Berkley to cease using gendered language like "manhole"

[Recidivism]

Ok, well that’s the only legal mechanism available. Also, the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have some powerful people on their side.

It's actually not. You can always boycott, or write to your local representative asking to investigate the institution, or send letters to the institution's supporters about their actions, etc. There are quite a few things that you can do, that are legal, and don't require thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Let's not be utilizing NSG to pretend that lawsuits are the only way, in a thread about manholes, eh Recidivism? Oh, here's another thing: you can always elect politicians that will work to ban all sorts of racial considerations. That's also legal.

I’m talking about legal mechanism, by which I mean actions within the judicial system. Filing a lawsuit is a legal mechanism. Writing a letter to your representative is not a legal mechanism.

Also, even if you are right here, you are just undermining yourself. You are just pointing out more ways that somebody could take on a university, while your original claim was that it’s often too o difficult to do so.

[Recidivism]

When I said “No, they’re not”, I meant that this sort of dystopian future that he was afraid of wouldn’t pan out in any meaningful way, since anybody who implements a racial quota will inevitably face severe financial penalties and legal reprimands. Universities may try to, but they will ultimately fail.

[Shofercia]

When I said “No, they’re not”, I meant that this sort of dystopian future that he was afraid of wouldn’t pan out in any meaningful way, since anybody who implements a racial quota will inevitably face severe financial penalties and legal reprimands. Universities may try to, but they will ultimately fail.

Clearly Harvard's failing... /sarcasm

Also, Kekistan's claim was, and I quote: Libs will try to "equalize" STEM by setting up racial quotas...

It says "will try to" rather than "will succeed" doesn't it, Recidivism? Weren't you the one talking about the importance of reading?

It's actually not. You can always boycott, or write to your local representative asking to investigate the institution, or send letters to the institution's supporters about their actions, etc. There are quite a few things that you can do, that are legal, and don't require thousands, if not tens of thousands of dollars. Let's not be utilizing NSG to pretend that lawsuits are the only way, in a thread about manholes, eh Recidivism? Oh, here's another thing: you can always elect politicians that will work to ban all sorts of racial considerations. That's also legal.

I’m talking about legal mechanism, by which I mean actions within the judicial system. Filing a lawsuit is a legal mechanism. Writing a letter to your representative is not a legal mechanism.

Also, even if you are right here, you are just undermining yourself. You are just pointing out more ways that somebody could take on a university, while your original claim was that it’s often too o difficult to do so.

Once again, you're imagining things. I said that it was "not an easy task against a billion dollar institution" which isn't the same as claiming that it's too difficult. My point was that universities are engaging in it, despite the SCOTUS ruling, not that universities are too difficult to oppose.

[Tristian]

I don't like the name Berkeley. I feel offended by it. They should rename their city and clean up all the garbage while they are at it.

[The Black Forrest]

I don't like the name Berkley. I feel offended by it. They should rename their city and clean up all the garbage while they are at it.

The people of Berkeley are relieved.

[Vassenor]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

[SD_Film Artists]

Hear hear!

STEM and tech are good and all that, but let's not lionize anybody here. Tech leaders have yet to fully consider the wider social and political implications of their work. They know how to get from point a to point b, but not whether we should.

i.e. praising science is not the solution to humanity's problems

I don't think we should have an unbridled technocracy, I just believe that science should be pursued without party-politics getting in the way. And by "politics" I mean matters which don't directly relate to the research. For example:

Politician stopping research on the effects of cannabis because the result would likely undermine his anti-drugs policy- Bad

An ethics committee stopping attempts to create designer babies- Good.

Ofcourse the line between politics and ethics can be blurred, but the important thing is that we make decisions based on the truth rather than silencing the truth.

[Galloism]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

[Abaja]

Their next move is changing "Average Joe" "Average Joanna"

[Pacomia]

Their next move is changing "Average Joe" "Average Joanna"

"Joan" is way better for that one.

[Recidivism]

It says "will try to" rather than "will succeed" doesn't it, Recidivism? Weren't you the one talking about the importance of reading?

Ok Wittgenstein. His implication was that they would both try and succeed, which is why is it would be dangerous to let them have power. In any case, I told you what I meant. I think it would be much more interesting for us (and everyone else) to debate what I meant rather than squabble over textual minutiae that occurred in a fast-paced conversation. Also, if you thought that I literally meant liberals wouldn't even attempt to instill racial quotas, which is an incredibly low bar to meet, then that is a ridiculously uncharitable interpretation.

Once again, you're imagining things. I said that it was "not an easy task against a billion dollar institution" which isn't the same as claiming that it's too difficult. My point was that universities are engaging in it, despite the SCOTUS ruling, not that universities are too difficult to oppose.

Imprecise phrasing, but the basic point remains. You are pointing out ways in which the task would be made easier.

[The Black Forrest]

Their next move is changing "Average Joe" "Average Joanna"

"Joan" is way better for that one.

Joan the Plumber

[Sverigesriket]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

What do you mean by Section 3.48? Section 3 deals with the boundaries, Section 48 (which deals with the council and may be what you're referring to) was repealed, and I can't find any Section 3.48.

[Vassenor]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

So basically men are the most oppressed in the history of ever, as usual.

[Tombradyonia]

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

So basically men are the most oppressed in the history of ever, as usual.

All these basement dwelling white male christian conservatives and 4-chan-types will tell you that white male christian conservatives are the most persecuted group in history! Remember how Lincoln dared to oppress white people by telling them treason was treason? Why couldn't he just leave those poor oppressed white southerners alone?

Artist X says something 'mean' about lying conman Trump. Triggered righties flood that person's social media feeds. And so on.

Perhaps we can use the term 'manholes' to refer to these people? I mean, the word's about to become available for redefinition?

"Hey, did you hear about how those manholes attacked this singer for saying Trump is a meanie?"

[Vassenor]

Besides, if we're arguing that "manhole" is not a gendered term, you're arguing that men are being oppressed because the official documents swapped one gender neutral term for another (or rather swapping a colloquial term for a technical term in this case) and that isn't making much sense to me.

[Cappuccina]

So have we actually established what makes this bad beyond it triggering rightists?

I think that "rightists" and others who have issue with this, are justified in their suspicion of the motive behind Berkeley's decision.

Why did they deem it necessary to change the terms, and to what end?.

[Mettaton-EX]

how on earth is this a 46-page thread

[EastKekistan]

how on earth is this a 46-page thread

Exactly. It's boring.

[Galloism]

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

What do you mean by Section 3.48? Section 3 deals with the boundaries, Section 48 (which deals with the council and may be what you're referring to) was repealed, and I can't find any Section 3.48.

Title 3 deals with boards, commissioners, etc. Section 48 of title 3 has the Commission on the Status of Women.

[Galloism]

I mean, it's somewhat interesting that their city code explicitly has a Commission on the Status of Women, while having no Commission on the Status of Men, and yet they remove "manhole" references in the pursuit of gender equality.

It's somewhat amusing that they do something for equality that does nothing to further equality, while simultaneously preserving explicit inequality of representation to the council in their city code, wouldn't you agree?

https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/

It's section 3.48

Edit:
And they, like other places, are pursuing arrests disproportionately targeting men as a gender and black people and Hispanics. But don't take my word for it.

https://data.cityofberkeley.info/Public ... /xi7q-nji6

But "manholes", a gender neutral term, in the city code. That's the bigotry they need to fix.

So basically men are the most oppressed in the history of ever, as usual.

I mean, I gave the links regarding Berkley in particular. You can ignore the evidence if you want.

Par for the course.

[Galloism]

Besides, if we're arguing that "manhole" is not a gendered term, you're arguing that men are being oppressed because the official documents swapped one gender neutral term for another (or rather swapping a colloquial term for a technical term in this case) and that isn't making much sense to me.

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

[The Black Forrest]

Besides, if we're arguing that "manhole" is not a gendered term, you're arguing that men are being oppressed because the official documents swapped one gender neutral term for another (or rather swapping a colloquial term for a technical term in this case) and that isn't making much sense to me.

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

Hmmm? Well? I took your comment of manhole being gender neutral. It isn't really.

The name probably wasn't a slam against women and yet MRA/Incels/Whatever seem to think changing the name is a slam against men.

Call it an access point. Problem solved.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I don't think anyone's argued anything of the sort. This seems like an utter strawman.

Hmmm? Well? I took your comment of manhole being gender neutral. It isn't really.

The name probably wasn't a slam against women and yet MRA/Incels/Whatever seem to think changing the name is a slam against men.

Call it an access point. Problem solved.

I've always considered it a perception thing. When I think mankind I think it is inherently gender neutral, given the it includes both be it man or woman.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm? Well? I took your comment of manhole being gender neutral. It isn't really.

The name probably wasn't a slam against women and yet MRA/Incels/Whatever seem to think changing the name is a slam against men.

Call it an access point. Problem solved.

I've always considered it a perception thing. When I think mankind I think it is inherently gender neutral, given the it includes both be it man or woman.

Indeed. Mankind speaks for all. Manhole? Not really. Only men did the jobs.

On the government facilities I worked on; they called them access points. What's offensive about that?