be mainstreamed, which he was. Today he is the registrar of voters in Monterey County.
Click to expand...

There are many people who went to Deaf schools who have a good command of written English and many who were mainstreamed who have poor written English and then vice versa. It doesnt matter about the school. English is hard enough and even worse when we cant hear the language being used on a daily basis and have to figure out all these crazy rules!

Hell, there are hearing people will poorly written English skills.

Your friend's parents were wrong to judge the Deaf school the way they did.
 
seb said:
Absolutely! However, someone posted on this forum recently that the deaf community has a 72% unemployment rate. Perhaps one of the reasons is that their command of the English language as used in the hearing world or lack there of, is one of the things that is holding them back. A friend of mine has a son who is profoundly deaf and when Mark was ready to go to school his parents refused to send him to the deaf school the district wanted them to send him to. Instead they insisted that he be mainstreamed, which he was. Today he is the registrar of voters in Monterey County.
Click to expand...

shel90 said:
There are many people who went to Deaf schools who have a good command of written English and many who were mainstreamed who have poor written English and then vice versa. It doesnt matter about the school. English is hard enough and even worse when we cant hear the language being used on a daily basis and have to figure out all these crazy rules!

Hell, there are hearing people will poorly written English skills.

Your friend's parents were wrong to judge the Deaf school the way they did.
Click to expand...

Could the objection to the deaf school placement have been because of the quality of that particular school and not all deaf schools?
 
Although we don't often use the word man to mean everyone anymore we still have tons of words that use man in that way. Seems silly to change them all because some people misunderstand them.


seb said:
Absolutely! However, someone posted on this forum recently that the deaf community has a 72% unemployment rate. Perhaps one of the reasons is that their command of the English language as used in the hearing world or lack there of, is one of the things that is holding them back. A friend of mine has a son who is profoundly deaf and when Mark was ready to go to school his parents refused to send him to the deaf school the district wanted them to send him to. Instead they insisted that he be mainstreamed, which he was. Today he is the registrar of voters in Monterey County.
Click to expand...


I don't think grammar bullying is going to fix the unemployment rate.
 
so far as PC goes - I think some of it is silly and some I do agree with. The idea originally behind PC was to bring attention to valid issues surrounding discrimination and history of injustice. Sometimes I think though that PC becomes more a fad or a facade, lacking any meaning. I like and do use "humankind" instead of "mankind". In the more Reform or liberal-spectrum synagogues, we do variously use gender-nuetral/GLBTQ-friendly Siddurim <prayer books> because that way all people are truly included.

Then there's things like "vertically challenged" and some similar things, where it just seems to be meaningless and silly.

So far as correcting grammar/structure etc, my thought is - PM someone or see if they ask for help, or if they happen to just say somewhere that they don't mind if someone corrects or helps them, then that's different. But people have different backgrounds here, and it's not about calling someone out specifically, or having some kind of literary debate here.
 
I will PM posters, here and on other forums, rather than call them out on typos, etc. Why embarrass others in public when we have the means to PM.

There are people on here who say things to look, to me, to be put downs of other posters. If those people really want to "give advice" to another, either say it without it sounding like a put down or send it via PM.
 
dogmom said:
so far as PC goes - I think some of it is silly and some I do agree with. The idea originally behind PC was to bring attention to valid issues surrounding discrimination and history of injustice. Sometimes I think though that PC becomes more a fad or a facade, lacking any meaning. I like and do use "humankind" instead of "mankind". In the more Reform or liberal-spectrum synagogues, we do variously use gender-nuetral/GLBTQ-friendly Siddurim <prayer books> because that way all people are truly included.

Then there's things like "vertically challenged" and some similar things, where it just seems to be meaningless and silly.

So far as correcting grammar/structure etc, my thought is - PM someone or see if they ask for help, or if they happen to just say somewhere that they don't mind if someone corrects or helps them, then that's different. But people have different backgrounds here, and it's not about calling someone out specifically, or having some kind of literary debate here.
Click to expand...

What I have run across in some printed Christian hymns that I find really awkward is when they print a hymn that was written as mankind but print it as humankind. So often it loses all "flow" when the change is made. I am not sure if there are any in our current hymnal where this has been done; we have not sung any that do in a long time. When we have it may have been a copy from somewhere else.

I am old enough that I grew up with some of the older forms that still just seem natural to me just from being used to it. For example mankind, meaning a human rather than literally a man rather than a woman, is one of them. And humankind seems contrived to me in a number of places it has been used.
 
seb said:
I am still confused.
Click to expand...
No, you're not confused. You're trying to push your point.

You said in post #12 that operator doesn't apply, yet in post #25 you said " operations doesn't describe a person but operator does. " In one you said it doesn't, yet in the other you said it does, am I missing something?
Click to expand...
For someone who portends to be such a wordsmith you seem to have a struggle with straightforward statements.

Yes, "operator" describes a person but not necessarily the person being discussed. I was showing you the distinction between meanings for "operations" and "operator."

An operator doesn't always work in an operations department, and not all people assigned to an operations department are operators.

In the Navy, most ratings specialists do more than just operate something.

As for radioman being changed to something like radio operations, it would make sense if you asked "what are you?" and they could say I'm in radio operations (which could be the new rating) first class(rate/pay grade).
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't make sense. Saying where you are assigned is not the same as saying what you are.

When I was in Pensacola, I was a Journalist working in the Public Affairs Office of the Chief of Naval Education and Training. Suppose I met someone after hours on the jogging trail and we made introductions. The other person would ask, "What are you?" I would reply, "I'm a Journalist." That describes me. Then, the other person would ask, "Where are you assigned?" I would reply, "I'm with the PAO at CNET."

If I had first just said I'm assigned to the PAO at CNET, that doesn't tell anyone who I am. The PAO staff included line officers, aviation officers, a Yeoman, Photographer's Mates, Journalists, civil service employees, and various ratings who served as staff drivers.

Radioman doesn't fit everything either since you were a journalist did you ever use a radio or operate one?
Click to expand...
I didn't use or operate a radio while I was Radioman or Journalist. During my brief tour as Radioman I worked in a base communications center preparing and handling incoming and outgoing message traffic. Most of it was done on computers.

Actual radio use is normally on ships and submarines, not land bases.

I realize that this is the military we are talking about which is part of the government and very little they do makes sense, but perhaps with the de gendering of the classes they can come up with new classifications that makes more sense.
Click to expand...
If the civilians would leave the military alone we'd be fine.

Ratings don't need "de-gendering."

The group classifications make sense the way they are. The only reason they want to change them is for some perceived political correctness.

I wonder if anyone even polled the sailors to find out if they were offended by "man"?
 
What are they going to do with word "woman" now as it ends with the word "man"?

Maybe spell it "womyn" or "whoamun"?
 
Jane B. said:
Could the objection to the deaf school placement have been because of the quality of that particular school and not all deaf schools?
Click to expand...

Knowing my friend as I did, he and his wife did their homework and came to the conclusion that mainstreaming their son would be in his best interest and in his best interest for his future in the workforce. They first tried to get their son into a Catholic school(both had attended Catholic schools) but they said they didn't have the resources to teach their son with his degree of hearing loss, so they sent him to the public school and they had to fight to get him in.
 
jonnyghost said:
Although we don't often use the word man to mean everyone anymore we still have tons of words that use man in that way. Seems silly to change them all because some people misunderstand them.





I don't think grammar bullying is going to fix the unemployment rate.
Click to expand...

I wasn't "grammar bullying" but simply pointing out that perhaps some of the 72% of the un employed in the deaf community are there because of the fact that they can't communicate correctly in the hearing world and it makes them either unemployable or left to do manual or menial jobs. Question for you, so how do we go about fixing the unemployment rate in the deaf community.
 
I think a good start would be to give them jobs.





^Captain Obvious here - glad I could help.
 
Reba said:
No, you're not confused. You're trying to push your point.


For someone who portends to be such a wordsmith you seem to have a struggle with straightforward statements.

Yes, "operator" describes a person but not necessarily the person being discussed. I was showing you the distinction between meanings for "operations" and "operator."

An operator doesn't always work in an operations department, and not all people assigned to an operations department are operators.

In the Navy, most ratings specialists do more than just operate something.


No, it doesn't make sense. Saying where you are assigned is not the same as saying what you are.

When I was in Pensacola, I was a Journalist working in the Public Affairs Office of the Chief of Naval Education and Training. Suppose I met someone after hours on the jogging trail and we made introductions. The other person would ask, "What are you?" I would reply, "I'm a Journalist." That describes me. Then, the other person would ask, "Where are you assigned?" I would reply, "I'm with the PAO at CNET."

If I had first just said I'm assigned to the PAO at CNET, that doesn't tell anyone who I am. The PAO staff included line officers, aviation officers, a Yeoman, Photographer's Mates, Journalists, civil service employees, and various ratings who served as staff drivers.


I didn't use or operate a radio while I was Radioman or Journalist. During my brief tour as Radioman I worked in a base communications center preparing and handling incoming and outgoing message traffic. Most of it was done on computers.

Actual radio use is normally on ships and submarines, not land bases.


If the civilians would leave the military alone we'd be fine.

Ratings don't need "de-gendering."

The group classifications make sense the way they are. The only reason they want to change them is for some perceived political correctness.

I wonder if anyone even polled the sailors to find out if they were offended by "man"?
Click to expand...

First of all, I have never passed myself off as a wordsmith, I just pointed out that the OP should of used either "Political Correctness," or "Politically Correct" in the heading and not used "Politically Correctness."

No, I'm not trying to push my point, just trying to figure where you're coming from. I'm also not "just struggling with straightforward statements," I'm just struggling with your flip flopping and trying to understand how you can say operator doesn't fit the description of "radioman" in one post and then in the next post you say operator better describes "radioman."
 
Jane B. said:
Could the objection to the deaf school placement have been because of the quality of that particular school and not all deaf schools?
Click to expand...

Yes, some deaf school have done and continue to do a good job in educating their students and prepare them to survive in the hearing world, but some have sadly done a very poor job in educating their students and left them with skills that only allow them to survive in the deaf culture.
 
seb said:
Yes, some deaf school have done and continue to do a good job in educating their students and prepare them to survive in the hearing world, but some have sadly done a very poor job in educating their students and left them with skills that only allow them to survive in the deaf culture.
Click to expand...

Thank you, seb. Well said. That was a point I was trying to make in a cpl other threads, but could not make myself clear as you did.
 
seb said:
I wasn't "grammar bullying" but simply pointing out that perhaps some of the 72% of the un employed in the deaf community are there because of the fact that they can't communicate correctly in the hearing world and it makes them either unemployable or left to do manual or menial jobs. Question for you, so how do we go about fixing the unemployment rate in the deaf community.
Click to expand...

You're trying to justify why you publicly corrected someones grammar. Publicly correcting someones errors is generally humiliating for the receiver and done to show the superiority of the giver. Everyone knows what the post was about.
 
you're not Deaf enough to understand. You broke a deaf etiquette rule. Don't condescend....


seb said:
I wasn't "grammar bullying" but simply pointing out that perhaps some of the 72% of the unemployed in the deaf community are there because of the fact that they can't communicate correctly in the hearing world and it makes them either unemployable or left to do manual or menial jobs. Question for you, so how do we go about fixing the unemployment rate in the deaf community.
Click to expand...
 
seb said:
. . .
No, I'm not trying to push my point, just trying to figure where you're coming from. I'm also not "just struggling with straightforward statements," I'm just struggling with your flip flopping and trying to understand how you can say operator doesn't fit the description of "radioman" in one post and then in the next post you say operator better describes "radioman."
Click to expand...
I'm not flip flopping. You need to re-read those posts.
 
Back
Top