Cory1848

The judge is a member of La Raza who has continually bragged about his connections with the Mexican government. He put his ethnicity front and center long before Trump came along.

Now you're just making stuff up. You have zero proof that this judge "puts his ethnicity front and center." Can't you see what's going on here? Trump University is a fraud. Trump is trying to deflect from the core issue. And he's doing it in the most dastardly way.

Except you're wrong. Curiel, the judge, admitted to his membership in La Raza on his judicial questionnaire.

Do you even know what “La Raza” is ??? The judge is a member of the La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a group of California Latinos in law trying to support and advance other Latinos in law. “It’s a pretty basic concept for a professional organization” (quoting Vox online). And it has absolutely nothing to do with the National Council of La Raza, which is a Latino advocacy organization. You’re completely obfuscating the issue with irrelevant information, perhaps unintentionally. But try reading even just a scratch below the surface.

Edited part: Not sure how this happened. the above post is what I intended and posted here was part of my original post.

Well, I am pleased you were able to guess I was a man. I am even more pleased you got around to my point. Yes, my old professor was a bit over the top—just as I am suggesting this edict is.

It is apparent you also missed the fact it was a long time ago and terms such as chairperson, fire fighter, police officer were not commonplace. Consequently, when I used the huperson or personager terminology, I was being facetious; as the dean apparently saw—by the way, the dean was a woman.

I have no complaints using gender-neutral terms where applicable and I agree using “he” or “she” should be perfectly reasonable. However, to have men use “he” and women use “she” in their own communication seems to settle the unknown gender dispute for any offended parties, does it not?

As a university professor, I used the gender pronoun for the person to whom I was communicating in all gender unknown situations. Awkwardly, when lecturing to a coed class, I would say he/she or she/he. What a load of crap to have to do, lest I offend someone—of course, that is my opinion, but mine is the only opinion I can have, isn’t it?

Let words evolve? Sure, glad to, but to have them mandated; not so glad. Derogatory terms such as honky, greaser, wop, nigger, chink, etc., ad infinitum, should not be used—even though they still are. However, words such as oriental or occidental, Asian or European, are simply words which define geographic area more so than racial origin. If one takes offense at those words, I would hope they were offended by being referred to in a geographic sense rather than be insulted by the use of a recognized word for their racial area of origin.

Certainly, if you are looking for a specific region, country, culture, or religion of origin; other hyphenated terms are available such as: African-Hispanic-Caribbean-Jewish- American. That is if full demographic specifics is what you are seeking. However, why not use the common racial terms Negroid, Mongoloid, or Caucasoid, if you are trying to establish race?

If people are offended by those recognized terms, then mandate they be switched around; you know, Negroid for white people, Caucasoid for yellow people, and Mongoloid for black people. While we’re at it, we could just mandate using “he” as the feminine pronoun . . .

Thanks -- I’m just approaching this from the point of view of a book editor, which is what I do for a living; most writers I work with are university professors writing works of scholarship, and the issue of gendered language (and potentially offensive language in general) comes up frequently. As you point out, most often it’s a matter of context: who is the writer, and who is the intended reader. Common sense and readability are usually the goals.

The US government edict in question here merely seeks to stop the usage of the word “Oriental” (in government documents) when used as a noun to identify people from Asia. That’s all. The word has already fallen into disuse in that context, and the government is just "catching up" perhaps. Frankly, I don’t know if the word (used in that context) is offensive or not; it’s up to Asians to determine that, and the vast majority I’m sure aren’t even aware of the issue. However, the word -- again, used as a noun to represent people -- does conjure certain attitudes that the West has historically held toward Asia that were probably racist then and that no longer much apply today -- in the same way that the word “Negro” conjures pre-civil-rights-era race relations in the United States. Read Edward Said’s influential 1978 work “Orientalism,” which examines the West’s patronizing attitudes toward the East through history. The isolated word may seem harmless, but as an indicator of the West’s often brutal imposition of colonialism on Asians from the Levant to the Philippines, it certainly was not.

I hope your long-ago dean at least saw the humor in your facetious essay!

How about occidental was it banned as well?

Since 2/3 of the world's population lives in asia it could be reasonably argued that occidendals are the minority group and, as such the term is non exclusive - or inclusive & should be banned. ....

This pc sh!t is getting ridiculous....and again aimed to create a division......

It might be an out dated term relating to people coming from the orient as opposed to "the west"....but it never was a racial slur - until it was made to be, (now)....This administration prefers division over unity......Divide & conquer/destroy....tear down....

What's wrong with using Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid?

Many years ago at university, I was reprimanded by an English Composition professor for not being gender-inclusive in my writing. Her major complaint was that I used the pronoun "he" most of the time--yeah, when referring to men or unknown genders, I used "he" and when referring to women I used "she"; go figure. She said I should use "she" when the gender is unknown and more inclusive words such as chairperson and anchorperson at all times. Well, I responded with short paper entitled, "Personkind." As the title might indicate, I inundated the piece with words such as huperson, personager, foreperson, workperson, personpower, personufacture, personipulate, personicure, personifold, etc., and suggested women use "she" as the pronoun of unknown gender and men use "he." The professor took me to the dean for my insubordination. I suffered no penalty, was transferred to another professor's class, and the new school policy was women use "she" and men use "he" for unknown gender. Ah, but that was in another day.

I guess you’re a man; otherwise, you may realize that many women in fact do feel excluded by gendered terms, when perfectly natural nongendered terms are available. These days, in written English at least, words like businessperson, chairperson, police officer, and fire fighter are more commonly used (in general contexts) than their male-centric forerunners. Writers who continue to use gendered terms sound more and more like they’re linguistic Luddites, or are making the specific point that they are sexist.

Admittedly, English is unkind when it comes to the singular pronoun. In most contexts, using “he” to mean “he or she” is perfectly reasonable. It depends on the writer, and the intended reader. Your professor sounds like she was a bit over the top on that one.

As has been pointed out frequently in this thread, languages evolve. Let it happen!

How about occidental was it banned as well?

Since 2/3 of the world's population lives in asia it could be reasonably argued that occidendals are the minority group and, as such the term is non exclusive - or inclusive & should be banned. ....

This pc sh!t is getting ridiculous....and again aimed to create a division......

It might be an out dated term relating to people coming from the orient as opposed to "the west"....but it never was a racial slur - until it was made to be, (now)....This administration prefers division over unity......Divide & conquer/destroy....tear down....

I work as a book editor. The word “Oriental” used as a noun is quaint; I edit it out and replace it with “Asian” or some other more current term. If the US government wants its documents to sound as though they were written in the 1950s, it can continue to use the word; otherwise, they are correct to ban it. I don’t know whether Asians themselves are offended by the word; I’m sure the vast majority are oblivious to the matter.

As for your blast against “PC” and your claim that this ruling is “divisive” somehow (???), this whole anti-PC thing is nothing but a tiresome smokescreen to score easy political points. I’m sure in some cases there’s a point to be made somewhere, but many right-wing-leaning Americans (specifically, Trump supporters) happily interpret attacks against “political correctness” as a license to once again be as offensive as they wish toward people who look and think differently from them, without fear of backlash. Trolling online forums, there are more of these people than you might think.

I think, as it’s intended, “political correctness” simply means being willing to listen to other people who may be coming from an entirely different place, and trying to understand why they may be angry, or offended, or puzzled by something that I’m doing or saying. They may have a point; I may be the one who’s wrong. In short, it means being civil. In which case, count me in.

Publicus is there anyway the GOP can lose Trump?

If I had to pick the candidate the most easiest for Hillary to beat it would be Trump. No one liked Cruz. Kasich polled pretty well in a General Election so he worried me a little.

Women out (remember women don't forget. You say something like women should be punished. Your done), Hispanics out, Muslims out. Who has the Black vote at the moment Trump? Hillary?. Bernie voters are out. No way they are going to vote for Trump no matter how 'Socialist friendly' he gets.

This is good news for Dems.

Few men will vote for Hillary, despite what they say to pollsters, Hispanics don't vote and the ones that do are in Democratic States already, and there are few Muslims (thankfully) in the United States.

You've forgotten one demographic: rational, thinking people who don't want their country to fall into one catastrophe after another. They still make up the majority I think, and they will not vote for Trump.

Unoffensive, 99 percent of the time. I get annoyed when I'm referred to (in the third person) as "lung farang" (which I translate as "Uncle white guy"), but I know it's not meant disrespectfully and I don't take it seriously. There are other things far more worthy of consternation!

Russia does not want Europe and never did

Russia wants parts of Europe and always has -- specifically, warm-water ports in the Baltics. Now that those ports are in NATO, Russia can't have them, so I think tensions, such as they are, will ratchet back down again and NATO and Russia will continue to find useful ways to cooperate. Both sides will need to make some concessions to each other, and I think in the end they will; there are too many interests in common.

Did you study geography at all??? There is nothing warm in baltics, and no Russia does not want baltics , myth created by Baltic states and US.

Read your history please. Why did Russia then not withdraw from the Baltics states after WWII? And why does Moscow maintain the fiction that the Baltics willingly joined the USSR in 1940? There will be no normal relations between Moscow and the Baltics until Russia accepts the facts of its historical role, which should not be that difficult to do given that the events by now were nearly eighty years ago, but because Moscow maintains these fictions the Baltics rightfully remain suspicious. I'll grant you that the issue of warm-water ports is not as crucial as it once was, given that naval power isn't as important as it used to be and given that, in another fifty years, Russia will have plenty of warm-water ports on its Arctic coast!

So, this all costs US taxpayers a fortune to be "the world's police". Europe complains bitterly about that term so the US should just pull out.

Here's an idea: Let Russia and the Muslims fight over who gets Europe. No one else really cares, anyway.

Cheers.

Russia does not want Europe and never did

Russia wants parts of Europe and always has -- specifically, warm-water ports in the Baltics. Now that those ports are in NATO, Russia can't have them, so I think tensions, such as they are, will ratchet back down again and NATO and Russia will continue to find useful ways to cooperate. Both sides will need to make some concessions to each other, and I think in the end they will; there are too many interests in common.

A bit off topic i know,but who was that snooker player,years ago who tried to get his lager(which he drank on screen) paid for on medical reason' because he said he was an addict?

I think that anybody who likes a drink can be classed as an Alcoholic.But it all depends to what degree.I like a drink but it doesn't rule my life.I drink one bottle of beer a day.There are no bars where i live.I like the beer that i drink.I gave up fags easily,but if my doctor told me that i had to give up the one beer i drink,to be honest,i dont think i would want to. Does that make me an Alcoholic?

KKD

No, you are not an alcoholic -- in fact, do you what an alcoholic cannot do, which is to have one drink a day, every day. An alcoholic could keep up that routine for a couple of days perhaps, but then he would move to a second beer that day, then a third, and then we're off to the races. Some alcoholics try to cut back by saying they'll drink only on the weekends, but before long the "weekend" is redefined to include every day of the week (except maybe Wednesdays ...). It's all or nothing.

Enjoy your beer!

Alcoholism carries a strong genetic component; it is not self-inflicted, although it is exacerbated by drinking. Certainly, one can rely on willpower (or AA, or whatever works) to not drink, but perhaps the person with lung cancer should not have smoked, or the person with HIV should not have indulged in unprotected sex. Perhaps the person who dropped dead of a heart attack at age 50 should have laid off all those french fries during the previous thirty-five years. We are all flawed, and some of us are dealt a bad hand, genetically speaking. Compassion is called for in all cases.

Tell that to the families of those killed by drunk drivers. I am sure they can show a lot of compassion for the drunk who murdered their children, mates, parents, etc. The individual was sober when he made the choice to drink, knowing what the consequences were. if you want to consider it a disease, then acknowledge that the disease does not kick in until the substance is consumed. I wish it were that easy to stop cancer and other diseases which inflict those who live healthy lifestyles as much as those who don't. Just imagine...If you stop drinking coffee, your cancer will be cured. How many people would give that habit up if those were the results? Please don't insult those born with real genetic diseases by calling alcoholism a disease.

I'm not insulting anyone; I'm stating facts. Alcoholism does not "kick in" when the substance is consumed, although a number of specific chemical reactions in the body obviously do kick in when alcohol is introduced; and the disease is progressive, such that the alcoholic's own health (and the consequences of his drinking) gets worse as he continues to drink without seeking treatment. If alcoholics were simply casual drinkers, why have so many lost everything to it, while other casual drinkers can knock down a six-pack of beer every night and the worst consequence they face is a beer belly?

People are killed by drunk drivers every day, and this is indeed a tragedy, but that doesn't mean you can deny the cold, hard science of it. Please read something about the science behind alcoholism before you preach to me.

Sorry your Honor,it was not my fault i caused this accident,you see i am an alcoholic.

Nah,i don't think so.

You're totally missing the point of what I'm saying. Vehicular homicide is obviously murder in so many words whether the driver is drunk or sober, and if the alcoholic who commits the crime goes into cardiac arrest from acute withdrawal symptoms and dies in his jail cell for lack of a drink or the medication he would receive in a detox ward, then perhaps justice is served. Alcoholism is not an excuse for bad behavior, in either a legal or a moral sense; alcoholics can seek treatment, and treatments do work. But the disease must be understood for what it is.

Ridiculous comparison. Alcoholism is self inflicted and a form of drug abuse...

Alcoholism carries a strong genetic component; it is not self-inflicted, although it is exacerbated by drinking. Certainly, one can rely on willpower (or AA, or whatever works) to not drink, but perhaps the person with lung cancer should not have smoked, or the person with HIV should not have indulged in unprotected sex. Perhaps the person who dropped dead of a heart attack at age 50 should have laid off all those french fries during the previous thirty-five years. We are all flawed, and some of us are dealt a bad hand, genetically speaking. Compassion is called for in all cases.

Tell that to the families of those killed by drunk drivers. I am sure they can show a lot of compassion for the drunk who murdered their children, mates, parents, etc. The individual was sober when he made the choice to drink, knowing what the consequences were. if you want to consider it a disease, then acknowledge that the disease does not kick in until the substance is consumed. I wish it were that easy to stop cancer and other diseases which inflict those who live healthy lifestyles as much as those who don't. Just imagine...If you stop drinking coffee, your cancer will be cured. How many people would give that habit up if those were the results? Please don't insult those born with real genetic diseases by calling alcoholism a disease.

I'm not insulting anyone; I'm stating facts. Alcoholism does not "kick in" when the substance is consumed, although a number of specific chemical reactions in the body obviously do kick in when alcohol is introduced; and the disease is progressive, such that the alcoholic's own health (and the consequences of his drinking) gets worse as he continues to drink without seeking treatment. If alcoholics were simply casual drinkers, why have so many lost everything to it, while other casual drinkers can knock down a six-pack of beer every night and the worst consequence they face is a beer belly?

People are killed by drunk drivers every day, and this is indeed a tragedy, but that doesn't mean you can deny the cold, hard science of it. Please read something about the science behind alcoholism before you preach to me.

Ridiculous comparison. Alcoholism is self inflicted and a form of drug abuse...

Alcoholism carries a strong genetic component; it is not self-inflicted, although it is exacerbated by drinking. Certainly, one can rely on willpower (or AA, or whatever works) to not drink, but perhaps the person with lung cancer should not have smoked, or the person with HIV should not have indulged in unprotected sex. Perhaps the person who dropped dead of a heart attack at age 50 should have laid off all those french fries during the previous thirty-five years. We are all flawed, and some of us are dealt a bad hand, genetically speaking. Compassion is called for in all cases.

I'm sorry but I refuse to accept that alcoholism can be put into the same category as HIV and cancer. Lung cancer was not,specifically mentioned, so why bring that into the equation? People choose to drink alcoholism. By your reasoning, that alcoholism is genetic, Islamic countries such as Iran, Saudi etc(that CHOOSE not to drink alcohol) should have comparable alcoholism rates as Western countries. I couldn't be arsed looking up statistics as I'm suppose to be working now. People choose to do drugs, such as heroin, alcohol and nicotine. The modern PC world has decided to make alcoholism a 'disease'. It is a lifestyle choice...

People choose to drink, but they do not choose to be alcoholics -- they are predisposed, genetically -- and alcoholism is broadly accepted around the world as a disease. You say you "couldn't be arsed" looking up statistics -- well, perhaps read something about the science and medicine behind alcoholism. As for Muslim countries where alcohol is banned, have you ever lived in such a country? I know several Iranians (who live in Iran), and they find something to drink whenever they want; and my brother-in-law lived in Kuwait for three years and became part of the "subculture" of drinkers there who made their own bathtub beer. Did drinking disappear in the United States during Prohibition?

As for "the modern PC world," "PC" has become a meaningless catchphrase used by reactionary politicians to stir up the masses, but if by "PC" you mean listening to the other side and honestly trying to fathom why that other side might be offended by something I'm doing, then count me in.

Another idiot drunk.

Well you haven't absorbed any compassion from the Thais yet have you?

Don't you know alcoholism is a disease and those suffering from it deserve the same amount of compassion as those suffering from cancer or HIV.

Ridiculous comparison. Alcoholism is self inflicted and a form of drug abuse...

Alcoholism carries a strong genetic component; it is not self-inflicted, although it is exacerbated by drinking. Certainly, one can rely on willpower (or AA, or whatever works) to not drink, but perhaps the person with lung cancer should not have smoked, or the person with HIV should not have indulged in unprotected sex. Perhaps the person who dropped dead of a heart attack at age 50 should have laid off all those french fries during the previous thirty-five years. We are all flawed, and some of us are dealt a bad hand, genetically speaking. Compassion is called for in all cases.

This guy has a very large set of Cojones on him man. he starches any acceptable and known

boundaries of you can or can not say when you're running for presidency....

No he doesn't, he has no cojones at all. He's an insecure little boy with a lot of money.

F@@@###ing Racism here. I am absolutely sick of it. Applies in every corner of this land. I refuse to pay the additional and if they insist I walk away.

Me too, If they wont accept my Thai driving license then I tel the to **** Off.

Please everyone if you get charged more than a Thai to enter somewhere then walk away, if enough people do it then they will have no choice but to stop it.

That's not necessarily the right response either -- I'm from Delaware in the US, and in-state residents pay less than out-of-state visitors to enter state parks and other state government-run facilities, perhaps by 50 percent. The rationale is, Delaware residents pay state taxes that help upkeep the parks, whereas out-of-staters don't. That seems fair to me, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that that's at least part of the rationale at play here. However, having to pay ten times the local rate is certainly excessive, and producing a national ID card should end any argument.

Foreigners have to pay 200 baht (last I checked) to visit the Grand Palace in Bangkok and other major sites, whereas Thais get in for free -- is that fair?

The real irony is that there are over 300,000 survivors.

Estimates, I think, cite 200,000 survivors. But why is that ironic? More than a million were murdered there.

I totally disagree with same sex couples bringing up children. The child is reared in an unusual environment whatever the gays might like to make out.

I couldn't disagree with you more. "Unusual" in the sense in which you mean it is in the eye of the beholder, and your viewpoint has rapidly become the minority opinion, at least in North America and most of Europe. Any child is much better off in a loving household with same-sex parents than in a tension-filled household with a forever squabbling heterosexual couple. From a child's perspective, a home environment is "unusual" and harmful if it is unstable, brittle, violent -- and all human couples, whether heterosexual, gay, or lesbian, are equally capable of creating such an environment, or of creating the opposite.

The NRA? Here comes the whack-job fringe left. Did the NRA also kill Cock Robin? Maybe sunk the Titanic?.

I agree Romney is wrong on this. The Confederate flag is a symbol against what the South felt was tyranny against states' rights vs. the strong federal government the North wanted. And, no it doesn't stand for slavery. No matter what the poorly educated say.

You’re quite right -- the Confederate flag represents much that is honorable and worth remembering in a good light. But at the same time, that flag flew over a society that enslaved men and women. You can’t separate the good from the bad. Likewise, today, the flag is used to demonstrate southern white pride, and there’s nothing wrong with that, as well as racially motivated hatred, and there’s plenty wrong with that. It’s an ambiguous symbol, and it’s up to South Carolina what they want to do with it.

As for the NRA, after the Sandy Hook shootings as well as the Charleston shootings (and on many other occasions), their spokespeople suggested that more guns, not fewer guns, was the solution -- if the elementary school teachers at Sandy Hook had themselves been packing, perhaps fewer schoolchildren would have been shot. Imagine a church service: there’s a sudden rustling in one of the windows from the breeze outside and half a dozen overcaffeinated congregants suddenly stand up and pull out their weapons, pointing them in all directions. Maybe one of them fires without thinking. As an American, I don’t want to live in such a society. The NRA may not have killed Cock Robin, but they envision a world that I want no part of.

All I can say is, the sixty-year-old father is setting an excellent example for his eighteen-year-old-son, taking him to a karaoke bar until 5:00 a.m., drinking six or seven bottles of beer apiece, chatting up several bar girls, and getting into a knife fight to close out the evening's entertainment. That's exactly what I would do with my teenage son if I took him traveling in Thailand! Congratulations all around!

This is what makes Thailand a third world country: it's the panel trucks traveling at quarter-speed along crowded city streets blaring out advertising. I don't know if they're banned in Bangkok, but they're ubiquitous in Chiang Mai. They're worse than a nuisance: they create noise pollution, air pollution, horrendous traffic jams, and genuine hazard as other drivers take risks trying to zip around them. The minute these throwbacks to an earlier age of advertising are banned from the streets countrywide, Thailand will take a huge step toward the status of "fully developed country."

Barbaric indeed. But Jordan seems to have a suitable response, they have said they will execute all ISIL prisoners at dawn today!

Hopefully the will do it the same way as their prisoner died!

Hopefully not. To reduce themselves to that level of barbarism does not help the cause. In fact, don't kill them. Lead by example and hopefully it will turn Muslims away from extremism.

Unfortunately the only way to defeat savages is by savage means. This is why the west will never win with its current mindset. It's not a case of reducing ourselves to their level its a case of winning by what ever means are required.

In WW2 mass fire bombing of civilians in Germany and Japan as well as nukes in Japan were used because it was deemed necessary to defeat the enemy. WW3 will be won by those who use what ever tactics are required to win.

Never forget that war is the enevitable result of failed politicians.

Einstein famously said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he did not know what weapons would be used to fight World War III, but that World War IV would be fought with sticks and stones.

The original poster's responses, phonetically in English:

1. rawang nawy na .... man praw' bang (lit. "please be careful, it's fragile")

2. nuat bao bao ... yaa chai raeng maak (lit. "massage softly, don't use much strength")

If you’re looking for the “real Thailand,” it’s not too complicated: the “real Thailand” is wherever Thai people are living and working. Maybe you’re looking too hard.

I would suggest perhaps adjusting your comfort zone to some degree; you say you are “adventurous” so try traveling that way. Thousand-baht meals and three-hundred-dollar resorts are absurd, and allowing yourself to get bent out of shape about bad roads and lengthy boat trips is simply misplaced energy. If you ramp down what you spend on -- and therefore what you expect from -- secondary concerns like accommodation and food (although the local food is fabulous, especially the cheap stuff!) and try going with the flow a bit more, then maybe you’ll get more out of your trip. It sounds trite, but beauty is everywhere that you look for it.