NationStates

USS Monitor wrote:Do we have an issue about whether minority communities can use their ethnic names in nations with naming laws?

Or someone that has a name which is on the approved list, but the wrong gender -- e.g. a boy named Sue?

Or whether immigrants can keep their foreign names, or if they have to adopt a @@DEMONYM@@ name?

I am not calling dibs on these ideas, just throwing them out there. If someone else wants to use them, go for it.

Pretty sure we don't have any follow-ups to the naming law issue.

Any of those angles could be interesting.

Can I just post admire the witiness of the title of 1026

Australian rePublic wrote:Can I just post admire the witiness of the title of 1026

Apparently you can.

Australian rePublic wrote:Can I just post admire the witiness of the title of 1026

You cannot. The mainframe will not accept it. Your post will vanish.

Compliments are always nice for authors and editors alike to hear... read, Aussie.

An issue titled "A Boy Named Sue" about one on the mandated list but the wrong sex sounds great. The options could be:

1) Makes boys-only and girls-only lists. (Sue pleads for justice)
2) Endorse and adopt outlandish gender-fluid LGBT+ identity-malleable ideology that makes all names acceptable on anyone (SWJs plead for 'justice' [of their brand])
3) Have the government name people (people will always find a loophole. the government is the only responsible entity)

I am doing this!

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:An issue titled "A Boy Named Sue" about one on the mandated list but the wrong sex sounds great. The options could be:

1) Makes boys-only and girls-only lists. (Sue pleads for justice)
2) Endorse and adopt outlandish gender-fluid LGBT+ identity-malleable ideology that makes all names acceptable on anyone (SWJs plead for 'justice' [of their brand])
3) Have the government name people (people will always find a loophole. the government is the only responsible entity)

I am doing this!

Regarding number 2, if you can't write about LGBT+ identity without judgement, using terms like "outlandish" and branding any people who support it "SJWs", I suggest you don't write it.

Monitor suggested other options.

Issues must be balanced. Not biased in favour of the viewpoint you like.

EDIT: Also, the boy Sue would not be making the argument. If there's a government master-list, Sue would still be a baby and the name would be being decided before naming can occur. I've yet to meet a baby that can form an argument.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:An issue titled "A Boy Named Sue" about one on the mandated list but the wrong sex sounds great. The options could be:

1) Makes boys-only and girls-only lists. (Sue pleads for justice)
2) Endorse and adopt outlandish gender-fluid LGBT+ identity-malleable ideology that makes all names acceptable on anyone (SWJs plead for 'justice' [of their brand])
3) Have the government name people (people will always find a loophole. the government is the only responsible entity)

I am doing this!

Regarding number 2, if you can't write about LGBT+ identity without judgement, using terms like "outlandish" and branding any people who support it "SJWs", I suggest you don't write it.

Monitor suggested other options.

Issues must be balanced. Not biased in favour of the viewpoint you like.

EDIT: Also, the boy Sue would not be making the argument. If there's a government master-list, Sue would still be a baby and the name would be being decided before naming can occur. I've yet to meet a baby that can form an argument.

You said if I cant write it without using those terms then I shouldn't write it. I can write it without bias. It isn't that hard to separate from my personal views. I could very easily sound balanced - trust me.

If Sue was a baby then I am not entirely sure how the first part would be argued. Would you suppose a doctor would be the best candidate to argue the first point? He could say that he is witnessing this go on and thinks it is a danger to the babies future. Or it could be the father.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:Regarding number 2, if you can't write about LGBT+ identity without judgement, using terms like "outlandish" and branding any people who support it "SJWs", I suggest you don't write it.

Monitor suggested other options.

Issues must be balanced. Not biased in favour of the viewpoint you like.

EDIT: Also, the boy Sue would not be making the argument. If there's a government master-list, Sue would still be a baby and the name would be being decided before naming can occur. I've yet to meet a baby that can form an argument.

You said if I cant write it without using those terms then I shouldn't write it. I can write it without bias. It isn't that hard to separate from my personal views. I could very easily sound balanced - trust me.

If Sue was a baby then I am not entirely sure how the first part would be argued. Would you suppose a doctor would be the best candidate to argue the first point? He could say that he is witnessing this go on and thinks it is a danger to the babies future. Or it could be the father.

The parents obviously want the name, otherwise they wouldn't be petitioning the government for the right the name their boy Sue. As for scientists speaking of danger... many would-be issue authors with personal biases write such options.

They feel there is a danger, and they feel it's obvious to them and so they write such an option.

The result is often as you might expect: non-explanatory or unrealistic at best and offensive to people of all backgrounds at worst.

If you pursue this:
--> Consider realism: Would the person hold that view, could they express it?
--> Seriously, consider bias: If a highly articulate, reasonable person expresses the "against", one must express the "for". The fact you felt it necessary to add "of their brand" to the second option forces me to reiterate this point.

But consider again how dispassionate you can be on this topic. You lacked dispassion when writing the short issue description.

Something nearer to a character from another culture wanting to name their child for that culture might be easier to be dispassionate about.

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:

The Free Joy State wrote:EDIT: Also, the boy Sue would not be making the argument. If there's a government master-list, Sue would still be a baby and the name would be being decided before naming can occur. I've yet to meet a baby that can form an argument.

If Sue was a baby then I am not entirely sure how the first part would be argued. Would you suppose a doctor would be the best candidate to argue the first point? He could say that he is witnessing this go on and thinks it is a danger to the babies future. Or it could be the father.

Grandparents?

I've got a topic I'm interested in writing on, and have the issue half written already honestly, but I want to pause and double check here to ensure it's A) something people would be ok with having addressed, and B) that I am approaching it sufficiently sensitively with my language use and representations.

The topic is a disability rights issue, specifically on the employment prospects of those with learning disorders. It is inspired by a coworker of mine who lives with a fairly major cognitive impairment (I do not know what, exactly, nor is it any of my business). While it renders him extremely awkward around others and makes communication sometimes difficult, he is hands-down amazing at his job, and easily outperforms any neurotypical person who has ever tried it. His tasks, while there are several, are repetitive in nature and require close attention to detail - something he can do like no other, and which I have been told, are something many individuals with similar conditions can excel at. He has expressed great satisfaction with his work.

Persons with similar conditions often face discrimination in the workplace because they don't interview well in the traditional sense, they don't communicate well in the traditional sense, and some neurotypical people are uncomfortable because they don't know how to interact with the diagnosed person or respond when that person encounters difficulties. My colleague has his job because of a special placement program that got him in the door - once in, his performance did the rest. Looking at even our recent history, persons with these conditions were excluded, locked away, and even horribly abused and murdered in cruel manners. The fact that my highly capable colleague likely would have experienced those things if he had been born pretty much any time or place except when he was and to a degree even specifically where within our nation he was, is deeply disturbing. That's why I wanted to address this.

The points where I want to get some feedback are as follows:

1) The terms I use to refer to the diagnosed citizen in the issue, and to those who are neurotypical. I'm feeling reasonable about most of this, and am writing with a crib sheet generated for journalists about being sensitive in articles, but I certainly want to make sure I don't step on any toes. I don't actually use the term "disabled" in the issue, though I do call it a "disability rights" issue above, as that seems to be the accepted term. Are there any particular traps I should watch out for that people fall in to thinking they're being polite, but which actually cause offense? One sheet I had said not to use the word "impairment" and to use "disability" instead. A different one said the reverse. The issue itself is tentatively titled "Reasonable Accommodations"

2) Speaking in the voice of that citizen. I want my diagnosed individual to be able to speak for him or herself, as part of the entire point that people with learning impairments can still be perfectly capable of participating in and contributing to society, within the bounds of their limitations. As part of that though, I want to capture to nature of speech one might have, without it being a caricature. Obviously different individuals with different conditions and experiences will have different manners of speaking, but do folks think this is something that can be done? My current manner of speaking is, again, based on my colleague with whom I talk fairly often - short but logical sentences, declarative statements more than emotions, etc. Obviously the specifics would be workshopped in a draft thread, but again, making sure I'm not going to step on toes.

3) This is the sticky one... the extreme counter-argument's presentation. So far I feel like I'm comfortable presenting the citizen's perspective (reasonable accommodation in suitable jobs), an extreme pro- perspective (accomodation for any job, anywhere), and a baseline counter argument (if you can't do the job, we shouldn't have to accomodate it). I do feel, however, like this issue becomes a bit of a whitewash if there isn't some reflection of the true horror inflicted upon those with cognitive impairments in many times and places throughout history. My first instinct was that this would be something presented by a Dr. Mengle type character (who already exists in NS, actually) to "give them jobs" by doing medical experimentation or other terrible things, but that makes my stomach turn just to write it, and I have to imagine it would be disturbing and off-putting to many people - especially those who have personal connection to the matter. Toning it back slightly from that, I could see perhaps a "force them in to institutions" approach being used, a la Rosemary Kennedy, with a Nurse Ratched vibe. I'd be much more comfortable writing that (in the genuine hope that almost nobody would select it!), but do folks feel like that would be a less "traumatic" option to include, and would it still fill that role successfully of balancing the equation?

Verdant Haven wrote:

I've got a topic I'm interested in writing on, and have the issue half written already honestly, but I want to pause and double check here to ensure it's A) something people would be ok with having addressed, and B) that I am approaching it sufficiently sensitively with my language use and representations.

The topic is a disability rights issue, specifically on the employment prospects of those with learning disorders. It is inspired by a coworker of mine who lives with a fairly major cognitive impairment (I do not know what, exactly, nor is it any of my business). While it renders him extremely awkward around others and makes communication sometimes difficult, he is hands-down amazing at his job, and easily outperforms any neurotypical person who has ever tried it. His tasks, while there are several, are repetitive in nature and require close attention to detail - something he can do like no other, and which I have been told, are something many individuals with similar conditions can excel at. He has expressed great satisfaction with his work.

Persons with similar conditions often face discrimination in the workplace because they don't interview well in the traditional sense, they don't communicate well in the traditional sense, and some neurotypical people are uncomfortable because they don't know how to interact with the diagnosed person or respond when that person encounters difficulties. My colleague has his job because of a special placement program that got him in the door - once in, his performance did the rest. Looking at even our recent history, persons with these conditions were excluded, locked away, and even horribly abused and murdered in cruel manners. The fact that my highly capable colleague likely would have experienced those things if he had been born pretty much any time or place except when he was and to a degree even specifically where within our nation he was, is deeply disturbing. That's why I wanted to address this.

The points where I want to get some feedback are as follows:

1) The terms I use to refer to the diagnosed citizen in the issue, and to those who are neurotypical. I'm feeling reasonable about most of this, and am writing with a crib sheet generated for journalists about being sensitive in articles, but I certainly want to make sure I don't step on any toes. I don't actually use the term "disabled" in the issue, though I do call it a "disability rights" issue above, as that seems to be the accepted term. Are there any particular traps I should watch out for that people fall in to thinking they're being polite, but which actually cause offense? One sheet I had said not to use the word "impairment" and to use "disability" instead. A different one said the reverse. The issue itself is tentatively titled "Reasonable Accommodations"

2) Speaking in the voice of that citizen. I want my diagnosed individual to be able to speak for him or herself, as part of the entire point that people with learning impairments can still be perfectly capable of participating in and contributing to society, within the bounds of their limitations. As part of that though, I want to capture to nature of speech one might have, without it being a caricature. Obviously different individuals with different conditions and experiences will have different manners of speaking, but do folks think this is something that can be done? My current manner of speaking is, again, based on my colleague with whom I talk fairly often - short but logical sentences, declarative statements more than emotions, etc. Obviously the specifics would be workshopped in a draft thread, but again, making sure I'm not going to step on toes.

I'm leaving these questions for people more knowledgeable on this particular topic than me.

From an editing perspective, if the issue was approached respectfully -- and it seems like you're putting a lot of effort into that -- I think it could be a really interesting and worthwhile idea for the base.

3) This is the sticky one... the extreme counter-argument's presentation. So far I feel like I'm comfortable presenting the citizen's perspective (reasonable accommodation in suitable jobs), an extreme pro- perspective (accomodation for any job, anywhere), and a baseline counter argument (if you can't do the job, we shouldn't have to accomodate it). I do feel, however, like this issue becomes a bit of a whitewash if there isn't some reflection of the true horror inflicted upon those with cognitive impairments in many times and places throughout history. My first instinct was that this would be something presented by a Dr. Mengle type character (who already exists in NS, actually) to "give them jobs" by doing medical experimentation or other terrible things, but that makes my stomach turn just to write it, and I have to imagine it would be disturbing and off-putting to many people - especially those who have personal connection to the matter. Toning it back slightly from that, I could see perhaps a "force them in to institutions" approach being used, a la Rosemary Kennedy, with a Nurse Ratched vibe. I'd be much more comfortable writing that (in the genuine hope that almost nobody would select it!), but do folks feel like that would be a less "traumatic" option to include, and would it still fill that role successfully of balancing the equation?

Speaking as an editor, I think the Nurse Ratched option is closer, not only due to overlap (we have Mengele already), but also due to story (this is-- as you say -- what happened, only very recently).

Or, it may well work as a three option issue. Not every issue needs a crazy/wicked option.

Verdant Haven wrote:The topic is a disability rights issue, specifically on the employment prospects of those with learning disorders. It is inspired by a coworker of mine who lives with a fairly major cognitive impairment (I do not know what, exactly, nor is it any of my business). While it renders him extremely awkward around others and makes communication sometimes difficult, he is hands-down amazing at his job, and easily outperforms any neurotypical person who has ever tried it. His tasks, while there are several, are repetitive in nature and require close attention to detail - something he can do like no other, and which I have been told, are something many individuals with similar conditions can excel at. He has expressed great satisfaction with his work.

I once had a coworker like that who was autistic. You could tell right away that he wasn't normal because of the way he moved, but his supervisor said he had great productivity numbers. This was when I worked for an insurance company, and the guy's job was proofreading data that had been captured from scanned images of claim forms. Unfortunately, he was good enough to get promoted, and the position he got promoted into didn't play to his strengths like the data entry did.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:-snip-

I'm leaving these questions for people more knowledgeable on this particular topic than me.

From an editing perspective, if the issue was approached respectfully -- and it seems like you're putting a lot of effort into that -- I think it could be a really interesting and worthwhile idea for the base.

Ok, thanks for that FJS. Glad to hear it sounds like an baseline acceptable approach to take, and that it's an engaging issue. I'll continue to work on it and see if I can prepare a first draft some time this weekend.

I'm very much still open for additional feedback from those in the know!

-snip-

Speaking as an editor, I think the Nurse Ratched option is closer, not only due to overlap (we have Mengele already), but also due to story (this is-- as you say -- what happened, only very recently).

Or, it may well work as a three option issue. Not every issue needs a crazy/wicked option.

Ok, sounds good. I'll go more for the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest angle. I lived in the city where the facility at which that was filmed is for a few years in the early 2000s. Went past it on the bus regularly. Even just picturing the building brings up uncomfortable images of what "mental healthcare" meant not so long ago.

I agree - not every issue needs a fourth option, but I feel like this one does need something referencing that uncomfortable part of our history. I'm really not a big fan of crazy/wacky options in general, since they're often just the cheap joke of issue writing, but I think reality-based extremes can remain accurate reflections of the world in many cases, and are worthwhile options to present.

USS Monitor wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:-snip-

I once had a coworker like that who was autistic. You could tell right away that he wasn't normal because of the way he moved, but his supervisor said he had great productivity numbers. This was when I worked for an insurance company, and the guy's job was proofreading data that had been captured from scanned images of claim forms. Unfortunately, he was good enough to get promoted, and the position he got promoted into didn't play to his strengths like the data entry did.

My colleague's task is interestingly similar - transcribing data captured in scanned records. His numbers are off the charts - tens of thousands a year. The occupation I'm planning to use in the issue as an example is a factory job on an assembly line - a repetitious but detail-oriented job that has to be done right.

Bears Armed wrote:

Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar wrote:If Sue was a baby then I am not entirely sure how the first part would be argued. Would you suppose a doctor would be the best candidate to argue the first point? He could say that he is witnessing this go on and thinks it is a danger to the babies future. Or it could be the father.

Grandparents?

That works!

USS Monitor wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:The topic is a disability rights issue, specifically on the employment prospects of those with learning disorders. It is inspired by a coworker of mine who lives with a fairly major cognitive impairment (I do not know what, exactly, nor is it any of my business). While it renders him extremely awkward around others and makes communication sometimes difficult, he is hands-down amazing at his job, and easily outperforms any neurotypical person who has ever tried it. His tasks, while there are several, are repetitive in nature and require close attention to detail - something he can do like no other, and which I have been told, are something many individuals with similar conditions can excel at. He has expressed great satisfaction with his work.

I once had a coworker like that who was autistic. You could tell right away that he wasn't normal because of the way he moved, but his supervisor said he had great productivity numbers. This was when I worked for an insurance company, and the guy's job was proofreading data that had been captured from scanned images of claim forms. Unfortunately, he was good enough to get promoted, and the position he got promoted into didn't play to his strengths like the data entry did.

Mind you, that happens with non-autistic people too. I've known a lot of nurses who were great nurses, and their reward was to be promoted into managerial roles they had no talent for.

Don't think we've ever had an issue about the Peter Principle in general...

Happily doesn't seem to have happened to the editing team yet... I think most of the great authors we've promoted have become even better editors. Those three Senior Issue Editors though... oy vey.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
I once had a coworker like that who was autistic. You could tell right away that he wasn't normal because of the way he moved, but his supervisor said he had great productivity numbers. This was when I worked for an insurance company, and the guy's job was proofreading data that had been captured from scanned images of claim forms. Unfortunately, he was good enough to get promoted, and the position he got promoted into didn't play to his strengths like the data entry did.

Mind you, that happens with non-autistic people too. I've known a lot of nurses who were great nurses, and their reward was to be promoted into managerial roles they had no talent for.

Don't think we've ever had an issue about the Peter Principle in general...

Happily doesn't seem to have happened to the editing team yet... I think most of the great authors we've promoted have become even better editors. Those three Senior Issue Editors though... oy vey.

Yeah, management is a whole other skill.

The Free Joy State wrote:

Revolutionary Atlantica wrote:
I think that's totally wrong, IMO. The answer literally says 'it's still democracy', and it's as close to direct democracy as I've seen on this site. I agree it doesn't say whether the recommendations are binding but I think that's just splitting hairs isn't it? Considering there's no way to revert policies I think it's far too unclear. But sure, that's just my opinion. I don't think it's fair that it's treated the same as if I picked one of the "your brother says why not just let us decide everything?" issues.

Backstage, the stats are actually different to one of the "your brother" issues. There is nothing that says that speakers will not paint their opinions in the most flattering light.

Besides-which, referenda being ignored is more of a side issue. The ultimate indication of whether you have democracy in NS is whether the voters vote for candidates (the description of autocracy says: "The nation does not hold democratic elections"), which they do not here.

And you can cancel your Autocracy policy in the future. The are many options to reinstate democracy; ten issues, one of the higher rates for reversals in the game. One will come along at some point.

Okay... I still think it's a bit obtuse but I apologize for being tetchy, I got back to democracy within 10 issues anyway. I guess it just means I can't to build back up to 5%.

Anyway, I thought I better ask about this issue, since I came unstuck last time, it's in "A Debatable Question", response being;


"“All this debating is giving me a headache,” complains Ksenya Christmas, your Minister of Daft Ideas. “Imagine all the time people would save if they didn’t spend the day listening to arguments about tweaking the tax code or giving benefits to old people.” She motions over to a window overlooking a lone activist spray-painting ‘MAFTAOAL FTW’ across New London’s main square. “I have an idea, what if we just stopped debating altogether? No meddling politicians, at all. Let the voters decide for themselves.”

Is this closer to what I had in mind?

Verdant Haven wrote:-Snip-

As a disabled person who has worked a lot in disabled advocacy and representation, I'd be happy to help out with this issue and perhaps help write it if you're interested in co-authorship.

Kylarnatia wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:-Snip-

As a disabled person who has worked a lot in disabled advocacy and representation, I'd be happy to help out with this issue and perhaps help write it if you're interested in co-authorship.

Thank you for the offer! I certainly would be grateful for your input and guidance. I have most of a framework written so far, and will send you what I have this weekend.

Verdant Haven wrote:

Kylarnatia wrote:
As a disabled person who has worked a lot in disabled advocacy and representation, I'd be happy to help out with this issue and perhaps help write it if you're interested in co-authorship.

Thank you for the offer! I certainly would be grateful for your input and guidance. I have most of a framework written so far, and will send you what I have this weekend.

Great, look forward to it!

Kylarnatia wrote:

Verdant Haven wrote:
Thank you for the offer! I certainly would be grateful for your input and guidance. I have most of a framework written so far, and will send you what I have this weekend.

Great, look forward to it!

Ooh, mentor and good up and coming author collab on this sounds like a good deal.

Any issues about free bleeding?

Australian rePublic wrote:Any issues about free bleeding?

What do you mean by "free bleeding"?

USS Monitor wrote:

Australian rePublic wrote:Any issues about free bleeding?

What do you mean by "free bleeding"?

I assume they mean this. I recall there's an issue about feminine hygiene products (#824) but that's about the "tampon tax" issue, so don't think there'd be much if any overlap.

Kylarnatia wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
What do you mean by "free bleeding"?

I assume they mean this. I recall there's an issue about feminine hygiene products (#824) but that's about the "tampon tax" issue, so don't think there'd be much if any overlap.

There's also a not-yet-published draft kicking around about time off for periods.