![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Feb. 1st, 2007 01:26 pmI get fed up of hearing political weasel-speak, usually used where someone makes excuses to cover up for an unacceptable situation. eg. "Paramedics took almost double the estimated response time to reach a teenager choking on a pen top because the nearest crew was on a lunch break. The boy later died but there is no suggestion he would have survived if the nearer crew had attended." 'No suggestion'? Asphyxiation takes time to kill someone and the longer they're left untreated, the more likely they are to die. What they really mean is, "there is no conclusive proof that the child would have survived", which is true, but means next to nothing. After all, why bother sending an ambulance at all, as there's never "conclusive proof" that it will help! It's like when a case is settled out of court; you typically hear the blatantly guilty party's lawyer quickly remind you that they admit no wrongdoing and that no such wrongdoing was proven. Of course, this is usually only because they effectively bribed the plaintiff to stop such proof ever happening.
Another form is "just because they're X, doesn't mean they're Y", when all the evidence points to a strong link between X and Y. eg. "Just because they've committed a past crime, doesn't mean they'll commit another one." or "Just because they look a certain way, doesn't mean they're likely to act a certain way". This is yet more ridiculousness from those who fail to understand that sometimes, it's worth acting on the knowledge that something is probable, nor just the knowledge that something is certain. Correlations can be strong without being 100%. I also note that such a defence tends to only apply to the traditionally underprivileged; people who use this construct are often quick to denigrate all rich people as inbred or policemen as fascists and so on.
Oh, and another thing related to how we classify people... In the news recently one thing that has annoyed me is all this talk of whether someone, typically a celebrity, is racist or not. Apparently being generally offensive to someone is ok, but should you stray into the realms of race or sexuality, woe betide you. Why? Why is it a bigger deal when that offence is aimed at certain groups, if even in jest, yet you could call an individual a "fat ugly slut" or similar and nobody will bat an eyelid? Why do we have special arrangements for dealing with homophobic and racist bullying in British schools, when that is just a subset of the wider issue of bullying in general? It's these ludicrous taboos that compel the defendants to attempt to justify their stupid outbursts with such ridiculous claims as, "what I said was racist, but I'm not racist", because they know being labelled with the 'racist' tag is a pretty nasty result. However, it's really as much of a blanket statement as a racial insult is. It's just another way to pigeonhole people into a category that you don't like, with a load of stereotypical connotations attached. Lazy classification for lazy minds.
People annoy me.
Another form is "just because they're X, doesn't mean they're Y", when all the evidence points to a strong link between X and Y. eg. "Just because they've committed a past crime, doesn't mean they'll commit another one." or "Just because they look a certain way, doesn't mean they're likely to act a certain way". This is yet more ridiculousness from those who fail to understand that sometimes, it's worth acting on the knowledge that something is probable, nor just the knowledge that something is certain. Correlations can be strong without being 100%. I also note that such a defence tends to only apply to the traditionally underprivileged; people who use this construct are often quick to denigrate all rich people as inbred or policemen as fascists and so on.
Oh, and another thing related to how we classify people... In the news recently one thing that has annoyed me is all this talk of whether someone, typically a celebrity, is racist or not. Apparently being generally offensive to someone is ok, but should you stray into the realms of race or sexuality, woe betide you. Why? Why is it a bigger deal when that offence is aimed at certain groups, if even in jest, yet you could call an individual a "fat ugly slut" or similar and nobody will bat an eyelid? Why do we have special arrangements for dealing with homophobic and racist bullying in British schools, when that is just a subset of the wider issue of bullying in general? It's these ludicrous taboos that compel the defendants to attempt to justify their stupid outbursts with such ridiculous claims as, "what I said was racist, but I'm not racist", because they know being labelled with the 'racist' tag is a pretty nasty result. However, it's really as much of a blanket statement as a racial insult is. It's just another way to pigeonhole people into a category that you don't like, with a load of stereotypical connotations attached. Lazy classification for lazy minds.
People annoy me.
