While this truly is an open-and-shut case of administrative stupidity, I still have to wonder...do you all really think all children should be tolerant of all things? Or just things of which you yourselves approve?
Would you approve of school administrators telling a child to leave an "Al Qaeda Death to the Crusaders" backpack home?
How about a Confederate flag backpack??
How about a Third Reich backpack?
I can hear the "Yeah, but..."s already. So we don't have a principle here, only a preference? Agreed?
I sympathize with Grayson. I skipped grades, got glasses and then moved to rural southern schools, a perfect storm for bullying. And so it came to pass. BUT. Bullying is an artifact, a temporary stage in social maturation, at least for the huge majority of people. These 'bullies' need to stop pushing him around, but you can't make them like MLP, or Grayson, for that matter. They are, in fact, merely expressing themselves, but need to be taught that this is an unacceptable manner in which to do so. They're not evil, you guys are just projecting that. They're 9-year-olds. School needs to help them with the socialization process, which they are failing to do in this case. But that's about it.
The exaggerations, imaginative characterizations and wild projections regarding these kids is kind of alarming. The irony of a torches-and-pitchforks campaign demanding those bullies be forced to goodthink under the threat of, presumably, school-administered bullying (the 'good kind', from the authorities) seems to be...hard to grasp, apparently.
^ This. I remember. If you were a 'weirdo' (and I was), the teachers often as not were in sympathy with the bullying students. No recourse, no external community of like-minded kids, nothing. I had to develop a relentless defensive contempt for "regular" society and "normal" people...itself a pathology I've had to address later in life. But it got me through.
Everyone wants to pretend things are the worst they've ever been and going downhill, but that bit of delusional thinking has been going on since pre-Roman days and if t'were true we'd be at the bottom of a 2500 year decline, much much worse off than we are today. The phenomenon is understandable in intra-generational terms as OF COURSE things were better back in "the old days"...YOU WERE YOUNG THEN. derp.
Also of interest, after all the appropriately-derided examples of the abdication of common sense in favor of Zero Tolerance Policies, this particular example is what we get when left to the mercies of "common sense" as wielded by school administrators. Don't really see a winning course of action here...
Proving only that it is possible to be green and greedy.
A dick move like this 'lock-in' plan is not made a non-dick move because they have other policies of which you apparently approve. Yes, people CAN choose to allow themselves to be ripped off based on those policies.
More likely is that people will be turned off, moving to other manufacturers less environmentally friendly at a net loss to total greenness in the corporate sphere. (Since people tend to like their environmental contributions to be voluntary and unrelated to your corporate profits.)
As you would be bemoaning if you were not either a paid shill/apologist for the company or someone who doesn't examine these things very deeply.
But in every instance of government action, it's a valid predictive method. I mean, people are worried the algorithm might not be accurate? What the hell, they use dogs 'alerting' as evidence to warrant sometimes destructive searches, and just suppress studies that place the accuracy of dope-sniffing dogs at around 60%.
So yeah, everything about this "It's just to give those people a warning." system is just teetering on a steep, greased hill. Combined with militarization of PDs across the country and an ever intensifying 'us against them' mentality, I don't think the citizenry will be well-served (or protected) by these pre-crime efforts.
That said, a couple of points: a) I very much doubt a single person on the list is without previous violent violations. They are NOT going to anticipate someone's first crime.
b) IF we were to allow for the possibility of good intentions from the CPD (not a given), whatever the underlying causes (or 'disease' in the analogy) of crime, if the 'symptom' is murder or violent assault, the police are obliged to deal with it, without any obligation to make sure every demographic is happy, prosperous, well-educated and non-violent.
No "math" was at fault in that crash. The fact is, the math was applied to financial instruments that contained wildly over-valued components (and some fraudulently mis-valued). Now, was there some kind of math error involved there? No.
It was fraud. Too many 1%ers making too much money off the overvaluation of homes, and when the only way to maintain the impetus of the bubble was to find new buyers...well, the government, under the guise of "helping the poor" was perfectly willing to front your tax dollars to MAKE new buyers out of people who really couldn't afford homes.
Those ridiculous mortgages, lumped together, were the "rotten apples" (or 'tranches', I believe they were called) of the derivative market.
The math itself, and the fallibility thereof, had nothing to do with it.
No, I think the Chief is on to something here. Let's give the fine barristers of our nation time to incorporate the "Coulda Been Worse" Defense into criminal defense practice.
"Yes, Your Honor, defendant did indeed defraud these senile retirees of their life savings, but hey, he didn't deflate the tires of their wheelchairs, and refrained entirely from decapitation!"
"So while burglary did take place, we ask the jury to take into account during the sentencing phase that plaintiffs' house pets were not sexually assaulted, despite being quite attractive, and, as an ameliorative consideration, that their home was NOT burnt to the ground!"
Combined with an affluenza defense, plaintiffs might end up winning "speculative reverse damage awards" for their restraint.
I used to make it a point to address people wearing that ugly Hilfiger stuff with the name in that supersized font as "Tommy", and then ask "Well why do you have his shirt?"
I also questioned, back when this first started (70s? 80s?), what I was supposed to get in return for the free advertising. Somehow, the explanation, that I got some kind of 'cool cred' from people who judged such things based on the brand of clothing a person wore seemed absolutely paradoxical.
And so have avoided heavily logo'd clothing ever since.*
*-esp. the 'swoosh'. Somehow, overpriced products endorsed by ridiculously overpaid athletes, who were then given more huge sums of money for a 'contribution' to the product which in no way enhanced its utility or quality, while the people who actually produced the products were paid slave wages seemed...ummm...unsavory? contradictory? immoral? COMPLETELY, GLARINGLY, TOTALLY WRONG, maybe?
Please fill out the enclosed form clarifying exactly which brand of tape will you be using to cover up the logo. Your branding representatives should have advised you of the consequences of violating our agreement with 3M. Please see that you act accordingly.
Sincerely, IOC Subcommittee on Squeezing Every Fucking Drop of Revenue Possible Out of This Noble Celebration of Sport (IOCSSEFDRPOTNCS)
Thanks for the link. I cannot believe TechDirt endorses this guy's knee-jerk PC campaign, nor his hateful, ugly contempt for those who disagree.
Maybe Timothy here should work for the government himself instead of 'contributing' to a site that usually looks out for the freedom of individuals. I mean, somebody so certain of their own superiority really ought to be ruling...errr...'serving' the public, right?
Well, as long as government is enforcing GOOD speech.....
The word itself (unlike the "n-word") hasn't been used as a pejorative term to describe "First Nations", "Indians", "North American Aborigine", "What the fuck ever" peoples in a hundred years. But there does exist a currently small-but-growing industry (too small to refer to as "Big Offense", I suppose) interested in promoting the taking of offense, said industry not unrelated to the larger, growing and very lucrative enterprise of providing sensitivity workshops, diversity seminars and corporate consulting regarding the 'giving of offense'. Too cynical? Perhaps. But I've yet to find a degree of cynicism that leads me to overestimate human greed and mindless self-interest. These professional offense-takers and paid insensitivity-absolvers find ready allies in the huge-and-constantly-expanding federal bureaucracy we all so love.
And TechDirt applauds this?
I find it offensive when people (the freedom-loving denizens of TechDirt for instance) who (rightly) find so much government action objectionable, and who so frequently (and rightly) worry about the growth of government power, are perfectly fine with the use of such power when it fits their own preferences, prejudices, or favorite means of generating smug superiority. Sounds like a case of believing in freedom...for people to do or say things of which you approve. Nice.
But hey, that's just moral inconsistency, or maybe hypocrisy. The worst aspect of having the government in the business of deciding what people are allowed to say is the SUBJECTIVE NATURE OF THE SO-CALLED VIOLATION.
The law should never be based on subjective, unverifiable claims. The law should be based on reality and fact, not someone's feelings. Especially, the government should never be in a position to enforce laws dictating what is acceptable opinion, emotion, or state-of-mind. EVEN. IF. YOU. AGREE. WITH. THEM.
I won't invoke Slippery Slope here, but whoever applauds this, seeing no downside, is dancing on Teflon Mountain wearing butter boots.
It's like saying "We'll solve speeding problems by only allowing speedometer displays that only go up to 75 mph.
I also really like the "solutions" to other problems presented by this utopian proposal...
Problem: "People who make more money will leave." Solution: "We'll make it worldwide!"
Problem: "People will just charge more for goods and services" Solution: "We'll control all the prices!"
Problem: "People won't be as productive without the incentive of attaining wealth." Solution: "We'll make them."
Note that every "solution" to the objections raised requires that greater and greater power be given to...government? All the members of which organization will be content to settle for the same "adequate" wage received by people who have NO power?? RLY? This altruistic behavior is not intuitive, based on, oh...every bit of human history ever. Sorry.
Maybe we could look into giving everyone a unicorn that shits money instead.
How about we NOT create any more students/citizens who have seen their "leaders" fall for the Labeling Fallacy: if things have the same designation, they are the same. Simple.
Rules is rules. Guns are guns. Sexual assault is sexual assault.
But a 19-year-old who has a 17 yo girlfriend with pissed-off parents is NOT the same as someone who sexually abuses a three-year-old. A pop tart in the shape of a gun, or a picture of a parent in the Armed forces with a government-issued gun, or a gun charm on a charm bracelet are NOT guns (and all are cases where a "Zero tolerance policy" was interpreted as requiring suspensions). And stupid rules are NOT what creates law-abiding citizens...good rules do.
These policies are to relieve teachers and administrators from having to exercise judgement, because judgement exercised may go wrong, and result in legal liability(read: excessively huge monetary settlements with greedy parents represented by greedy tort lawyers). Thus, the national epidemic bedeviling grade schools of students playing 'doctor' behind the bushes is dealt with by a Zero Tolerance policy for TOUCHING.
Because we wouldn't want to pretend any of the specialists in pedagogy we employ in our schools can tell the difference between a hug or a pat on the back and a finger up the bung. Clearly they can't and have to be saved, along with the state education budget, from having to make such judgements.
ZT policies should be ended because they are based on faulty logic and suspect motivations, and teach DISRESPECT for rules and laws. Which, given the constant drumbeat of rebel-worship from Hollywood and the media, is entirely unnecessary.
"Amid the seemingly endless debates today about the future of reading, there remains one salient, yet often overlooked fact: Reading isnít only a matter of our brains; itís something that we do with our bodies."
Apparently, the rhetorical tactic of just stating things as true and moving on (as opposed to actually, you know, demonstrating through experiment or proving through logical argumentation) works as well in digital media as on paper, parchment or papyrus-which is to say: not at all.
As does simple refutation: "No, it isn't, Mr. Piper."
How about a citation for the original comment he's replying to, which I quote from memory "Most business executives are Republicans because this fits the neat straw man narrative I've created wherein all the conservatives are crooked panderers-to-lobbyists and the liberals are all noble, principle-driven public servants" or something like that?
Here's a clue: If, when you say something without hard fact behind it, you get the feeling "See? It all fits together!", then your "logic" has as much value as that of Moon Hoaxers, Bilderberger Conspiracy Theorists and Mayan Calendar Catastrophists, all of whom elevate speculation to fact if it "all fits together".
Thus it is with your "feeling" (not "fact") that all the corporate bad guys are Republicans. Facing the fact that the truth is otherwise would cause shakiness in your whole easy explanation of how things work, therefore it MUST be true, right?
IF you do a little research and find the facts are clearly otherwise (most people with power, the people who RUN THIS COUNTRY, are actually "liberal"), an easy out is the explanation that this disturbing unanimity is not from self-serving self-interest, but because they are smart people whose opinions naturally align with yours, you being right and all.
I point this out not to defend the Republicans, who are useless and repulsive, but to hopefully help someone escape the poisonous delusion that one political side or the other is "good" because they pander in a particular way.
This is insightful and perfectly true. But ultimately, it merely rearranges the relative importance of inputs into the whole "success" aspect of art (as opposed to the "making art" part).
If instead of say, musical groups becoming successful by making good music AND being really good-looking or dressing up like a pirate/robot/mage/ninja/superhero version of the Village People, they instead gain success through the quality of their music AND being "...able to replace the PR intermediaries with their own form of engagement with fans", I don't see anything unethical, unfair or tragic about it.
The artists whose music is less accessible (already called "niche" artists) or who are "demoralized" at the prospect of engaging with fans or promoting themselves were NOT being made into stars by the existing mechanism of promotion. So appealing on their behalf is like trying to slide billions in subsidies to Archer Daniels Midland by trotting out hard-working American Gothic family farm operators.
And for any promotion expenditure the labels ever did for non-mainstream, new or niche musicians, they spent ten thousand times as much trying to get top stars' sales from x to x*2. Which at least is defensible, business-wise (the "lesser known" artists' sales being .001x or sth).
People will find ways, ways that don't involve some giant corporation that runs everything from production to distribution to bookkeeping. If there are introverted artists who can't be arsed to be concerned if anybody is, you know, liking what they do, they're already starving in garrets or the modern equivalent thereof.