Funny Events of the "Woke" world

[evilneko]

I know I had a few days off, so I might have missed this. Anyway...

A truck driver in Colorado get 110 YEARS in jail for an accident in 2019. The accident killed 4, he could have been speeding at 85 but he was also going down a hill at the time. So it might be hard for a truck to maintain appropriate speeds. Oh, AND HIS BRAKES WEREN'T WORKING

After public outcry, prosecutor asks judge to reconsider trucker's 110-year sentence

Rogel Lazaro Aguilera-Mederos was 23 when his semi crashed on a Colorado interstate, causing a fiery pileup that killed four people. More than 4 million people are petitioning to reduce his sentence.

www.npr.org

And somehow this deserves 110 years

Why is it here in this thread? The prosecutor is a restorative justice advocate. Somehow. A juror stated while the truck driver made mistakes, not 110 years worth. And they would never given out the guilty verdict otherwise. The judge said something similar. But now his life is gone

But what about the truck company I hear you say? The ones that failed to provide an adequate truck? Yeah, there was evidence provided that they regularly had faulty brake on trucks. Oh.... you meant, did they get charged? What do you think? Of course not

While it may seem like armchair quarterbacking, the prosecution's claim is that there are steps the driver reasonably could have taken to prevent or mitigate the crash: https://www.denverpost.com/2021/09/28/i-70-crash-jeffco-trail-rogel-aguilera-mederos/

Actually, this article makes it even more damning for the driver:

Aguilera-Mederos, who escaped with minor injuries, missed multiple runaway truck ramps on his way down the steep stretch of interstate, video taken by witnesses shows. Prosecutors said Aguilera-Mederos, who was 23 at the time, tried to apply both the truck’s brakes and its emergency brake, with no effect.

...and even a video of the truck in question passing right by a runaway truck ramp and subsequently running a car off the road.

Of course, the 110 year sentence is pretty ridiculous even so and it certainly highlights how careful lawmakers should be in drafting sentencing laws. That's also on the prosecutor for the specific crimes charged, and based on some of the articles I looked at, they're a real piece of work. They knew what they were doing.

 

[Trunkage]

While it may seem like armchair quarterbacking, the prosecution's claim is that there are steps the driver reasonably could have taken to prevent or mitigate the crash: https://www.denverpost.com/2021/09/28/i-70-crash-jeffco-trail-rogel-aguilera-mederos/

Actually, this article makes it even more damning for the driver:



...and even a video of the truck in question passing right by a runaway truck ramp and subsequently running a car off the road.

Of course, the 110 year sentence is pretty ridiculous even so and it certainly highlights how careful lawmakers should be in drafting sentencing laws. That's also on the prosecutor for the specific crimes charged, and based on some of the articles I looked at, they're a real piece of work. They knew what they were doing.

The testimony given was that he missed those truck ramps as he was not aware of the brake issue until it was too late. He could have been checking before the point of no return

But there's also indications that he only used the normal brakes and not the engine ones. He might have been able to slow down enough with just those, even if the normal ones didn't work.

I'm not trying to say he shouldn't have a punishment. The current one is too extreme

 

[Silvanus]

And yet the thing you were objecting to me posting to laugh at was the claim Black people were killed and eaten by white people as a delicacy...........

No, it wasn't. The post to which I was responding (this one), to which I objected, didn't even mention anything about them being "a delicacy".

You likened the idea that white people had cannibalised black people to "claiming black people used to have wings and could fly before White people subjugated them and bred out their ability to fly". It's a very relevant response to that to point out that the former actually literally happened, whereas the latter didn't.

The Black Sailors also apparently died first on the Essex and weren't specifically eaten just cause they were black. Also it doesn't support the idea it was a widespread practice.

You asked for citations for it happening, not it being a "widespread practice". After those citations were provided, you then insisted the sources didn't show it. After it turned out the sources did show it, you then shifted to talking about it being a "widespread practice".

Even the original book doesn't say it was a widespread practice. That's just a shifted goalpost used to discount the examples that have been provided.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

No, it wasn't. The post to which I was responding (this one), to which I objected, didn't even mention anything about them being "a delicacy".

You likened the idea that white people had cannibalised black people to "claiming black people used to have wings and could fly before White people subjugated them and bred out their ability to fly". It's a very relevant response to that to point out that the former actually literally happened, whereas the latter didn't.

Except you also reference the twitter post I had posted. You brought that up in your reply. That's what started this whole debate to begin with.........

You asked for citations for it happening, not it being a "widespread practice". After those citations were provided, you then insisted the sources didn't show it. After it turned out the sources did show it, you then shifted to talking about it being a "widespread practice".

Even the original book doesn't say it was a widespread practice. That's just a shifted goalpost used to discount the examples that have been provided.

Well clearly when the argument being presented is that it's a widespread practice that I'd expect sources suggesting it was a widespread practice.............. Also again the sources don't fully support anything beyond it may have happened once which even the courts couldn't decide if it had or hadn't truly happened.

Also while the original book may not say it's widespread that's the argument people on TikTok are putting forward. You know the thing I literally poste tweets showing........

 

[Phoenixmgs]

...

Yeah, I think I know why they might be miffed at you.

It wasn't a story about me that I said was my friend. I don't know them so if I went to his Target that he manages and say that she helps me at customer service and someone asks me if I'm being helped, I would point and say that she's helping me. Because how am I supposed to know what pronoun someone wants to be referred to when I don't know them? People use pronouns for people they don't really know more than people they do know and pronouns are also used mainly when the person isn't even present (like "where'd he go?", "he went to the bathroom"), that's why this pronoun shit ain't ever gonna catch on.

Anyway, the point is that it's the 1% that get outraged by this kinda stuff, not the other 99%, we just laugh it off and continue on with our days. The fact that she got mad (and reported it to HR) her name was used to refer to her instead of her chosen pronoun shows where the outrage actually is.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You literally said in the story that their pronoun was they, not she.

Also, I'm 100% certain that story didn't happen as it was described.

And having a pronoun of "they" is stupid, thus she's a she, that was the point.

Yes, it did happen that way. I didn't say anything my friend didn't say, though he could've embellished it a bit.

 

[thebobmaster]

And having a pronoun of "they" is stupid, thus she's a she, that was the point.

Yes, it did happen that way. I didn't say anything my friend didn't say, though he could've embellished it a bit.

You don't get to decide that. What pronoun someone wants to be called is their decision. Would you be this stubborn if they asked to be called Liz instead of Elizabeth? "Liz is a stupid name, therefore I am going to call you Elizabeth whether you like it or not."

 

[Buyetyen]

And having a pronoun of "they" is stupid, thus she's a she, that was the point.

They has been used a third-person pronoun since the English language existed. You're making shit up.

Yes, it did happen that way. I didn't say anything my friend didn't say, though he could've embellished it a bit.

Then your friend is going to Hell for lying.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

They has been used a third-person pronoun since the English language existed. You're making shit up.

It's entirely possible the person in question is a she / they

 

[Avnger]

It's entirely possible the person in question is a she / they

That's not how pronouns are given. It's <pronoun>/<possessive>. For your weird example, it would be she/their or they/her. Someone could potentially say they're fine with both she/her and they/their, but that's not the situation phoenix is describing.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You don't get to decide that. What pronoun someone wants to be called is their decision. Would you be this stubborn if they asked to be called Liz instead of Elizabeth? "Liz is a stupid name, therefore I am going to call you Elizabeth whether you like it or not."

They has been used a third-person pronoun since the English language existed. You're making shit up.

Pronouns are not names, pronouns are basically universally agreed on things that we use to refer to people and things as in certain situations. If I'm telling a story of say John and Jane and said "they went to the store", the "they" means both of them went to the store because they is plural. Even if I said say Jane's preferred pronoun is "they" beforehand in the story, the person I'm telling it to isn't going to know if I'm referring to just Jane or both of them when I use "they" unless I specify. Thus, the syntax is getting fucked up and you might was well just use their names because it would be easier, pronouns are supposed to make it easier, not harder.

 

[Buyetyen]

Pronouns are not names, pronouns are basically universally agreed on things that we use to refer to people and things as in certain situations. If I'm telling a story of say John and Jane and said "they went to the store", the "they" means both of them went to the store because they is plural. Even if I said say Jane's preferred pronoun is "they" beforehand in the story, the person I'm telling it to isn't going to know if I'm referring to just Jane or both of them when I use "they" unless I specify. Thus, the syntax is getting fucked up and you might was well just use their names because it would be easier, pronouns are supposed to make it easier, not harder.

Mind-blower: moose is the singular and plural form describing the antlered megafauna. How do you tell them apart? Context clues.

Do you really want to make the argument that you can't use "they" as a singular third-person pronoun because you're bad at context clues? I guarantee you've used "they" as a singular pronoun in the past without even thinking of it.

Also, speaking as somebody who has nonbinary friends, the majority will politely correct you if you get it wrong as an honest mistake or force of habit. But they can also tell when you're making a good faith effort or not, and they really don't want to have to deal with your crap if you're not making that effort.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It wasn't a story about me that I said was my friend.

Anyway, the point is that it's the 1% that get outraged by this kinda stuff, not the other 99%, we just laugh it off and continue on with our days. The fact that she got mad (and reported it to HR) her name was used to refer to her instead of her chosen pronoun shows where the outrage actually is.

And having a pronoun of "they" is stupid, thus she's a she, that was the point.

Yes, it did happen that way. I didn't say anything my friend didn't say, though he could've embellished it a bit.

"Hey, I didn't do it (but I think it's stupid and totally would)" is not a great argument, but I gotta say: having occasionally gotten somebody's voice wrong over the phone or occasionally just said the wrong thing because how do brain work, cis people absolutely do lose their shit over being misgendered. Not exactly difficult to image somebody being touchy over that if it happens constantly by people who swear they have nothing against them

Like, shit, dude: back in my clueless days I had an older gal I worked with blow up at me for calling her "ma'am". Because she'd repeatedly asked me not to. Made her feel old. See, it doesn't matter how polite I think I'm being if I'm being rude as fuck in the process. There is absolutely more to this story.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

That's not how pronouns are given. It's <pronoun>/<possessive>. For your weird example, it would be she/their or they/her. Someone could potentially say they're fine with both she/her and they/their, but that's not the situation phoenix is describing.

No a person can be a She / They. Or so I'm led to believe by people with that as their pronouns on twitter.

Remember pronouns can be anything a person wishes.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Mind-blower: moose is the singular and plural form describing the antlered megafauna. How do you tell them apart? Context clues.

Do you really want to make the argument that you can't use "they" as a singular third-person pronoun because you're bad at context clues? I guarantee you've used "they" as a singular pronoun in the past without even thinking of it.

Also, speaking as somebody who has nonbinary friends, the majority will politely correct you if you get it wrong as an honest mistake or force of habit. But they can also tell when you're making a good faith effort or not, and they really don't want to have to deal with your crap if you're not making that effort.

The issue is definitive singular pronouns often get used for the sake of specificity but if a persons pronoun is also a plural it can make things more complicated.

E.G. John and Susan had dinner and after they went their own separate ways they went to the shops while the other went home.

Who went to the shops John or Susan?

 

[Buyetyen]

The issue is definitive singular pronouns often get used for the sake of specificity but if a persons pronoun is also a plural it can make things more complicated.

E.G. John and Susan had dinner and after they went their own separate ways they went to the shops while the other went home.

Who went to the shops John or Susan?

Oh wow, you're bad at reading context clues too. And you really don't know how to construct a sentence. lol

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Oh wow, you're bad at reading context clues too. And you really don't know how to construct a sentence. lol

But the sentence I put forward is technically correct under the rules of using a plural pronoun in place of a singular.

If I'd said He or She went to the shops you'd be able to guess who it was normally.

 

[Buyetyen]

But the sentence I put forward is technically correct under the rules of using a plural pronoun in place of a singular.

If I'd said He or She went to the shops you'd be able to guess who it was normally.

You could also use their name. Or just learn to speak better English lol

 

[Agema]

Pronouns are not names, pronouns are basically universally agreed on things that we use to refer to people and things as in certain situations. If I'm telling a story of say John and Jane and said "they went to the store", the "they" means both of them went to the store because they is plural. Even if I said say Jane's preferred pronoun is "they" beforehand in the story, the person I'm telling it to isn't going to know if I'm referring to just Jane or both of them when I use "they" unless I specify. Thus, the syntax is getting fucked up and you might was well just use their names because it would be easier, pronouns are supposed to make it easier, not harder.

Replace "They" with a suitable alternative: "Both went to the store" / "Jane went to the store". Done, sorted, there's not a problem here.

Language is an amazing thing. There are so many ways to communicate effectively. Yes, we need rules and common understandings, but those rules can and do change and we just work with it, using the incredible adaptability of language to maintain meaning. And it is easy to do. If you really want to communicate according to obsolete conventions, you can come across as a fusty oldster and cause all the confusion you like. But don't pretend that someone's making you do that, when in truth it's just a choice you're making.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Everyone is now "she/her". Man, woman, and otherwise. There, unambiguously singular pronouns saved.