NM…was stupid.
Those with chemical imbalances can be described as mentally disabled. Any form of psychosis will do; bipolar, amazingly, having almost totally replaced manic-depressive, qualifies, for sure.
Still, those with personality disorders or conditions like OCD, depression, various kinds of anxiety and phobias as well as just plain shyness or social awkwardness are still easy prey (wacky, ditzy, nutty, one fry short of a happy meal,–though that’s more extreme–are just a few of the words or phrases to describe these and other, similar conditions).
I find it interesting that narcissistic people seldom get singled out or dumped on, and I think I know why (they’re sort of scary, and often hold positions of power). A notch or so above that are the sociopaths,–extreme narcissists, they can be dangerous to be involved with at any level–but wacky? Not.
Go back and read your own citation. It clearly indicates that black and Latino students receive harsher discipline than white students. Changing policy to ensure that students are treated equally is not “political correctness.” It’s called “fairness.”
Fairness is lack of bias. If you want to remove bias from school discipline, make the rules inflexible. Reluctance to discipline minority kids just endangers children. We can’t have a system where white kids get suspended for getting into fights, but black kids only on the 2nd or 3rd offense, so that the numbers come out right.
Hopefully someday it will be un-PC to be stupid. You can’t solve discrimination based on race by discriminating based on race. That’s not fairness.
You have it backwards. Right now, black kids are being suspended for a first fight while white kids get suspended for the second or third.
Absolutely. And the best way to resolve the issue is inflexible sentences. You fight, you get suspended. Of course, inflexible policies have their downsides, but they should reduce racial disparities. Judgement involves bias even among the most well intentioned people. So remove the judgment call. If fairness is the top priority, it’s the optimal solution.
What the federal government is demanding without saying it, is “just suspend minority kids less”. That’s a really, really bad idea. You can’t have administrators putting dangerous kids back into the halls because they are worried about the numbers.
*Dwarfs *and *little people *are creature from fairy tales. I predict that these terms will be abandoned, and persons with dwarfism will reclaim *midget *as a neutral term that only means small.
I suspect that the terms will just keep changing. The real issue is how marginalized little people are in society and how everyone else is ahead of them in line to get their grievances addressed, which means people will start prioritizing little person issues in oh, about 2340. So any name associated with them ends up stigmatized. I theorize that that’s one way you know things are finally starting to get better for a group: when they settle on a term and stick with it.
The most meaningful judgement call is probably the choice, by a teacher or staffer, to respond to any given scuffle between students as an actionable “fight” in the first place, or else to break it up and move on. When black kids are typically perceived by white adults as older, stronger, and more dangerous than white kids of identical age, size, and behavior, they’re more likely to end up “in the office.” The bias is there before the suspension policy comes into play.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Certainly for other men, it’s not like the toilet wasn’t covered in pee when I walked in.
Aiming isn’t the problem, it’s when the pee stream comes out three different directions, a guy can only get one in the toilet at a time. As far as sitting down, we’ll need to start warming up the toilet water then, that’s stuff is cold and in the wrong places.
Please don’t misundertake me, us guys understand that a toilet we have to share with our mother/sister/wife/daughter does need special care and we do (generally) clean up after ourselves. Maybe not as well as these folks want, but it’s the thought that counts, right? But we’re talking about the men’s restroom, the only place in the whole wide world where our mother/sister/wife/daughter will never know what we done just did … go ahead and call it immature, but what do you expect from guys who think The Three Stooges are the funniest peoples who ever lived.
Perhaps you’d be shocked at how many men don’t wash their hands afterward …
It’s funny that people are fighting for the right to use a men’s restroom. Look, people, a men’s restroom can be a nasty, vile place. Turds in the sink? Check. Turds in the urinal? Check. Shit-fiti on the wall? Check. Women who identify as men, trust us, it’s not a special place the patriarchy is trying to keep from you in order to keep you oppressed. That said, if you want to use the facilities have at it.
I’m talking about the disparate impact portion of policy. Not racist treatment of certain groups. Disparate impact states that even if the policy is enacted fairly if a pet class is disproportionately impacted it’s still racist. That is PC gone too far. That particular cite doesn’t define the phrase “disparate impact” but that cite did use the phrase and I thought the definition was widely understood.
And this sort of heavy handed bureaucratic nonsense probably does far more harm than good.
Your working definition is overly narrow. Disparate impact is evidence of racial discrimination which is not necessarily the result of intentional discrimination. It does not necessarily mean that a policy has been enacted fairly, either.
For example, southern states’ poll taxes and literacy tests were prohibited because they were intended to discriminate against black voters, even where there was no direct evidence that they were applied “unfairly.” Presumably in some places they were enacted out of a genuine feeling that voters should be literate, and given fairly to prospective voters of all races - but they were (and are) ultimately prohibited everywhere.
In fact, if you read the letter you linked to yourself, you’ll see that demanding that schools treat different groups differently is the opposite of what the feds want.
Isn’t the whole point of this cis-trans-genderness is to allow women to not care … we as a society shouldn’t be requiring all women to be offended by pee-besplattered toilets … they should be free to accept, tolerate and contribute. We need to get rid of these confining stereotypes … “Home of the Free, Land of the Brave” … it’s long past time we allowed our women to enjoy the benefits, ALL the benefits of our modern society.
No, peeing while sitting doesn’t cause cold water to splash on your person. (And if you’re trying to imply that your dick is long enough to drag in the water when you sit, yeah riiiiiiiight. :rolleyes: )
[QUOTE=watchwolf49]
Perhaps you’d be shocked at how many men don’t wash their hands afterward …
[/QUOTE]
Well, I am kind of shocked at how many men think they’re entitled to be treated like grownups when they can’t even take responsibility for using a toilet like a civilized person or washing their fecal bacteria off their hands before leaving a bathroom.
Male privilege must be nice to have in some respects, but on the whole I’m not sorry that as a girl I wasn’t allowed to get away with never becoming fully toilet-trained.
For the record, watchwolf49 does not speak for all men.
And I sure hope he doesn’t speak for many near me. Ew.
Penis might not droop that long but as one ages the scrotum sags much as breasts do.
A man’s dick evolved to be put into icy cold things … it’s the balls that aren’t used to that.
Pish posh … if men were responsible, why did God make women? Or if you like, why did women get all the extra genetic material? Every Deadhead knows the woman is smarter than the man in every way.
=====
The point may be moot … I visited our local hardware store this morning with this thread in mind. I guess the toilet and sink were pretty bad, I just pushed the drill press out of the way and used the floor drain.
Thank you for illustrating my point about traditional stereotypes … it’s absolute wrong for any man to speak for all men … but there are some of us out there, lurking in the shadows, ready willing and able to pee on just about anything … but what is politically correct today may not be in twenty years (at this rate at least).
So every time that guys, or at least some guys, sit on the toilet to take a dump, they’re putting their balls in the toilet-bowl water? Which subsequently becomes poop-containing toilet-bowl water? Does the poop sometimes leave smears on your balls as they share the toilet-bowl water together? 
In a way, this is fascinating to learn about, but I’m baffled why guys haven’t managed to work out a combination of toilet design and toilet-use technique that will keep their balls out of the toilet-bowl water. Considering that you’re probably sitting on the toilet an average of at least once a day even if you never sit to pee, that sounds like a pretty major design flaw in male defecatory practices.