{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/23/2019 5:10:02 PM
5
Which is funny, for I just read;
[url]https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-san-francisco-bans-words-crime-democrats[/url]
It more or less exemplifies the problem.
[quote]Going forward, ex-cons are to be called, "justice-involved individuals." Well, as it happens, the people they committed crimes against are also "justice-involved individuals." So, in other words, victim and criminal are now morally indistinguishable. That's on purpose. This is woke equality. ...
Meanwhile, back in the city of San Francisco, there are no longer any "juvenile delinquents." The whole category has disappeared. Criminals under 18 are now referred to as "young people impacted by the juvenile justice system" -- as if the system, and not the kid, committed the crime, which is what the left in fact believes. It's your fault, not theirs. Check your privilege, Middle America. ...
Drug addicts, meanwhile, in San Francisco are now called "people with the history of substance use." "Use," not "abuse." Get it? Heroin addicts are now the same as insulin-dependent diabetics; both use "substances." You can't call one better than the other. They're both exactly the same.[/quote]
And also;
[url]https://babylonbee.com/news/progressive-church-allows-anyone-interrupt-sermon-with-their-point-of-personal-privilege?fbclid=IwAR0lIXPHSHRhWJfOzbPCJLijGaY0rx88MX4xMV27kmVUg7xBqZ2JLP9flVs[/url]
#satire, but it basically nails the San Francisco nonsense.
[quote]"POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE: CAN WE PLEASE NOT USE THE WORD 'SIN' AS IT'S VERY TRIGGERING TO SOME OF US!"[/quote]
inb4downvoteparade
English
-
Considering the sources for the cites, something tells me this isn't the whole story. If people could make words a "crime", it would seem certain words would already be outlawed. Any person subjected to criminal action, based on word usage, would have an automatic claim under the 1st Amendment. This is exactly why neither state or federal government has ever attempted to outlaw words. While words can constitute a provocation for a civil matter, between citizens, they are not subject to regulation by any government entity.
-
Ok.... [url]https://ktla.com/2019/08/22/no-more-convicts-or-felons-if-san-francisco-passes-criminal-justice-language-proposal/[/url] [url]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-22/words-like-convict-and-felon-would-be-out-in-new-san-francisco-criminal-justice-language-proposal[/url] [url]https://www.rt.com/usa/467097-san-francisco-felons-persons-language/[/url] [url]https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/22/san-francisco-turns-felons-returning-residents-scr/[/url] [url]https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/philmatier/article/SF-Board-of-Supervisors-sanitizes-language-of-14292255.php[/url] I believe the standard mass media outlets are never going to say a word.
-
I'd [i]almost[/i] be ok with that if they'd also start referring to "justice involved individuals" that got shot in the "act of practicing their craft" (because we can't actually call it "commiting a crime" or something equally stigmatizing!) as suffering from "rapid onset lead poisoning".
-
I just can't stand the idiocy of the PC relabeling. It makes NO sense at all.
-
https://babylonbee.com/news/san-francisco-changes-term-convicted-felons-to-more-politically-correct-elected-officials
