Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Muda69

The New Normal, round 2

Recommended Posts

A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Pornography Charges for Making a Sex Video of Herself: https://reason.com/2019/05/29/16-year-old-girl-sex-porn-child-court-case/#comments

Quote

Maryland's highest court will soon decide whether a 16-year-old girl, "S.K.," can face child pornography charges for taking a video of herself performing a sex act and sending it to a few of her close friends.

S.K. shared the video, in which she performs consensual oral sex on an unidentified male, with two close friends and fellow students, who later reported her to the school resource officer. S.K. was the only person charged in connection with the alleged crime.

The Special Court of Appeals upheld S.K.'s conviction, ruling that the consensual nature of the sex act in question was irrelevant, as was the fact that it was not illegal for S.K. to perform the act. Taking a video of the act and sending it to other people constituted distribution of child pornography, according to the court's decision.

"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution did not protect conduct of a minor who distributed a digital video file of herself engaged as a subject in consensual sexual conduct," wrote the court.

The Maryland Court of Appeals' ruling is expected later this year. The court, which is Maryland's equivalent of a state supreme court, heard oral arguments in February. The proceedings are recorded here. S.K.'s attorney, Public Defender Claudia Cortese, argued that the statute in question was not intended to punish minors for being featured in pornographic materials, but rather, to protect them. Punishing S.K., as the state has attempted to do, is cruel and authoritarian.

...

That teens shouldn't send sexy videos to each other—because they are bound to get out, cause embarrassment, and raise legal issues—is something S.K.'s parents, teachers, and school administrators could have impressed upon her without the heavy-handed involvement of the police and courts. It is draconian to charge a 16-year-old girl with trafficking in child pornography because she willingly filmed herself performing oral sex. Upholding S.K.'s conviction would set a disturbing precedent.

As one of the comment to this story states:  "People hear “child porn” and lose all reason. As if a 16 year old videoing herself is equivalent to raping a two year old."

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

A 16-Year-Old Girl Is Facing Child Pornography Charges for Making a Sex Video of Herself: https://reason.com/2019/05/29/16-year-old-girl-sex-porn-child-court-case/#comments

As one of the comment to this story states:  "People hear “child porn” and lose all reason. As if a 16 year old videoing herself is equivalent to raping a two year old."

I would disagree with the article. Just recording herself is one thing. BUUUUUT, someone else was in the video, AND she shared it. Did she have that person’s permission to share it with her friends? The whole sharing thing is a problem as well. She put her friends at risk as well, without their consent. As for the author’s claim that it should just be a conversation between the parents, admins and her is wrong as well. Sure the parents should have a conversation, but it should have been a conversation that took place long before something like this happened. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I would disagree with the article. Just recording herself is one thing. BUUUUUT, someone else was in the video, AND she shared it. Did she have that person’s permission to share it with her friends? The whole sharing thing is a problem as well. She put her friends at risk as well, without their consent. As for the author’s claim that it should just be a conversation between the parents, admins and her is wrong as well. Sure the parents should have a conversation, but it should have been a conversation that took place long before something like this happened. 

Good question.  I can't find that in the legalese of the linked court document:  https://mdcourts.gov/data/opinions/cosa/2018/0617s17.pdf

FTCD:

Quote

The appellant, then-16-year-old S.K., sent a text message to two friends, both juveniles, containing an approximately one-minute-long digital video file of herself performing fellatio on a presumably-adult male. The Circuit Court for Charles County, sitting as a juvenile court, found S.K. involved in the offenses of distribution of child pornography and displaying an obscene item to a minor.

....

BACKGROUND

S.K. sent the digital file at issue to A.T., another 16-year-old girl, and K.S., a 17-year-old boy. A.T. and K.S. each received the video and viewed at least part of it. The three then-friends, who regularly exchanged “silly” videos and attempted to “outdo” one another, trusted each other to keep these group messages private. Two months later, after the three had a falling out, K.S. and A.T. reported the incident to, and shared a copy of the video with, Officer Eugene Caballero of the Charles County Sherriff’s Office, their school resource officer. Officer Caballero met with S.K., who acknowledged having sent the video to K.S. and A.T. S.K. expressed concern to Officer Caballero that other people had seen the video because, according to both S.K. and A.T., K.S. had by that time shared the video with other students.

....

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would am wondering if the other two are facing charges for distribution as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michigan Governor: Smoking Tons of Weed Could Fix Our Terrible Roads: https://splinternews.com/michigan-governor-smoking-tons-of-weed-could-fix-our-t-1835133609

Quote

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer threw down the gauntlet on Thursday for Michigan residents who are both sick of the state’s abysmal road conditions, and also not nearly high enough.

“At its height, the taxes for marijuana will raise about $42 million dollar per year for infrastructure. We have a $2.5 billion dollar problem,” Whitmer said at the Mackinac Policy Conference, referencing the state’s 10% excise tax on its newly legalized recreational weed industry—a portion of which is allotted for infrastructure repairs.

After explaining that she gets asked about using marijuana funds to fix the roads so often, she ordered her staff to crunch the numbers, Whitmer issued her challenge:

Every man, woman, and child would have to smoke about $2,500 of marijuana a year to fix our roads. And let’s be honest, at that level no one’s gonna care about the damn roads.

This is clearly not Whitmer’s preferred outcome, but hey, she’s raising the prospect.

....

yimwdao4rg131.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

  • Haha 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Michigan Governor: Smoking Tons of Weed Could Fix Our Terrible Roads: https://splinternews.com/michigan-governor-smoking-tons-of-weed-could-fix-our-t-1835133609

yimwdao4rg131.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&a

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/illinois-legal-marijuana-legislation/index.html

Washington (CNN)Illinois is close to becoming the 11th state in the United States to legalize the purchase and possession of recreational marijuana. 

The state's Senate on Wednesday passed legislation on a 38-17 vote that would allow adults to buy and possess small amounts of marijuana. The bill is currently being considered by the Democratic-majority House, which is facing a Friday deadline to get bills passed before adjournment.

The bill already has the support of Illinois' Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, who had campaigned for the legalization of marijuana.

The bill would allow adults 21 and older to purchase and possess 30 grams of cannabis, five grams of cannabis concentrate, and cannbis-infused products containing no more than 500 milligrams of THC. Nonresidents will be able to purchase half of each of those amounts.

And here we are in progressive Indiana - stuck  in the middle again.

Edited by Bobref
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-illinois-recreational-marijuana-legislation-20190531-story.html

Interesting that Illinois becomes the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana by legislative act, rather than voter referendum.

Illinois is one signature away from joining the 10 other states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana.

With a bipartisan vote of 66-47, the House approved a bill Friday that had been passed by the Senate Wednesday. Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who campaigned for office on a promise to legalize pot, almost immediately issued a statement in which he promised to sign a bill that he said offers “the most equity-centric approach in the nation.”

“This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance,” Pritzker said in his statement.

With the governor’s signature, Illinois would become the first state to create a commercial recreational marijuana industry through the legislature rather than by voter initiative.

Supporters hailed the measure as an acknowledgement that the prohibition of marijuana has failed, and they argued that the bill will begin to address decades of racial disparities in the prosecution of drug crimes.

Will employers still test for marijuana once recreational use is legal in Illinois? Don't keep a pipe at your desk just yet. »

“Prohibition hasn’t built communities. In fact, it has destroyed them,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, who worked with Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans for more than two years to craft the bill. “It is time to hit the reset button on the war on drugs.”

The bill takes effect Jan. 1 and would allow residents age 21 and older to legally possess 30 grams of cannabis, 5 grams of cannabis concentrate or 500 milligrams of THC contained in a cannabis-infused product. Nonresidents could possess 15 grams of cannabis.

It would also create a licensed cultivation and dispensary system while directing Pritzker to pardon people with past convictions for low-level pot possession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bobref said:

Update:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-met-illinois-recreational-marijuana-legislation-20190531-story.html

Interesting that Illinois becomes the first state to legalize recreational use of marijuana by legislative act, rather than voter referendum.

Illinois is one signature away from joining the 10 other states that have legalized recreational use of marijuana.

With a bipartisan vote of 66-47, the House approved a bill Friday that had been passed by the Senate Wednesday. Gov. J.B. Pritzker, who campaigned for office on a promise to legalize pot, almost immediately issued a statement in which he promised to sign a bill that he said offers “the most equity-centric approach in the nation.”

“This will have a transformational impact on our state, creating opportunity in the communities that need it most and giving so many a second chance,” Pritzker said in his statement.

With the governor’s signature, Illinois would become the first state to create a commercial recreational marijuana industry through the legislature rather than by voter initiative.

Supporters hailed the measure as an acknowledgement that the prohibition of marijuana has failed, and they argued that the bill will begin to address decades of racial disparities in the prosecution of drug crimes.

Will employers still test for marijuana once recreational use is legal in Illinois? Don't keep a pipe at your desk just yet. »

“Prohibition hasn’t built communities. In fact, it has destroyed them,” said Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, who worked with Chicago Democratic Sen. Heather Steans for more than two years to craft the bill. “It is time to hit the reset button on the war on drugs.”

The bill takes effect Jan. 1 and would allow residents age 21 and older to legally possess 30 grams of cannabis, 5 grams of cannabis concentrate or 500 milligrams of THC contained in a cannabis-infused product. Nonresidents could possess 15 grams of cannabis.

It would also create a licensed cultivation and dispensary system while directing Pritzker to pardon people with past convictions for low-level pot possession.

The state of Illinois desperately, desperately needs the tax income.   The city of Chicago and the hellhole most of it has become is bleeding the state dry,  at least that is what my inlaws who have lived in downstate Illinois for multiple generations now tell me.

 

  • Thanks 2
  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Student Punished for 'Implied Threat' After Putting High School on Craigslist: https://gizmodo.com/student-punished-for-implied-threat-after-putting-high-1826289639

Quote

While some of his classmates wanted to execute senior pranks that would potentially disrupt classes, Missouri high school student Kylan Scheele opted for some tomfoolery that was a little more chill.

“Other people were going to release live mice or, you know, building a beach in the front lobby area,” Scheele told Kansas City’s Fox affiliate. “And I thought let’s do something more laid back, so I just decided to post the school for sale.

Scheele listed Truman High School for the reasonable price of $12,275 on Craigslist. His post described the building as a “Huge 20+ room facility” and listed the following selling points, among others:

  • “Newly build football field.”
  • “Newly added 4 modern day rooms.”
  • “Next to Walmart for convenience.”
  • “Huge parking lot, great for partygoers looking for somewhere to park.”
  • “Bigger than normal dinning room.”
  • “Reason for sale is due to loss of students coming up.”
  • “Named after hometown resident U.S. President Harry S. Truman and his family.”

But while Scheele’s internet high jinks didn’t cause a headache for school janitors or violate any health codes, that “loss of students” comment concerned school administrators enough that they took action.

I decided to say the reason we’re selling this is because of ‘the loss of students,’ because the senior class is graduating,” said Scheele.

Independence Police Department detectives investigated the Craigslist ad and decided not to pursue criminal charges, but told Scheele to remove the post and suggested he speak with school administrators.

But that didn’t seem to help much. Scheele told the local news outlet that the administration suspended him for the remainder of the school year and is not allowing him to walk in his graduation this weekend. The school, it seems, saw the post as an “implied threat,” albeit not a credible one. According to a statement from a Independence School District:

Out of an abundance of caution, administrators and police investigated and determined there was not a credible threat. A student who makes a real or implied threat, whether it is deemed credible or not, will face discipline. Due to the heightened concern nationally with school violence, we have extra police officers for the remainder of the school year and will have additional officers at graduations for all of our high schools.

“They tried to relate it back to all the recent school shootings and everything—they tried tying it back to that,” Scheele told the Fox 4 Kanas City. “But I don’t see how it was a threat at all.”

Scheele’s mom Denetra Clark is trying to see the bright side of the school district’s decision. “He’s going to get his diploma no matter what,” Clark said. “But maybe the party will start sooner.”

Yay for zero tolerance policies, and the words "implied" is ground zero for a myriad of interpretations by government school bureaucrats.

 

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

University of Minnesota Food Service Worker Says 'Hello' in Japanese to Asian-American Student, Who Files a Bias Report: https://www.thecollegefix.com/campus-food-service-worker-hit-with-bias-complaint-after-saying-hello-to-student-in-japanese/

Quote

During the fall 2018 semester at the University of Minnesota, an Asian-American student stopped by one of the restaurants in the Coffman Memorial Union to pick up a snack.

At the register, a food service worker said something the student didn’t understand. When the student said they didn’t get it, the woman at the register said she was saying “hello” in Japanese, and asked where the student was from.

“Wisconsin,” the student replied.

The cashier laughed and told the student to have a nice day, but the student did not find much humor in the experience. The student reported the cashier to the campus Bias Response and Referral Network, claiming “these type of microaggressions occur too often on campus” and “this implicit bias needs to be addressed.”

The bias team then referred the incident to dining services and referred the complaining student to the campus “Ethical Advocate Program” in case they “want to talk further about the experience.”

...

Ahh, the scourge of "microaggressions", aka "you hurt my widdle feelings, so I'm going to cry to somebody about it."  Honestly college students, grow up.

 

  • Disdain 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

University of Minnesota Food Service Worker Says 'Hello' in Japanese to Asian-American Student, Who Files a Bias Report: https://www.thecollegefix.com/campus-food-service-worker-hit-with-bias-complaint-after-saying-hello-to-student-in-japanese/

Ahh, the scourge of "microaggressions", aka "you hurt my widdle feelings, so I'm going to cry to somebody about it."  Honestly college students, grow up.

 

Whatever happened to a "teachable moment"?  Correct the worker and go on.  Maybe he/she will learn something.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Muda69 said:

University of Minnesota Food Service Worker Says 'Hello' in Japanese to Asian-American Student, Who Files a Bias Report: https://www.thecollegefix.com/campus-food-service-worker-hit-with-bias-complaint-after-saying-hello-to-student-in-japanese/

Ahh, the scourge of "microaggressions", aka "you hurt my widdle feelings, so I'm going to cry to somebody about it."  Honestly college students, grow up.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=OYOzUHnPJvU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Activists Want a Problematic Mural of George Washington Destroyed. It Will Cost a High School $600,000.: https://reason.com/2019/06/20/george-washington-mural-san-francisco-racist/

Quote

A high school in San Francisco is considering three options for censoring a mural of George Washington deemed problematic by the local activist community: putting up a curtain (price tag: $300,000), painting over it ($600,000), or hiding it behind panels ($875,000).

No doubt San Francisco United School District could hire quite a few teachers in lieu of executing even the cheapest of those plans, but a 13-member working group asserts the mural must go. It "glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression," and "doesn't represent SFUSD values of social justice, diversity, united, student-centered." It's also responsible for traumatizing students, according to the activists.

The truth is that George Washington High School's mural is provocative by design. It was painted in 1936 by a Russian-American artist named Victor Arnautoff, who held leftist sympathies. Arnautoff did not wish to blindly celebrate Washington while ignoring the less savory aspects of the American founding, and thus he depicted the first president working his slaves and sending men to confiscate Native American lands. It was an attempt to remind students that history is a lot messier than what they read in class.

"He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans," Robert Cherny, a San Francisco State University professor, told the school district's board of education in 2018. "That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing."

Modern activist culture, however, is preoccupied with an ever-expanding definition of safety, which now includes emotional safety. To walk past a mural that depicts violence against Native Americans and people of color—even if that's what actually happened—is considered trauma-inducing, and the purpose of education is to mitigate discomfort. (This is a major theme of my new book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, which was released this week and is available in book stores and online.)

"Why do we have to explain the pain caused by the visual offense that we see in that building that is supposed to be an institution for learning?" asked one woman at a public meeting about the issue on Tuesday.

"It's not in a museum, it's inside a school," lamented another speaker, who apparently did not understand the point of a school. "Our students, all of them, deserve better."

Other speakers, several of them Native American, expressed no objection to the mural, correctly pointing out that it was depicting "what actually happened."

According to National Review's James Sutton, most of the students want to keep the mural, or don't really care one way or another. The controversy is the work of "outside busybodies." Naturally, it looks like they are going to get their way. The school board is currently deciding between three different plans, all of which involve destroying the mural, or covering it up. A final decision is expected next week, reports The College Fix.

By the way, if you're wondering why it would cost several hundred thousand dollars to get rid of the mural, here's your answer: Officials are required to conduct environmental impact reports before they take any action.

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why do we have to explain the pain caused by the visual offense that we see in that building that is supposed to be an institution for learning?" asked one woman at a public meeting about the issue on Tuesday.

Doesn't history count as learning?  Moreover, how is a kid supposed to learn to "get over it" if they are over protected from every potential offense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of #MeToo, Disney quietly deleted a "blooper" scene from the latest release of Toy Story 2: https://news.avclub.com/in-light-of-metoo-disney-quietly-deleted-a-blooper-1836044123

Quote

It looks like Disney is reevaluating some of its earlier work to better fit the current climate - one that hopefully finds creepy behavior less amusing and more...well, fucking creepy. One such moment took place in Toy Story 2's faux blooper reel. The scene begins at 3:29 where Stinky Pete, the antagonistic prospector voiced by Kelsey Grammer, is seen in a box with twin Barbie dolls. Pete is speaking rather lecherously, asking them if they are “absolutely twins,” and suggestively flexing his ability to get them parts in the next Toy Story sequel while grabbing one of their hands. As soon as he realizes he’s being filmed, his demeanor changes entirely and he quickly escorts them out of his box. As quick as it is, Disney is now realizing that the implications of the clip are not worth the potential laughs and removing it entirely from future DVD and digital copies.

...

As one of the comments states "Thank heavens society has finally been protected."

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14-Year-Old Posts Picture of Airsoft Gun on Snapchat, School Suspends Him for 3 Weeks: https://reason.com/2019/07/05/airsoft-gun-suspend-school-zero-tolerance/

Quote

A Maryland eighth grader was suspended for three weeks and did not get to graduate with his class in June. This was his punishment for appearing in the background of a friend's video in which said friend held a disabled airsoft gun. The eighth grader also posed for a photo with the friend, who held him in a headlock with the fake gun pointing at his head. The picture was shared with 13 other friends on Snapchat.

Are you silently giving thanks that social media didn't exist when you were a middle schooler? Me too. The 14-year-old boy later admitted he was trying to look like a "badass."

On Monday his dad—David Bernstein, a nonprofit director—wrote a piece about the incident for The Washington Post. He said he had asked the private Silver Spring school to reconsider the punishment. After all, his son did not threaten anyone with a gun. He did not own a gun. He did not say anything about wanting to kill students, or take his own life, or do anything violent. He was, his dad wrote, just being a "knucklehead."

But the school insisted the incident was "very, very serious" and therefore warranted suspension through the end of the year.

I'm just not sure how serious it is to be in a photo or video that is stupid but ultimately unthreatening and harmless. But anyway, in an email to me, Bernstein added that this was not the first time he was dismayed by the administration's take on things.

"I first realized something was amiss at the school when I received a call earlier in the year about another 'very serious' incident," said Bernstein. "My son had told a friend that he observed a teacher texting while driving. He was then hauled into the principal's office and asked to apologize to the teacher, which he only did reluctantly. 'The teacher was very hurt,' the principal stated. 'And [your son] didn't seem to care.' Confused about the 'crime,' I asked the principal what if my son was telling the truth. 'That's beside the point,' she said. 'He violated our community values by hurting the teacher's feelings.'"

You don't have to be John Grisham to sense something is a little off here. On the one hand, a child is punished for reporting an actual danger: a texting driver. On the other hand, the same child is punished for participating in a video and photo that did not represent an actual danger.

Clearly the school is very worried about feelings and not so worried about reality. It worried that the teacher accused of texting would feel hurt. And it worried that students might feel "anxiety" if they heard about or saw the video or snap.

In this way, the school is tutoring its students in safetyism—the word Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff use in The Coddling of the American Mind to describe the demand for pointless safety measures. The students are being taught to believe that they are literally unsafe when actually they are just uncomfortable—and that the administration is required to respond.

Note that responding doesn't actually make kids any safer, because they were not in any real danger to begin with.

As for the three-week suspension, it seems to mirror the criminal justice system's obsession with longer and longer sentences. Seems like any kid who is told to "reflect" on his actions for three days has done enough reflecting. "Indeed," Bernstein noted in his piece, "multiple studies show that long-term suspensions make for worse, not better behavior."

But of course, Bernstein is dealing with reality. The school is not.

Safetyism indeed.  Today's parents and the educational institutions can't allow children to fail nor can they allow them to feel uncomfortable.  Why has doing so now become a kind of cardinal sin?

 

  • Disdain 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NBA’s PC Move Away from the Word ‘Owner’: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/nba-move-away-from-word-owner-politically-correct/

Quote

Last month, NBA commissioner Adam Silver told TMZ Sports that the NBA has “moved away” from the word “owner” because of its connotations with slavery.

“I don’t want to overreact to the term because, as I said earlier, people end up twisting themselves into knots avoiding the use of the word owner,” Silver said. “But we moved away from that term years ago in the league.”

We call our team owners ‘governor of the team’ and ‘alternate governor,'” he continued.

Since the comments, many people have come out to mock them — including sports personality Stephen A. Smith, who said on his national radio show Monday that the concern over the word means that the NBA must be “smoking crack”:

The idiocy in this politically correct world that we’re living in, where we’ve got to literally have a discussion to the point where it becomes a media storyline. “Oh my god. An owner says he owns his team. That’s offensive to people.” Y’all smoking crack. Something is wrong with you people. What the hell has this world come to?

Now, I’m not sure about crack specifically, but I am sure that Stephen A. Smith is right to think that this is unbelievably stupid. In fact, what struck me the most about the controversy was that I remembered that I had actually used the concept of people becoming offended at the word “owner” as a joke in an NRO column I wrote two years ago.

The column was about how a college, Rice University, had decided to stop using the word “master” to describe the heads of its residential colleges because the word is associated with slavery. As a way of arguing against this decision, I stated in a tongue-in-cheek way that having a problem with the word “master” for this reason would be like having a problem with the word “owner:”

There are also so many words other than “master” that could be considered offensive based on this standard. For example, people with slaves were also called “slave owners,” which, if you notice, has the word “owner” in it. The exact same logic that’s leading Rice and other colleges to get rid of the word “master” would also demand that words and phrases such as “homeowner,” “pet owner,” and “girl, own it!” be changed — and, sorry, but I really don’t think I’ll ever refer to myself as “a possessor of a pet.”

Let me be clear: I thought, at the time, that my example was perfect for showing just how ridiculous and nonsensical the “master” controversy was. Little did I know that, according to Silver, there already was a group (the NBA) that, in all seriousness, had an actual problem with “owner.”

It’s mind-blowing, but it’s true: We have now entered an era of political correctness when parody has become almost impossible. I always wondered when a joke I’d made in my column about oversensitivity would turn out to come true — and it seems that the day has finally (unfortunately) come.

Yes — people owned slaves, and yes, that is an unspeakable horror. But the thing is, people have owned, and continue to own, lots of things. For example, I (not to brag) own a toothbrush. Is it offensive to say I’m a toothbrush owner? If I own a home someday, can I call myself a “homeowner”? Or do I have to call it something else? I guess I could say “person who has a home,” but I don’t know if even that would work. Other than it being stupidly wordy, wouldn’t the word “has” be offensive too, according to the NBA logic about the word “owner”? After all, there can be all sorts of horrific things that a person “has” — like cancer, for example. If “owner” is offensive because there have been people who owned slaves, wouldn’t “has” be offensive because there have been people who “have had” (and continue to “have”) things like cancer? Words can mean different things to different people at different times, and as long as you’re not using them in an offensive way, you shouldn’t have any problem using them.

In any case, I am truly terrified to see how stupid this could get. After all, just when I think it couldn’t possibly get any more stupid, I’m usually proven wrong. All I can do is hope that no one reads my parody-like example about the word “has” and decides that this word actually is offensive. But, after what happened with my 2017 example of using the word “owner,” it wouldn’t be the first time that what I thought was parody turned out to be reality.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2019 at 6:59 PM, Irishman said:

The headline was all I could handle....won’t even bother reading the article. 🤦‍♂️💩🤦‍♂️💩🤦‍♂️💩 

https://www.insider.com/instagram-star-belle-delphine-sold-used-bath-water-2019-7

I wouldn't even sit in my own bath water....hence I haven't had a bath since I was a kid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Impartial_Observer said:

I wouldn't even sit in my own bath water....hence I haven't had a bath since I was a kid.

The last time I took a bath, I took a shower first.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

The last time I took a bath, I took a shower first.

I ain't going to lie, my wife has a garden tub in her bathroom, and I may have been enticed once or twice, but there was a shower first.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...