>Have you met anyone in your presumably English-speaking country who wrote their name in Korean characters? Probably not because they convert it to the nearest allowed name.
Having a list of "allowed" names implies another list of "disallowed" names. I am not aware (including names with non 7-bit ASCII characters) of any such list of names that aren't legally allowed to be used.
I'd note that the artist formerly known as Ƭ̵̬̊ legally changed their name to that symbol here in my "presumably English-speaking" country.
I am not aware of any such restrictions where I live. Perhaps it's just where you do?
It's not legal in the US to call your child "fuck this shit I'm out" because it is child abuse.
Ƭ̵̬̊'s legal name is not Ƭ̵̬̊ because government systems can't process that symbol he calls his name. It's not illegal to say your name is Ƭ̵̬̊ but that's not actually your name as the government sees it.
>It's not legal in the US to call your child "fuck this shit I'm out" because it is child abuse.
Which specific statute forbids this? I am not aware of any.
>Ƭ̵̬̊'s legal name is not Ƭ̵̬̊ because government systems can't process that symbol he calls his name. It's not illegal to say your name is Ƭ̵̬̊ but that's not actually your name as the government sees it.
Actually, Ƭ̵̬̊' changed their name (again) a long time ago -- long before they died.
That said, Once again, which specific statute says that?
You're making claims without providing evidence. Or as the (no so young any more) kids say, "pix, or it didn't happen."
>If you could you please present the facts as you know them, as I suggested, because this in topic must be one of the cases I missed from the news - and you seem to have details that support your view anyway, so a generic narration will not suffice.
I understand your effort to engage in good faith, but iugtmkbdfil834[0] has made it clear that they are not.
They're operating out of what Sartre called out[1] as a primary mechanism of anti-semites, but is also applicable to folks like this:
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of
their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge.
But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to
use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the
right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous
reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight
in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but
to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will
abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for
argument is past.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre
It is interesting to watch you reduce things to primitives that have little to do with subject at hand. It is almost as if you yourself fit the helpfully provided quote above.
>It depends. In Ontario (or at least Toronto where I live), the fire department and ambulance services are separate. The paramedics are chronically underfunded
>How do you declare the dependencies though? The unit file only covers starting the process.
That's not really true anymore. I can understand why you might not be familiar with declaring systemd dependencies as it's a fairly new thing. Don't blink or you might miss it.
Check out the article[0] below, it just came out...in 2015.
>It is tiring to hear law enforcement be described as a weapon. Law enforcement keeps society functioning. Journalists and public figures who rule up people to be against the law are the real bad actors here trying to subvert American society.
Tell that to Ilhan Omar[0], Letitia James[1]. James Comey[2], Renee Goode[3], Alex Pretti[4] and countless others.
Supporting law enforcement is not boot licking. And yes I will tell that to all those people you listed. Law enforcement needs to enforce laws and control over those trying to commit violence and fraud to others.
Yep. And those bad, disruptive and underperforming kids should be sent out into the cotton fields by age six or seven, and their (obviously) inferior parents should be sterilized so they can't continue to pollute the gene pool.
Because we already know which children will be a drag on society by the time they're six or seven, right? And if we'd started doing this twenty-five years ago, we'd be much better off.
I propose intelligence/physical prowess tests for all children starting at age two or three, so we can start to weed out the dead weight much earlier.
And sterilizing the parents (as well as the kids -- but that goes without saying) will, in the medium term, address much of the tightness in the housing and job markets. It's a win-win!
And if a few decades is too long to wait for this, we could always go with summary executions, right? Or at least work camps for the inferior where they won't be a burden on society.
Sadly, all those "woke" pinko commies want to destroy our way of life by polluting our gene pool with the inferior stock, because they hate us and our free and equal society!
Unless you have some multi-layered satire thing going, I take your post to mean that you disagree with removing disruptive kids from ordinary classrooms. Okay, but do you actually have a solution? Or do we simply accept that schools all become zoos? Your rant is uninteresting and people have been saying this stuff for my entire life.
If you're going to say nothing can be done, then okay, the people who want something better will just move to live with each other in a community where this kind of problem doesn't exist, and do everything they can to keep it from following them. They can be happy that they have their standards, and you can be happy that you have yours.
>Okay, but do you actually have a solution? Or do we simply accept that schools all become zoos?
So, by you are those the only two outcomes? Dump/warehouse disruptive kids and deny them any opportunity to become productive members of society before they even hit puberty, or let them run hog wild and burn down the schools?
I'd expect there's some middle ground here that doesn't include either giving up on children just because they're having socialization issues or putting those children in charge of the school.
Do I have all the answers? No. But if you're going to advocate for throwing away children because they misbehave, why stop there? That's not a rhetorical question.
I'm not advocating for throwing away anyone with no opportunity. I chose to live somewhere where I can avoid the issue and vote against letting it come here, but I still pay for their schooling/daycare like everyone else. I suggest that the people who want to deal with the problem start disciplining the kids. Correct them. Give them after-school detention where they sit and write that they're sorry 1000 times. Isolate them from the rest of the kids if they consistently can't behave. That may involve sending them to some kind of reform school for cases where the other kids' safety is at risk. Or allow principals and perhaps teachers to deliver corporal punishment as needed.
If we're looking at things realistically, some of these children are violent. Yes, those should absolutely be removed and possibly locked in a facility if they can't be controlled. It's unfortunate, but the alternative is allowing everyone else to be harmed, for what exactly? Because you cannot face the reality that they are not going to suddenly turn into a saint and develop an interest in curing cancer when they grow up?
> I'm not advocating for throwing away anyone with no opportunity. I chose to live somewhere where I can avoid the issue and vote against letting it come here
This is the definition of conservatism. It's not a problem as long as it's not your family suffering.
If you had a "problem child" you'd be singing a different tune about how acceptable it was to discard them.
Not sure what to tell you. It's been a problem for decades and only gets worse. How would you like me to solve the problem? Go to these children's houses and give their parents a stern talking to?
I don't have a problem child. Neither do any of my neighbors. In fact it's apparently normal for 20% of my local school to test at the 99th percentile on state tests, and they're extremely polite. Weird. My wife's volunteering to lead our local girl scout troop and helps regularly at the school. It seems we're doing our part, so I'm really not sure what else you would like.
> Not sure what to tell you. It's been a problem for decades and only gets worse
It's been a problem for literally millennia. This hardly unique to 21st century america.
Yes, I'm glad you don't have a "problem child". That's genuinely great, I wish everyone was that lucky.
What I would like, in the smallest possible way, is some shred of empathy for people who aren't as lucky as you are. Perhaps you could practice the concept of "walking a mile in another man's shoes" and make an attempt to understand what they're dealing with instead of dismissing them as inferior.
I'm also happy your wife is volunteering to help with girl scouts. I think that's a great thing and more people should do it.
But that doesn't excuse your lack of empathy.
Kids are not some kind of deterministic automatons where the same input always produces the same output (as if we could even reproduce the same inputs for an entire life). They're more complicated than that for reasons we frankly can't even understand.
There are a number of things that are highly correlated with producing a "good child", a major one being having enough money that the family isn't under constant stress and you can afford second (or third or fourth) chances.
But callously discarding every child who isn't lucky enough to benefit from this is just wrong. We, as a society, a culture, should be better than that.
Am I expecting you, personally, to go out and change the world? No, no more than I'm expecting myself to do it. But we all make small decisions every day and if enough of us make the "right ones" they can add up, and it starts with empathy for our fellow man.
My wife and I both come from broken homes. Neither of us came from money. Sure, there are plenty of good people of every class, but if you spend a lot of time around lower class people, you'll learn that a lot of them will very proudly broadcast their poor behavior to everybody. It is precisely because we can empathize a little too well that we know to avoid those kinds of situations as much as possible.
We do our part, and we've decided to live in an area where others also do their part and try to build a community and a society, and not in an area where people tear down the community around them, or make excuses for those who do that. Again, what exactly are you chiding me for? What should I be doing differently? It's not us keeping them down. We're gone.
Yes. How is it relevant? Like I said I still pay taxes. In fact, quite a bit more than my parents did. It's not me voting for them to not receive an education. It's not my kids disrupting their classes. I'd be happy to vote for a school board full of hard-ass drill instructors that appoint hard-ass drill instructors as superintendents and principals. I'm happy for kids to receive merit scholarships and go study engineering.
This isn't pulling the ladder up behind me. It's noticing a ladder, climbing out of a pit, and walking away. Ladder's still right there. Meanwhile others are asking why we don't try to make ourselves more comfortable in the pit.
I understand that you're probably a bleeding heart liberal, and I respect that. How about removing the problem children AND specifically increasing funding for their education? Smaller class sizes and more intensive support than the rest of the student body.
I would argue that their outcomes in general would still be worse off then their lesser funded counterparts.
Well, that's the first time I've ever been called a bleeding heart liberal before, so I guess I'll take that as a compliment. I'm kinda confused by what even counts as liberal these days, given the, shall we say, discourse about it from "both sides". Not that I consider myself a shudder centrist.
Anyways, I'm not taking the position that we shouldn't "remove" "problem children" in the same way I agree that prisons are necessary for society.
I guess if I had to summarize my feelings on this matter in this tiny little text box, it's that while this option should exist, we should all feel shame, a sense of failure, every time we have to exercise it.
We should ask ourselves, collectively, what we could have done differently to prevent the situation from coming to this point.
It's theoretically possible that there was nothing that could be done, but people are way to willing too just leap to that conclusion.
As an extension of that, we should at least pretend a modicum of empathy for our fellow humans. People are... people. They're complicated. Nobody is good or bad. They certainly do good things and bad things, and at some point, given our current society/technology/culture/understanding of the world, our best option might be to put them in prison for the rest of their life, but that doesn't mean we should be happy about it.
Like, I get it, you have a child, you have incredibly strong feelings about how to protect and nurture this child, both biologically/genetically as well as an ingrained cultural response. You want to do the best you possibly can for your child, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else's child.
But society improves when we raise the standards for everyone.
I'm not asking that this guy go out and sell all his possessions and march in the streets or whatever extreme example you want to think of. I'm certainly not doing that either. Just remember that "problem kids" are children just as much deserving of love and respect and help as your child.
I'm not a parent, but even if I were your satire wouldn't move me - I'd still want the best for my kids and my decisions would reflect that.
Theoretical social causes and activism are great for university discussions and political sloganeering, but it's a whole different pair of sleeves than what's good for your family.
>Theoretical social causes and activism are great for university discussions and political sloganeering, but it's a whole different pair of sleeves than what's good for your family.
To which "theoretical social causes," "activism" and "political sloganeering" are you referring?
I'm genuinely confused by that, as I mentioned none of those things in my comment. Perhaps you replied to the wrong comment?
Students of history will also note that people routinely used lead as a cosmetic, brutalized and treated women as chattel (and some still do so today), tortured, murdered and enslaved whole populations and all manner of other atrocious stuff.
By your argument, those things are perfectly fine, yes? If not, why is forced denaturalization/deportation perfectly reasonable because it has been done in the past, but those other things are not?
Please do elucidate. I'm sure we'd all like to hear your arguments.
>You just end up with society either paying for them being in prison, subsidizing them (because uneducated and unmotivated labor is close to worthless) or paying to literally clean up their shit because you basically routed them into a "careeer" as homeless person.
That's letting things go way too far. If an incorrigible can be identified, whether that be via their bad behavior, phrenology and/or an excess of melanin, we can weed them out by age nine or ten, sterilize them to make sure they don't pollute our society even more, separate them from the decent, hardworking folks and, if they won't work for the benefit of the society that's footing the bill for their palatial accommodations, summary execution would certainly be warranted.
The above is satire and quite disgusting. The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!" are far too many and far too pleased with your hatred and disdain for your fellow humans. Have you no vestige of humanity within you? Shame on you!
You lost me at "incorrigible" and honestly just mentioning phrenology will get every non-moron to just dismiss any argument.
Do you believe that my argument is on a slippery slope towards eugenicist nonsense? I disagree on that and would argue the reverse; children are too valuable to immediately "discard" (by exclusion from education) because of delinquency.
>The sad part is all of you (and you know who you are) who nodded along with the above paragraph and thought, "Finally! someone is making sense and telling the truth!"
Do you fit into that category? If not, then my bile wasn't directed at you. Or did you miss that part?
I had assumed that your hyperbole was directed at my paragraph you quoted, and ment to insinuate that said paragraph was only a few exaggerations apart from eugenicist nonsense.
>I had assumed that your hyperbole was directed at my paragraph you quoted, and ment to insinuate that said paragraph was only a few exaggerations apart from eugenicist nonsense.
No, you made it clear that you understand that warehousing children who have socialization issues was pretty stupid and a drain on the economy. And I agree.
There were several comments I could have used to platform my satire, yours was almost at random and not a reflection on your take. Apologies if I made it seem like I was associating you with my vile blather.
As I originally said, the sad part was all the folks "nodding along" with my "solution", of which there were, I'm sure, far too many.
It makes you wonder WTF is wrong with some people. :( :( :(
>"and then what" is the common retort to when people suggest removing the problem students, it's practically a cliche now. Then what is the students are held accountable now and won't be able to harm the education of their classmates and continue to harass their teachers. Then what is we don't have to pad grades as much and lie so that we can meet a fake metric. Then what is we stop doubling down on an approach that doesn't work.
And when do we actually make the determination that a particular student is a "problem" and remove them from the company of schools and other students? First grade? Fourth? Seventh?
And once we do identify these incorrigibles at age six or ten or thirteen, what do we do with them?
Some form of incarceration? Put them in a "labor pool" so they can pay for their accommodations and not burden the rest of us? Summary execution?
Having a list of "allowed" names implies another list of "disallowed" names. I am not aware (including names with non 7-bit ASCII characters) of any such list of names that aren't legally allowed to be used.
I'd note that the artist formerly known as Ƭ̵̬̊ legally changed their name to that symbol here in my "presumably English-speaking" country.
I am not aware of any such restrictions where I live. Perhaps it's just where you do?
reply