Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:09 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,376
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Are you or anyone you know confused with something like "If a man litters on the highway he shall be fined $500"? Do you read that and believe that a woman can litter without penalty?
Wait -- if "woman" is implicitly part of "man," does that mean they were supposed to be registering for the draft all these years?
  #52  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:48 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
AFAICT, the purpose is simply to make Berkeley's own code of municipal regulations non-gender-specific in its language. That is, the code would presumably refer to "firefighters" rather than "firemen" and "firewomen", "mail carriers" rather than "mailmen", "meter readers" instead of "meter maids", singular "they" rather than "he" or "she" as a gender-indefinite singular pronoun, and so on. Nowhere, AFAIK, is it proposed to restrict what municipal employees can say about the gender of individuals when it's pertinent to what they're talking about.
Many, many, many places have already done this, and why people are making such a big deal about this example is genuinely baffling. Local governments, quasigovernmental institutions, and private businesses have been excising sex-specific lingo from codes, regulations, SOPs, and official documents for a long time now. The sky has not yet fallen.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #53  
Old 07-22-2019, 09:56 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Is there any compelling reason why such a code should not read "If one should litter on the highway, they shall be fined $500"?
"Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine of $500 for each incident."

Or, considerably better, "Littering on the highway shall be punished by a fine to be set annually by [X Municipality]." (And you'd better make it clear somewhere whether the fine is per incident or per piece of litter.) If the code lists a specific fine, inflation will make it nonsensical over the years; so specifying the amount means you're going to need to rewrite the code every few years anyway.

OF course, IME, you're going to need to do that anyway; because no matter how hard you tried to address in the code every situation that was going to come up (if only to specifically allow it), somebody's going to come in two months after you finally got the revision through all the hearings and votes with something you never thought of, and/or with new information about something you did think of which means that, going off the information you had at the time, you got something wrong.

I think most places have cleaned up their gendered references in municipal codes while in the process of doing otherwise necessary rewriting. Saves printing as many versions, and simplifies the hearing process (I don't know whether this change in this Berkeley code requires a public hearing process.)
  #54  
Old 07-22-2019, 10:27 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,906
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
OF course, IME, you're going to need to do that anyway; because no matter how hard you tried to address in the code every situation that was going to come up (if only to specifically allow it), somebody's going to come in two months after you finally got the revision through all the hearings and votes with something you never thought of, and/or with new information about something you did think of which means that, going off the information you had at the time, you got something wrong.
Yep, it almost inevitably happens. Then there's the converse, how every new term you have some member thinking of proposing the exact same thing you already did last term because they did not catch that the last revision included that. Always fun to tell them "it already says that".
  #55  
Old 07-22-2019, 11:03 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Yes, I have no problem changing that to meet with the custom of the times, but we can do that piecemeal without expending any money unnecessarily.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that doing it piecemeal wouldn't cost more. If the entire municipal code can be revised for $600.00, that is about the cheapest legislative overall imaginable. I charged more than that to revise an employee handbook to exclude potential references to medical marijuana.
__________________
This can only end in tears.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 07-22-2019 at 11:04 AM.
  #56  
Old 07-22-2019, 05:22 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
I don't think there's any reason to believe that doing it piecemeal wouldn't cost more. If the entire municipal code can be revised for $600.00, that is about the cheapest legislative overall imaginable. I charged more than that to revise an employee handbook to exclude potential references to medical marijuana.
But when you revised the handbook, you did so for a purpose: to update the handbook to comply with the new policy regarding medical marijuana. This update serves no purpose at all except to make liberals feel better.
  #57  
Old 07-22-2019, 05:29 PM
snfaulkner's Avatar
snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 7,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But when you revised the handbook, you did so for a purpose: to update the handbook to comply with the new policy regarding medical marijuana. This update serves no purpose at all except to make liberals feel better.
And you would rather the government continue to insult it's own people?
__________________
It may be because I'm a drooling simpleton with the attention span of a demented gnat, but would you mind explaining everything in words of one syllable. 140 chars max.
  #58  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:24 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
But when you revised the handbook, you did so for a purpose: to update the handbook to comply with the new policy regarding medical marijuana. This update serves no purpose at all except to make liberals feel better.
So this serves no purpose except for this purpose?
  #59  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:51 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo View Post
So this serves no purpose except for this purpose?
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
  #60  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:53 PM
Chimera is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Dreaming
Posts: 24,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
Then it's a good thing it isn't up to you, who apparently feels updating manuals for policies he doesn't like is a waste of money.
  #61  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:53 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
Do you live in Berkeley? No? Then nobody's asking you to pay anything.

Go find something that matters to complain about.
  #62  
Old 07-22-2019, 06:54 PM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
Then don't.
  #63  
Old 07-22-2019, 07:00 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for that purpose let alone $600.
I'm not willing to pay 6 cents for them to clean the carpets four times annually instead of three times.

Too bad nobody gives a shit about my opinion on carpet-cleaning or yours on pronoun-changing.

Silver lining, though, is that also nobody's asking you or me to pay for carpet-cleaning or pronoun-changing, which is part of the no-shits-given-rationale.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 07-22-2019 at 07:01 PM.
  #64  
Old 07-22-2019, 08:23 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,891

Moderating


This thread appears to have been opened where the OP had no knowledge of the actual wording of the proposed changes.
The OP has not returned to the thread to defend a position based on clear errors or to seek an understanding of what had been proposed.
The error laden OP appears to be an attempt to start a (rather weak) rant.
The rant is too weak for The BBQ Pit and it is not generating any serious debate.

I am closing it.

If anyone believe that there is a serious debate to be had, here, they may open a new thread. However, that thread must state clearly what the change in ordinance proposes. Any more nonsense about not identifying perpetrators or victims of crime by race, sex, etc. will get that thread closed, as well.

[ /Moderating ]
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017