The word "field" is a racial slur now.

[Bradskii]

I've got nothing against humor.

One wouldn't appreciate that from your posts. They are, how shall we say, very earnest. But yeah, there are places to draw lines in the sand. I keep a pointy stick just for that purpose. But sparking up at each and every perceived affront to whatever you think is your position in society as if it's a personal attack just becomes...I dunno, tiresome.

If children are gunned down, or the seat of democracy is attacked, or a democratic country is invaded then I expect to see some heat in a thread. I expect to see some fire and brimstone. My pointy stick will be put into use. But good grief, this thread is about a couple of organisations that have, I'm sure with the best intentions, made themselves look a little foolish. End of story. Yet we have you bringing up gender issues, trans suicides and the definition of women into the mix. Just...what? It's just all grist to your mill.

I have to say that you pick a lot of strange hills to die on...

 

[Bradskii]

It would seem that two places in the known universe have taken to banning “field” thus we have to have a multi page thread about this.

Exactly right. I thought it would die a natural death after the song title gags. A little cornball humour and we move on. But whoa, this is the thin end of a wedge that will bring down society! Us Category Ones and Twos must hope the Cat 3s can hold the fort. 'You can have my dictionary when you tear it from my cold, dead hands!'

 

[Aldebaran]

Field? That is just stupid.

There are plenty of legitimate things to be offended by if you look just a little bit, there's no need to make up new things.

There is if the "I'm offended" industry is to survive and stay in the news.

 

[variant]

There is if the "I'm offended" industry is to survive and stay in the news.

I'm pretty sure they would never run out of legitimate gripes if they were willing to work at it even a tiny bit harder.

 

[Ana the Ist]

One wouldn't appreciate that from your posts. They are, how shall we say, very earnest.

Well the last couple of times I did humor it got me so severely punished I was almost banned.

I guess my sense of humor isn't shared by the board.

But yeah, there are places to draw lines in the sand. I keep a pointy stick just for that purpose. But sparking up at each and every perceived affront to whatever you think is your position in society as if it's a personal attack just becomes...I dunno, tiresome.

Uh huh....well here's a thought. You can leave. You don't need to participate. If you're desperately seeking a circle of people to just constantly affirm your views....I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Maybe start a website called "echochambers" and pre-screen everyone you let inside.

If children are gunned down,

What children are we talking about here?

or the seat of democracy is attacked,

Democracy lies in the people...it doesn't have a seat. When Joe Biden asked everyone to vote to save democracy....he proved that he and his aren't exactly firing on all cylinders. If Democracy is under a threat....a vote won't save it. The voting is the evidence of democracy.

or a democratic country is invaded then I expect to see some heat in a thread.

Really?

I expect to see some fire and brimstone. My pointy stick will be put into use. But good grief, this thread is about a couple of organisations that have, I'm sure with the best intentions, made themselves look a little foolish.

Uh huh.

End of story. Yet we have you bringing up gender issues, trans suicides and the definition of women into the mix. Just...what? It's just all grist to your mill.

Well I'll take your words as genuine since you seem to be doing the same for me. I'll agree that by itself....the word "field" raising any objections is silly. However in a larger context that is essentially a non-stop attempt at changing and controlling language....taking it as one silly example would be ignorant.

It's just another part of the larger trend here.

It's actually something I pointed out long ago in another thread where I made a short list of words that were redefined so vaguely or undefined altogether that if you were on the left side of the political aisle....you couldn't actually explain what those words meant.

That was about a year before Matt Walsh made his bones asking people what a woman is. I'm still waiting on my royalty checks.

I have to say that you pick a lot of strange hills to die on...

I don't doubt it would seem strange for you if you had a vast number of ideas and beliefs that were your own....and not spoon fed to you as a part of some group.

To me though, it actually is a hill worth dying upon. I shouldn't have to suffer from any imposition of verbal self expression by an institution working under, with, funded by, or on behalf of my government. I can accept pragmatic impositions like threats of harm or otherwise physically dangerous expressions....but this?

It's a completely unnecessary bar on a rapidly shrinking cage.

 

[durangodawood]

.....To me though, it actually is a hill worth dying upon. I shouldn't have to suffer from any imposition of verbal self expression by an institution working under, with, funded by, or on behalf of my government. I can accept pragmatic impositions like threats of harm or otherwise physically dangerous expressions....but this?

It's a completely unnecessary bar on a rapidly shrinking cage.

Of course this thing about "field" is silly and deserves push-back.

But language norms in institutional practice generally, govt or private, are normal and fine. Its not "tyranny!" to submit to a few standards while on the job.

 

[Bradskii]

I shouldn't have to suffer from any imposition of verbal self expression by an institution working under, with, funded by, or on behalf of my government. I can accept pragmatic impositions like threats of harm or otherwise physically dangerous expressions....but this?

You probably aren't aware, but these type of threads are sometimes referred to by some of the more sober minded members as Chick.Lit. And no, it doesn't refer to female literature. More a reference to those who run around shouting that the sky is falling.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You probably aren't aware, but these type of threads are sometimes referred to by some of the more sober minded members as Chick.Lit.

I think you missed the point of that story.

And no, it doesn't refer to female literature. More a reference to those who run around shouting that the sky is falling.

Uh huh...well poor chicken little jumped to the conclusion of the sky falling based on scant evidence examined under duress.

If chicken little had spent 10 years watching stuff fall out of the sky, hit people on the head, and then another group of people squashing any discussion of stuff falling from the sky....it's not chicken little who has the problem perceiving reality.

There's another analogy I think would be more appropriate but perhaps a little unwieldy. I'd call this a "man relieving his bladder on your head and telling you it's just raining" thread. And I fully understand that you believe it's raining outside, despite the odd color and smell of the rain, and I understand that you believe it....because reasons why that man would ever do such a thing aren't possibilities you can actually consider. Just don't get upset at me for telling you it's not actually rain and you don't have to get wet.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You probably aren't aware, but these type of threads are sometimes referred to by some of the more sober minded members as Chick.Lit.

I think you missed the point of that story.

And no, it doesn't refer to female literature. More a reference to those who run around shouting that the sky is falling.

Uh huh...well poor chicken little jumped to the conclusion of the sky falling based on scant evidence examined under duress.

If chicken little had spent 10 years watching stuff fall out of the sky, hit people on the head, and then another group of people squashing any discussion of stuff falling from the sky....it's not chicken little who has the problem perceiving reality.

There's another analogy I think would be more appropriate but perhaps a little unwieldy. I'd call this a "man relieving his bladder on your head and telling you it's just raining" thread. And I fully understand that you believe it's raining outside, despite the odd color and smell of the rain, and I understand that you believe it....because reasons why that man would ever do such a thing aren't possibilities you can actually consider. Just don't get upset at me for telling you it's not actually rain and you don't have to get wet

Of course this thing about "field" is silly and deserves push-back.

But language norms in institutional practice generally, govt or private, are normal and fine. Its not "tyranny!" to submit to a few standards while on the job.

Is this an on the job thing? I didn't read the OP...

I was under the impression that it was at a university.

Regardless, you wanted an example of the government imposing such nonsense. This is from Loudon County Schools which I'm certain includes public schools....

Teacher cries as she quits over more inclusive transgender policy

‘School board, I quit. I quit your policies, I quit your trainings, and I quit being a cog in a machine that tells me to push highly politicized agendas,’ teacher says during public meeting

www.google.com

"Staff or students who persistently refuse to respect a student’s gender identity by using the wrong name and gender pronoun are in violation of this policy,” the new guidelines state"


So while certainly you might be able to argue that the state is able to impose these arbitrary ideological views upon it's faculty....do you believe they should be able to do so to the students?

And before you try to defend this sickening imposition of political ideological through language....I'll just point out that if you try to defend it, I'll repeatedly point out your complete inability to explain what "gender identity" means as a distinct concept and as such....you're literally defending a nonsense policy that you have no understanding of at all. Fair?

 

[Bradskii]

Uh huh...well poor chicken little jumped to the conclusion of the sky falling based on scant evidence...

I think I should quote @Pommer again: 'It would seem that two places in the known universe have taken to banning “field” thus we have to have a multi page thread about this.'

I will eagerly await your response which will undoubtedly include references to gender politics, transexualism and quite possibly crt.

 

[Bradskii]

Is this an on the job thing? I didn't read the OP...

If you're going to argue against something then it really helps if you read why it's being discussed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you're going to argue against something then it really helps if you read why it's being discussed.

I don't think it matters....

These sorts of imposition are for the sheep. That way, by the time they have you swearing an oath to their ideology, you're so used to being told what to say and think you won't even hesitate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think I should quote @Pommer again: 'It would seem that two places in the known universe have taken to banning “field” thus we have to have a multi page thread about this.'

I will eagerly await your response which will undoubtedly include references to gender politics, transexualism and quite possibly crt.

I get it....you think it's trivial. Is there something else you want to add? Or do you want to wait and see if @Pommer can hand you another opinion for you to repeat?

 

[Pommer]

I get it....you think it's trivial. Is there something else you want to add? Or do you want to wait and see if @Pommer can hand you another opinion for you to repeat?

You’d like me to restate this to make it clearer for you?

 

[IceJad]

“Language can be powerful, and phrases such as ‘going into the field’ or ‘field work’ may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.”

From my point of view being an academian in the west today doesn't require knowledge, critical thinking nor the ability to contextualize, all you need to be is to champion ludicrous causes. Now I know why videos like this exist. Because the education in the west waste time on feelings, social outrage and victimhood than teach people actual knowledge, skills and critical thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You’d like me to restate this to make it clearer for you?

Did I miss it on the first pass? You're trivializing it, aren't you?

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think it matters....

These sorts of imposition are for the sheep.

Well, the rest of us sheep consider it worthwhile to know exactly what we're discussing. We find it useful in formulating a response. You seem to prefer responding without knowing. You said this specific matter is a hill worth fighting for. Now you're telling us you haven't even checked where the hill is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

From my point of view being an academian in the west today doesn't require knowledge, critical thinking nor the ability to contextualize, all you need to be is to champion ludicrous causes. Now I know why videos like this exist. Because the education in the west waste time on feelings, social outrage and victimhood than teach people actual knowledge, skills and critical thinking.

Not only are they abysmally stupid....they're also moralistic activists. Despite not knowing anything about anything, they somehow have convinced themselves they know what everyone should do....think....and say. They somehow imagine that this total conformity to government and corporate leaders is putting them on the vanguard of some revolutionary change.

There's going to be revolutionary changes....they aren't on the vanguard of anything. They're like those wagyu cattle that get fed oats and beer and massaged all day. They have no clue what is going to happen.

 

[Bradskii]

I see we've moved up the food chain a few links....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, the rest of us sheep consider it worthwhile to know exactly what we're discussing.

No....no you don't.

We find it useful in formulating a response.

You didn't formulate a response you repeated popular sentiment. You think it's trivial.

You seem to prefer responding without knowing.

If the location of this change will in any way alter the substance and points of my argument....feel free to explain how.

Otherwise I suggest you wait for @Pommer to come up with something for you to repeat.

You said this specific matter is a hill worth fighting for. Now you're telling us you haven't even checked where the hill is.

It's in language, thought, and freedom of expression.

Anything else?