The younger Allyn Gibson tried to take a picture of the shoplifter as evidence and he was violently attacked. I don't know where you got the idea that he was the aggressor, but that simply is not the case.
So the courts decide calling the family and the store racist was libel and slanderous, and it was upheld after sever appeals. Despite that, you are trying to claim that the Gibson's are racist? I don't understand what point you're making. I'm sure these comments were taken into account in the court proceedings and decisions, so why bring it up here. I'm not condoning what was said, but this puts nothing in a new light, as the court already ruled on what you are claiming.
I suppose that depends entirely on what "*" is blanking out. Given the context, the grand-kid seems to be upset at the protestors. If "*" is a racist slur, then yeah... (still says nothing for sure about the parents or grand parents, though) but if it is just some general swear word, then he sounds more like an angry person with a potty mouth.
Here's the full post, but the bad words are still redacted (which is insane to redact "evidence," leaving us to assume he used a slur, but whatever). Based on context I think it's probably just a swear word, but the post doesn't make him look good. He even says this situation is "making [him] racist" and says people deserve to die.
Sure, I read the article. If he had used a racial slur, most media would report it something like "used the 'n-word'". They did not, and thus I can only guess he did not (or perhaps the version the media got was redacted? I can't imagine why a court would redact a bad word, racial slur or not...)
This is also the grand kid of the business owners. There can be significant differences across generations of families in attitudes.
Sometimes the court can uphold the law and yet an undesirable state of affairs can persist. Those comments were racist, and furthermore it seems the family has not acknowledged that fact or apologized for it. This would definitely affect my likelihood of shopping there--all else being equal, I'd greatly prefer to have business owners in my community who don't espouse racist beliefs.
I can no longer edit my comment and feel the need to add to it: upon reading the FB post (https://tinyurl.com/2h9rmkzu) this points to the bigger issue that is worth at least mentioning. Often people who are not very eloquent try their best to state their (sometimes naive but often not ill-meaning) views, instead of being treated as the beginning of a conversation (in which the person is validated and a dialogue forms), their words are publicized and they are demonized, which polarizes the issue. It is deeply unfortunate that in this case somebody chose to publicize rather than attempting to start a dialogue.
The facebook posts made by Allyn Gibson make it clear he is racist, which is how he earned that reputation. The court didn't hold Oberlin College responsible to pay because Allyn wasn't racist, he is racist. They held the college responsible because an administrator was on site for the protests and handing out fliers making it seem as though the college endorsed the protests. If that administrator had not been there, the college would not be responsible for any damages as it's otherwise perfectly legal for any of its students to protest anything they like including racist individuals and their family establishments.
In my opinion, the statement "not my fault most black ppl around my area suck" is pretty racist. Most people in my life would as well. The court's ruling, and the laws and rules and standards they used to make it, do not dictate the way me or mine form our opinions. There's a reading of this story where there could also be outrage at punishment for calling a racist a racist.
>It makes clear, though still implicit, that was has been transgressed is a social norm specific to that context.
But it really doesn't though. In the example of the off color, (e.g. racist), joke, saying "we don't do that here", doesn't specify what "we" don't do. We don't make jokes about that specific race, but others are ok? We don't make any race based jokes, but sex based jokes are OK? We don't make jokes specifically about that topic?
Its farm more effective to say something along the lines of "what you just said is inappropriate for our work environment, please keep others in mind when making jokes"
In all of my years of experience, I haven't met a bigot who didn't know they were being bigoted and why it was bigoted. I have met so very many who when confronted with their bigotry fail very badly at claiming that they don't know. Instead of sticking to their guns they decide to become the world's worst improv actor - it's very easy to spot. Their whole idea is to become as slippery as possible with ignorance and it shows.
I fully disagree with your sentiment. Yes there are outright bigoted jokes, but I believe many people have a different line in the sand of where appropriate and inappropriate are. There are many jokes that one workplace may deem 100% harmless and another might cause offense. My general assumption is that the person didn't mean to be bigoted, they just didn't understand where the line was.
This of course is not speaking of outright racism, but an example might be wearing a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo. Some workplaces would find this perfectly acceptable, whereas others might deem this racially insensitive and rude. It's not outright bigoted, (in my opinion), and not meant to cause harm, but the workplace culture is the what determines if it is acceptable or not.
It sounds like we're talking about different things and I don't disagree with what you described. In the example you used, where people are unaware of where the line is, I would fully expect that a person caught unaware, would, without trouble, be able to deduce the reason.
It's the hardline bigots who, again in my experience, cannot tolerate being confronted and feign ignorance in an attempt to misdirect. I'm pretty sure, if you found yourself face to face with one of these, you would be able to identify them easily.
No you've got it but maybe don't see the value of it fully.
It's pointing out an instance of transgression, not articulating a general rule. There probably is or needs to be a rule as well, but this doesn't by itself tell you what it is or define its bounds.
You want to separate the definition of a rule and its enforcement. Even if the rule is just an informal social one among a friend group this is valuable. Think about the common trope of someone in a group making a joke about a car accident, potentially funny, but not knowing someone else in the group recently lost a parent in a car accident. You shut them up tactfully and then give them the context of the transgression later and potentially debate its boundaries then if that's valuable.
What you absolutely don't want is, on the spot, having a public group-wide conversation about jokes about car accidents. Are they ever ok? Ok when someone isn't grieving from one? How long a buffer do we give for grief? Those are probably useful questions for this group to tackle, but this is the wrong time for it. "We don't joke about that" is good enough for now.
Your point is fine when it comes to a group of friends, that you most likely self selected, but I have to disagree when it is in the workplace, (a mixture of different values and opinions).
It is important that everyone is aware of the rules, (boundaries), not just the person that may have violated them. I agree a public group wide discussion is not appropriate, but we still need to communicate what rule was violated for the sake of the entire group, not just the transgressor.
>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful.
But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.
Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.
For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:
A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?"
B: "No, my car's in the shop"
A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride"
B: "No, I have to go get dinner"
A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"
The point is not to debate. The point is that "no" or "we don't do that" is an answer in and of itself.
You're comparing two things that are actually quite different. In your example, the other person thinks that you are being honest, and is mistakenly trying to help you overcome your unlikely sequence of obstacles. In the example you're comparing it to, they are trying to confuse you out of your principles by showing off their verbal skills. Here is an example that I think gets at what you're going for:
"Quit making fun of me for my big nose."
"Hey, that's a legitimate form of humor dating back to the third century BC, when Prodigious wrote..."
"That doesn't have anything to do with my feelings, could you just stop?"
>Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.
I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them.
Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.
> Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up.
Perhaps you could try the phrase "we don't do that here"
This was a follow up to the original transgression, you have to be clear of what you are shutting down, before you shut it down. Again the two statements I said are much clearer and don't single out the recipient.
It does not single them out in opposition to the group. Say "we don't do that here" puts the transgressor on one side and the "we" on the other side. Saying "when you do" is not putting the transgressor on a side, but rather placing the onus on them.
My statements don't put the transgressor in opposition to the group, is what I should have said. But I think that thats actually the intention of this author and I don't agree with it.
> Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.
Yes. This is a bit tautological because 'justification' is a word that connotes normativity, perhaps unlike 'explain' or 'describe'... but justifying yourself to someone else effectively invites them to negotiate your decision because it's a tacit admission that it matters (to you, or perhaps according to a shared social norm) that your decision is one they'd approve of in some sense.
However:
> For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:
> A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"
Trying to address someone's express concerns is not debating them. Don't tell somebody a fake story about what you want or why and then get upset when they honor your words!
""It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again.""
"I didn't mean to be hurtful. Why would someone be hurt by that? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..." And so on, and so on.
From the article:
"But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated. This is when I pull out “we don’t do that here.” It is a conversation ender. If you are the newcomer and someone who has been around a long time says “we don’t do that here”, it is hard to argue. This sentence doesn’t push my morality on anyone. If they want to do whatever it is elsewhere, I’m not telling them not to. I’m just cluing them into the local culture and values. If I deliver this sentence well it carries no more emotional weight than saying, “in Japan, people drive on the left.” “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals."
In situations like that, there is no need to engage. The transgressor is being defensive of their actions and I could easily see the same response to saying "we don't do that here"
"Don't do what? Why wouldn't we make jokes and have fun? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..."
At this point in the conversation, the best course, (in my opinion), is just to move on. It's hard to argue when someone clearly communicates what you did wrong, but people still do it all the time.
But people HATE pay as you go installed apps. Take Word, (MS office), for example. The way I see it, I downloaded this software, it is fully available on my computer taking up space, but I have to pay you for the key to just use it? Somehow that feels different than going to a website where I don't even have access to the application without paying.
Intellectually, we know that they have to pay to develop it somehow - M$ is still a business. That doesn't help the rage that is instilled by the "free trial has ended" message.
>but the sensitivity and security required for dealing with healthcare data
I'm curious why you think this. Disclaimer I have worked for a cloud based EHR system as well as a HIPAA compliant mobile/web app. We haven't had any issues with sensitivity or security, (obviously following best practices). A password on a physical computer only goes so far, I would venture to say that our systems are *more* secure than a desktop app.
Purely based on the companies I've worked for in the past, and how difficult it was to get approval for web based (SaaS) apps over desktop apps.
Although, in one case they were happy to use an Enterprise web based solution, but the feeling I got was that there was a year long buy in process that ticked all the boxes before that got approved. Everyone's worries put to rest and such.
Natural immunity from which strain and how long ago? Does someone who recovered from the original strain 18 months ago have comparable protection to someone who recovered from Omicron yesterday? Or someone who has been vaccinated? We do not know these answers.
What we do know - based on mountains of data - is that vaccinated people take up hospital beds far, far less often than unvaccinated people.
>Natural immunity from which strain and how long ago?
Doesn't matter. If you have already take the vaccines, it is my opinion that it is better to get the omicron variant and have natural immunity, (unless of course you are particularly vulnerable).
Your point that vaccinated people take up less beds is exactly right. Omicron is a highly contagious, weak strain and would provide and amazing opportunity for mass natural immunity, without the fear of hospitalization and death.
We do have several vaccines for Omicron. They are the existing COVID vaccines. They aren't as effective as they were against prior variants, but they're still more effective than e.g. flu vaccines, which save many lives each year.
Note that I don't agree with the eugenics comments, but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
>but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
Nothing I stated is misinformation. The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron. So to say that the best approach, if you are already vaccinated, is to just get virus, is not a stretch. The same can apply to any future, (weak), variants as well.
> its the same for every other infectious disease without a vaccine.
To which someone responded:
> But we have a vaccine.
To which you responded:
> Not for omicron, or the next variant, or the one after that.
That last statement is incorrect. Yes, you can still get and spread the virus if you have received the vaccine. The same is true for almost all vaccines; they do not cease to be vaccines because of this.
I do support calling out the hyperbole of other people in the thread. Accepting that everyone likely will get the virus at some point is not remotely the same thing as eugenics. It does not become OK to make dangerous misstatements, if not outright lies, in the service of doing that.
For what it's worth, a little more precision (e.g. "every other infectious disease without a sterilizing vaccine") would have served you well here.
Actually it is correct. The mRNA vaccine types target specific spike proteins of the virus. So no we do not currently have a vaccine, so the previous vaccines actually offer quite little protection, (other than any coincidental overlap of proteins). But my statement about it being the same for every other infectious disease is not false. If you have ever had the flu in your life, (or different corona virus cold for that matter), you have some degree of immunity from COVID-19. Just like if you received the vaccine you have some degree of immunity from omicron and future variants.
So, I was trying to be charitable and assume you were simply being imprecise. I now believe you are intentionally lying, though I dont know why.
"A vaccine is a biological preparation that provides active acquired immunity to a particular infectious disease."[0] "Vaccines can be prophylactic (to prevent or ameliorate the effects of a future infection by a natural or "wild" pathogen)..." [0]. This is simply the definition of a vaccine. The mRNA vaccines do provide a substantial prophylactic amelioration of the symptoms of Omicron; this is simply an empirical fact[1]. Therefore we do have a vaccine against Omicron. It does not make the slightest difference whether the vaccine was developed for a slightly different disease.
First of all, yes your definition of a vaccine is fine, but it doesn't negate what I said. Vaccines serve as a way to "train" your immune system to fight a specific thing by historically providing a weakened or impotent version that is easy to kill. However, mRNA vaccines are a much different methodology and can be very very specific on targeting, by creating individual spike proteins. However, they fail to provide significant protection against mutation in some cases.
The vaccines helped in the way that they prevented the virus from being able to replicate and cause serious illness, your immune system had to still figure out how to kill the thing on its own. So the vaccines on their own did not provide you with immunity, (not even close the level of historic, or "perfect" vaccines do), they did help train your immune system to kill the virus. That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread. Because the spike proteins that were effective for alpa/delta are less effective for Omicron, it is still causing disease. Again, because your system has most likely already fought off the Alpha and Delta strains, you are unlikely to develop serious illness if you have natural immunity or have been vaccinated.
There is no "lying" here. And your sources of wiki-pedia vaccine definition and a CBS news article are not disproving anything that I have stated.
You have said two things that are false, one of them repeatedly after being corrected, with evidence. This is lying (and not very effective lying at that).
First, you said that we have no vaccine against Omicron. We do. Your explanation of how vaccines work is... not wrong, per se, but not particularly helpful either. I know how vaccines work; I don't know your credentials but I would say I know better than your average HN user (and less than your average infectious disease researcher) for various reasons.
Your characterization of historic vaccines is not correct at all. They are very rarely "perfect", and no epidemiologist would refer to all historical vaccines in that way. Indeed, almost nothing in medicine is considered "perfect", vaccine or no. Smallpox and polio vaccines are very highly effective against basically everything to do with the disease. Other popular vaccines such as those for Hepatitis B, Pertussis, and the already mentioned Influenza have very high failure rates -- many greater than 50%.
The Influenza vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalization for influenza by about 40%, which is substantially less effective than 3-dose Pfizer against Omicron. That vaccine saves at least thousands of lives each year[0]. Those vaccines are vaccines against influenza.
It's no different for the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines that we use for COVID, because the definition of a vaccine has nothing to do with the content of the biological prep: only with the effect it causes (increased immune response). The COVID vaccines (be it Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, AstraZeneca, Sinovax, or otherwise) factually do produce an increased immune response against Omicron, and they therefore are vaccines against Omicron. You even acknowledge that the vaccines help train your immune system to kill the virus, which is literally the only requirement for something to be a vaccine.
The second false statement is that "the previous vaccines offer quite little protection". If you had qualified this as "quite little protection against infection" or "quite little protection against spreading the virus", it would have been accurate, but you did not. The previous vaccines offer considerable protection against three things you should definitely care about: severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. That they provide little protection against some other things you care about is interesting, but not the full story. Leaving this out is misleading, but I am willing to accept that it was accidental.
Anyway, I'm essentially done here. Feel free to respond if you like, and don't take my non-response as agreement.
You are trying to argue semantics and claim that I am maliciously lying.
>Your characterization of historic vaccines is not correct at all.
Please point out exactly what I said that is not correct.
>It's no different for the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines that we use for COVID, because the definition of a vaccine has nothing to do with the content of the biological prep: only with the effect it causes (increased immune response)
This is semantic argument. You are saying that because the outcome of the vaccine fits the definition of the word vaccine that we have a designated Omicron vaccine. This on its face is patently ridiculous. We do not have a vaccine for omicron, and if the current vaccines provided sufficient protection, why is Pfizer currently working on a new one[0]? Granted, they have not yet reported the results of the study, but the fact that they are even doing a study to determine variant needs, proves my original point.
>The second false statement is that "the previous vaccines offer quite little protection". If you had qualified this as "quite little protection against infection" or "quite little protection against spreading the virus", it would have been accurate, but you did not.
I did qualify my point here:
>The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron.
and here:
>That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread.
It seems that you chose to change the context of our discussion to call me a liar.
You will get COVID at some point, and it won't be because you were careful, you forgot to wear a mask, or you encountered unvaccinated/unmasked people. It will be because this virus is endemic and at some point everyone will get it.
The idea that somehow getting or not getting COVID is due to level of diligence is absurd on its face.
The younger Allyn Gibson tried to take a picture of the shoplifter as evidence and he was violently attacked. I don't know where you got the idea that he was the aggressor, but that simply is not the case.