Would you open a business in a "priority" neighbourhood and hire "troubled" youth?

[Aznsilvrboy]

Mayor Ford seems to think we should:


Asked about priority neighbourhood funding, he said: “I think they should start investing in jobs. The bottom line is you or anyone else can come out there and invest and open up a business that creates jobs. That’s the best social program around, is a job.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1227858--rob-ford-says-best-remedy-for-shootings-is-jobs

Theoretically if you had the financial means, well...would you? Poll question character limit cut off the 'h', but the last word should be youth.

[flashy_mcflash]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided it was the right business. However, his answer is, well, a little simplistic.

This (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1208498--mayor-rob-ford-votes-against-free-money-for-gang-prevention) was pretty ironic considering the timing though.

[Aznsilvrboy]

I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided it was the right business. However, his answer is, well, a little simplistic.

This (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1208498--mayor-rob-ford-votes-against-free-money-for-gang-prevention) was pretty ironic considering the timing though.

Who turns down free money? :facepalm:

[neutral]

The city picks and chooses what areas they want to pour money into, make desirable for certain types of businesses, eliminate less desirable businesses etc. The truth is, the problem is a Canadian problem, and it is borne out of people being or feeling that they are being excluded from general society. Ford just paying lip service.

[stealth]

I think its a great notion (not even an idea really)....but as flashy says, its simplistic.
And what part does the city play in it? low interest startup loans? reduced taxes? need something more concrete.

[spike1128]

Will consider it, if it's a right business and also Ford runs his business in those neighborhoods first. He should put money where his mouth is.

Even after the incident, Ford came out to talk. He doesn't sound like he wanted to comment or care one bit of this. He is just paying lip service. He talk and talk about priority neighborhood, but then he lives in the rich part of Etobicoke. There will never be any gangs shooting around his neighborhood. No empathy from a privileged mayor who grow up privileged.

[stealth]

Will consider it, if it's a right business and also Ford runs his business in those neighborhoods first. He should put money where his mouth is.

Even after the incident, Ford came out to talk. He doesn't sound like he wanted to comment or care one bit of this. He is just paying lip service. He talk and talk about priority neighborhood, but then he lives in the rich part of Etobicoke. There will never be any gangs shooting around his neighborhood. No empathy from a privileged mayor who grow up privileged.

Should he be expected to setup shop in EVERY bad neighborhood in the GTA? hes Rob Ford, not Bruce Wayne.

news flash, other than maybe Lastman the crook, every TO mayor has been privileged.

[Manatus]

Depends what you mean by "financial means". If I was a billionaire who owned businesses all over the place, then sure I could put some money into setting something up in a troubled area that needs jobs, like some kind of business where youths can apprentice at a trade or something like that. But if I saved up for years, borrowed money from the bank, just enough to start my own business and my financial future depended on it being a success, then no. Forget the money, I wouldn't even want to go to work everyday in a bad neighbourhood.

[neutral]

Should he be expected to setup shop in EVERY bad neighborhood in the GTA? hes Rob Ford, not Bruce Wayne.

news flash, other than maybe Lastman the crook, every TO mayor has been privileged.

Holy straw man, Batman!

[iEyeCaptain]

Nah

[spintheblackcircle]

Vinny: "So the two youts went in ..."
The Judge: "Ahhh -- what was that word?"
Vinny: "What word your honor?"
The Judge: "Two what?"
Vinny: "Youts? ... Oh I'm sorry ... ... two YOOOUUUTTTHHHS."

I take every opportunity in life to reference the classic 1992 film - My Cousin Vinny.

[sandikosh]

No. Why invest money in a troubled neighborhood?

[cheapmeister]

No. Why invest money in a troubled neighborhood?

Maybe you can get cheaper labor there. Also less competition from other employers, so you are the sole employer which gives you more power.

Reality is that there isn't enough jobs for non-troubled youth, so jobs for troubled youth is a challenge in itself.

[NorthYorker]

I voted "yes", but there is one extremely important condition. Said "troubled youths" must populate a "troubled neighborhood" with mentality I'm familiar with. I can deal with "Russian" (e.g. ex-Soviet) "troubled", because I have a clear idea how they think. Or Eastern Europeans in general (Poles, Romanians, Balkan Slavs). Jamaicans or white Canadian lowlifes - no.

[MissMalfoy]

I voted "yes", but there is one extremely important condition. Said "troubled youths" must populate a "troubled neighborhood" with mentality I'm familiar with. I can deal with "Russian" (e.g. ex-Soviet) "troubled", because I have a clear idea how they think. Or Eastern Europeans in general (Poles, Romanians, Balkan Slavs). Jamaicans or white Canadian lowlifes - no.

... and how exactly do Eastern Europeans think that's so different?

[Abel4Life]

I don't think job creation in troubled areas will reduce shootings.

[cheapmeister]

I don't think job creation in troubled areas will reduce shootings.

So you mean that jobs don't pay as much as drugs?

[NorthYorker]

... and how exactly do Eastern Europeans think that's so different?Just to give you one example - although drinking is a favourite pastime (especially for "troubled" types) there, folks aren't proud of screwing up at work next day because they have a hangover. So, being a superior, I can invoke f-word (and, generally, any description of sexual relationship I'll have with them next time they screw up) with impunity. Because "it is my right", they pretty much gave up their human rights by screwing up ;) (I'm deliberately exaggerating to make the gist of my message more clear). But I might be in trouble, if I treat somebody with different background this way. I might not be, I just do not know, and I have no desire to find out. Hence the clarification. Sorry if it offended anyone.

[mbg]

No, and even the people who live in those priority neighbourhoods wouldn't do it, because they know they'd get robbed :)

[stealth]

No, and even the people who live in those priority neighbourhoods wouldn't do it, because they know they'd get robbed :)

A lot of very rich ppl/companies have made their money providing/selling to the poor.
best to not be too short sighted.

[flashy_mcflash]

No, and even the people who live in those priority neighbourhoods wouldn't do it, because they know they'd get robbed :)

So there are no existing businesses in these neighborhoods? Come on.

[Xiaohaibao]

Why couldn't the troubled youths in the troubled hoods just make the 15 min walk to another neighborhood to work? I mean Toronto isnt' that spread out, a troubled neighborhood often has a good neighborhood with lots of jobs nearby.

[Marcanadian]

I think jobs are key to get youth out of gangs, but by the time you reach 15-16 and are legally able to work, many youth are already going down the wrong path. There needs to be something that targets youth earlier - extra-curricular activities after school for example - some place where they feel they belong.

[cheapmeister]

I also think the gang life with crime can pay more than an hourly job can pay.

[Syne]

I would open up a payday loan business, so that they would be able to get money when they need it most, and not have to wait.

[BornRuff]

Mayor Ford seems to think we should:



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1227858--rob-ford-says-best-remedy-for-shootings-is-jobs

Theoretically if you had the financial means, well...would you? Poll question character limit cut off the 'h', but the last word should be youth.


I wouldn't have a problem with it, provided it was the right business. However, his answer is, well, a little simplistic.

This (http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1208498--mayor-rob-ford-votes-against-free-money-for-gang-prevention) was pretty ironic considering the timing though.

His comments are dumb. The private sector isn't going to solve this on their own any more than they are going to pay to build us new subway lines.

If we need more businesses in these areas, why are there not already enough there to begin with? Why are the ones that are their not hiring the people who Ford feels need jobs? Businesses are not just going to set up shop and hire certain people because Ford makes some off hand comments. There needs to be real action for anything to actually happen.

[BornRuff]

Why couldn't the troubled youths in the troubled hoods just make the 15 min walk to another neighborhood to work? I mean Toronto isnt' that spread out, a troubled neighborhood often has a good neighborhood with lots of jobs nearby.

Actually, many of the poorest neighborhoods are relatively cut off from the rest of Toronto in terms of access to transit. Many residential areas are much further than 15 minutes away from any real significant concentration of jobs, and even then, the best job for a particular person isn't necessarily at the nearest mall or office building.

[cheapmeister]

Actually, many of the poorest neighborhoods are relatively cut off from the rest of Toronto in terms of access to transit. Many residential areas are much further than 15 minutes away from any real significant concentration of jobs, and even then, the best job for a particular person isn't necessarily at the nearest mall or office building.

I have heard of this excuse from peeps from J/F already. What about peeps in btown? They ain't cut off from t-dot? Do you know how far it is from toronto from here? There is like no easy way to get anywhere from here without a car! Ever think about that!

[MissMalfoy]

Just to give you one example - although drinking is a favourite pastime (especially for "troubled" types) there, folks aren't proud of screwing up at work next day because they have a hangover. So, being a superior, I can invoke f-word (and, generally, any description of sexual relationship I'll have with them next time they screw up) with impunity. Because "it is my right", they pretty much gave up their human rights by screwing up ;) (I'm deliberately exaggerating to make the gist of my message more clear). But I might be in trouble, if I treat somebody with different background this way. I might not be, I just do not know, and I have no desire to find out. Hence the clarification. Sorry if it offended anyone.

Maybe I'm confused, but it sounds like you will threaten to rape them if they don't perform on the job to your satisfaction? My family is Eastern European and I don't know anyone who would put up with that, even if they are desperate for the job. I think your attitude is completely offensive.

[sylpherware]

They wouldn't give me permit for my Slaves-4-Hire, said something about not be "politically correct", whatever that means... :(


Seriously though, I wonder if there's an increase of insurance cost for operating a store in those neighborhoods.

[sandikosh]

Maybe you can get cheaper labor there. Also less competition from other employers, so you are the sole employer which gives you more power.

Reality is that there isn't enough jobs for non-troubled youth, so jobs for troubled youth is a challenge in itself.

Cheaper labor? Before you lnow it, the media attacks you taking advantage of the poor.

[MissMalfoy]

I wonder if there's an increase of insurance cost for operating a store in those neighborhoods.

I know car insurance increases a lot in those neighbourhoods. We moved out of Malvern into a nicer area of Scarborough and saved a ton of money on insurance.

[rjones416]

a crappy minimum wage job isnt gonna get troubled youth off the street. they could easily go work in a warehouse somewhere but they dont because they're lazy, stupid and dont like following orders. its easier to sell weed and get welfare.

[Syne]

I don't blame anyone for not working at baking hot warehouse for $10.25hr. Could you imagine in this heat? I'd be so pissed off all day long.

[Simaahoy]

We can't keep on spoon feeding these people and giving them assistance. Until they change the gang culture going on and they help themselves, there's no hope for change.

[hi-tech]

I opened a couple of stores in Malton, Keele and Finch and Weston/Lawrence 2 years ago and hired locally for all of them. The people in the area actually sort of protect your business if they feel you're helping them or are genuinely a decent person (the owner or any of the people working there). I sold all of my stores recently, but I never had an issue with robbery or anything. My father owns a business on Williams Parkway and Chinguacusy in Brampton, and that has been robbed 4 times now, twice at gunpoint. The area around that business isn't nearly as bad as Malton, Keele and Finch or Weston and Lawrence.

[cheapmeister]

I opened a couple of stores in Malton, Keele and Finch and Weston/Lawrence 2 years ago and hired locally for all of them. The people in the area actually sort of protect your business if they feel you're helping them or are genuinely a decent person (the owner or any of the people working there). I sold all of my stores recently, but I never had an issue with robbery or anything. My father owns a business on Williams Parkway and Chinguacusy in Brampton, and that has been robbed 4 times now, twice at gunpoint. The area around that business isn't nearly as bad as Malton, Keele and Finch or Weston and Lawrence.

Yea I know where that is. 4 robberies, wow! I won't go around there at night!

Any description of the robbers?

[wilsonlam97]

Why do we have councillors? They are communists. There is no point of having a mayor if he has no say in anything.


No matter what the communists will always make the final decision. Not Mayor Rob Ford.

[wilsonlam97]

I think jobs are key to get youth out of gangs, but by the time you reach 15-16 and are legally able to work, many youth are already going down the wrong path. There needs to be something that targets youth earlier - extra-curricular activities after school for example - some place where they feel they belong.

Or less tolerance for BS in schools.

[wilsonlam97]

I also think the gang life with crime can pay more than an hourly job can pay.

That's not true. In fact drug dealers are reported to be making much less then minimum wage AND there is no money in these gangs because all of them don't know how to make money. So what if a single robbery is worth $200-$10000 when you have to share it amongst the gang. GET A JOB.

It's nothing like the mafia in HK and Russia. That's real business.

[wilsonlam97]

I would open up a payday loan business, so that they would be able to get money when they need it most, and not have to wait.

And what debt collector would be willing to partner with your business?

[IceBlueShoes]

Cheaper labor? Before you lnow it, the media attacks you taking advantage of the poor.

Like walmart?
Open up a wallyworld and you'll have lots of people wanting to work.

[wilsonlam97]

They wouldn't give me permit for my Slaves-4-Hire, said something about not be "politically correct", whatever that means... :(


Seriously though, I wonder if there's an increase of insurance cost for operating a store in those neighborhoods.

There is indeed an increased cost for insurance. Insurance companies discriminate on anything (Race, skin tone, voice, testosterone levels, estrogen levels, skin conditions, hair colour, your girlfriend, net worth, body preportions ;), etc) lol

[ShadowVlican]

No I wouldn't...

[BornRuff]

I have heard of this excuse from peeps from J/F already. What about peeps in btown? They ain't cut off from t-dot? Do you know how far it is from toronto from here? There is like no easy way to get anywhere from here without a car! Ever think about that!

What is the average income at Jane and Finch compared to those in Brampton?

[mbg]

A lot of very rich ppl/companies have made their money providing/selling to the poor.
best to not be too short sighted.

You mean people like 50 Cent, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, and Don Lapre?

[mbg]

So there are no existing businesses in these neighborhoods? Come on.

A few counterexamples don't disprove the point.

The attitude of most people in those neighbourhoods is that most of the people hanging around are no good. It's only the people outside that know nothing that think the place can be renovated by adding a few basketball courts and community centres.

[Andex]

I would open a shop that sells sports branded bullet proof vests. Appears to be demand.

[hdave]

I would, but obviously they would only have limited freedom.
Wouldn't be hiring them to man the cash register or something.
And I'd also pre-threaten to f them and their family up if they ever crossed me (and prove I've done it in the past).

[thestar99]

I would, but obviously they would only have limited freedom.
Wouldn't be hiring them to man the cash register or something.
And I'd also pre-threaten to f them and their family up if they ever crossed me (and prove I've done it in the past).

I do not know if you are joking or serious. If you were serious your avatar picture describes what people think of you

[NorthYorker]

I think your attitude is completely offensive.Thank you for providing a good illustration of my idea, and congratulations to your parents on raising a Canadian child, unexposed to niceties of the "back home" culture. You, "an employee with troubled background", completely misunderstood my reaction as "an employer" in a situation when you appeared on a job late and with a heavy hangover. That is why I've said I can work with "troubled" of my own (or similar) background, but would not risk dealing with unfamiliar mentality.
it sounds like you will threaten to rape them if they don't perform on the job to your satisfaction?Let me deconstruct the situation for you step by step. I might threaten, but it never means that I will follow on my threat. Both I and the miscreant know it very well. What is really happening between us, is an employer unleashing a waterfall of verbal abuse to get the message "you did something absolutely not tolerated in this workplace" across. An Eastern European toughie would understand it. He would also understand that I'm not going to fire him on a spot (I would not waste my breath on him in this situation, would just escort him out and mail him his last paycheque), as a Canadian employer would, most likely, do in a situation like this. Bottom line, I'm giving him one more chance to straighten himself, but he has to bear the brunt of me venting my anger :) Am I, "an employer", a saint in a situation like this. No, I'm not. Would it give me a chance to use his services later on, and to him a chance to earn an honest living. Yes, it would.
My family is Eastern EuropeanJust like myself, I'm from x-USSR.

[flashy_mcflash]

A few counterexamples don't disprove the point.

The attitude of most people in those neighbourhoods is that most of the people hanging around are no good. It's only the people outside that know nothing that think the place can be renovated by adding a few basketball courts and community centres.

Not a few - many. Go to Jane and Finch, there are loads of businesses in the area. Loads. All doing fine, all not being robbed. So yes, many business owners would and do choose to operate in these neighborhoods.

[MissMalfoy]

Thank you for providing a good illustration of my idea, and congratulations to your parents on raising a Canadian child, unexposed to niceties of the "back home" culture.
Please don't assume things about me and my experiences.

Even after your explanation/deconstruction, I still find it offensive.Is the threat of being fired not enough? Anyone who would throw around the idea of something as serious as rape is as much as, if not more, troubled than the miscreants you describe.

[hi-tech]

Yea I know where that is. 4 robberies, wow! I won't go around there at night!

Any description of the robbers?

All of them were younger males. 17-20 I'm guessing.

[NorthYorker]

Please don't assume things about me and my experiences.This is not much of assumption. Either you are from one of EE backgrounds I did not list due to lack of first-hand experience with them, or your parents did not familiarize you with this aspect of your background (nothing wrong with that, my kids aren't too familiar with it too). What I've described is pretty much accepted by Poles, Romanians, "Yugoslavs" (for lack of shorter moniker) and "Russians", at least in "male-dominated" environments (I've assumed said "troubled youths" in OP to be males).
Is the threat of being fired not enough? It is, but it is also a part of the culture to express said threat in a more "colourful" way. It is not, IMHO, better or worse, just different.
Anyone who would throw around the idea of something as serious as rape is as much as, if not more, troubled than the miscreants you describe.EE culture is much less exposed to political correctness idea. We're much more loose with words. It does not mean we're more loose with deeds. But your anger, again, illustrates my point.

[stealth]

You mean people like 50 Cent, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, and Don Lapre?
among MANY others....McDonalds/KFC, Nike, cellphone accessories, baby formula, payday loans/check cashing, cash for gold, and just about every record label etc.

Point is, dont rule out the poor as a profitable revenue channel. The nice thing about them is, theyre less fickle and discerning than the rich and usually less educated/aware.

[coolspot]

Who turns down free money? :facepalm:


Too much risk, too many variables, as a business person it may not be worth the hassles.

[stealth]

The attitude of most people in those neighbourhoods is that most of the people hanging around are no good. It's only the people outside that know nothing that think the place can be renovated by adding a few basketball courts and community centres.

In that, we can agree. Oh and you forgot, the prerequisite oh-so-concerned and socially aware 20-something birkenstock wearing white social workers who need to be there "just in case anyone needs to just talk" and to hand out government paphlets. :)

[flashy_mcflash]

Usually the children of Lacoste-wearing suburban white folks that like to talk about priority neighborhoods like they've ever stopped in one on the way to their tennis lessons.

[NorthYorker]

I would, but obviously they would only have limited freedom.Meaningless. Basically, you need to be able to distinguish 3 very distinct groups within "troubled" crowd:
1. Gangstas
2. Gangsta wannabes
3. Everyone else.
The first group is hopeless. These are guys who made a conscious decision that life of crime best suits them for whatever reason. No amount of outside intervention can turn them into productive law-abiding citizens, because everything is perfect with criminal lifestyle, as far as they are concerned. Wannabes are ones who joined the group to prove their "toughness", but aren't really enjoying the experience. Those are often make good leaders/managers in legitimate business, so it is a group worth working with. Everyone else are kids who found themselves in a gang because their life circumstances brought them there. They're quietly dreaming of getting out, but don't know how. As soon as you the business owner deal with groups 2 and 3, your business has good chances of success. However, weeding out the 1st group is very inexact science (bordering on outright black magic and paranormal abilities to read humans), and often makes or breaks businesses employing troubled youths.

[MissMalfoy]

This is not much of assumption. Either you are from one of EE backgrounds I did not list due to lack of first-hand experience with them, or your parents did not familiarize you with this aspect of your background (nothing wrong with that, my kids aren't too familiar with it too). What I've described is pretty much accepted by Poles, Romanians, "Yugoslavs" (for lack of shorter moniker) and "Russians", at least in "male-dominated" environments (I've assumed said "troubled youths" in OP to be males). It is, but it is also a part of the culture to express said threat in a more "colourful" way. It is not, IMHO, better or worse, just different.EE culture is much less exposed to political correctness idea. We're much more loose with words. It does not mean we're more loose with deeds. But your anger, again, illustrates my point.

My family is primarily Belarusian, also Russian. I am not so far removed that I don't know what it's like - I am the only person in my family who doesn't hold citizenship (I am the first Canadian born). My brother can't even visit my grandparents because he is a citizen and still eligible for the army. My parents moved here to get away from the "old world" ideals. I don't know a lot of Russians/etc who will put up with this attitude here, since they came here to escape from it.

[NorthYorker]

My parents moved here to get away from the "old world" ideals. I don't know a lot of Russians/etc who will put up with this attitude here"Troubled youths" of our (although I'd say that you share cultural background with your parents, and you're with my kids) background would.

[starkiller2010]

I think these are really 2 separate questions:

Set up business in a priority neighborhood? Depends if you know the neighborhood and the people who live there. If you are respected there and understand the community, then why not? If you have no idea what the community is like, then either do some research and stay with areas that you do know.

Hire 'troubled youth'? Depends if the kid really wants to work and has the skills that I need. I am not going to give a kid a 'chance' if there are better candidates out there to help me run my business. The kid has to show me they are going to be a valuable asset; that in itself is a lesson for them. Step up to the challenge and show you can make a positive impact and you have a better chance of landing a job.

[jerrysiz]

"Troubled youths" of our (although I'd say that you share cultural background with your parents, and you're with my kids) background would.

Oh, so it's the "no true Scotsman" argument. :rolleyes: There are plenty of people on here with EE backgrounds, myself included, and I'd agree with MissMalfoy that no one working in Canada, whatever their background, "troubled" youth or not, is going to tolerate being threatened with rape as part of their job. Whatever outdated and backwards ideas people may have had in their home countries about their "right" as the boss to threaten their workers with physical/sexual violence for job performance issues, this would in no way be acceptable here.

And, it's not just "colourful" language, it's abusive and threatening, and quite possibly triggering (you have no idea what the past experiences of your workers has been, this is not something to joke about).

Sure, you might have been able to get away with this is EE, but this is Canada, and at best you'd be looking at a possible sexual harrassment claim, and at worst a charge of uttering threats. To say nothing of the fact that you seem to think there's nothing wrong with using your position as a hypothetical role model for "troubled youth" to teach them that using threats of sexual violence is a totally acceptable way to solve a problem. Sort of defeats the purpose of opening such a business in the first place, doesn't it?

[hdave]

IMO it is something that would help them out.
And I'm sure some of them could actually be hard workers.
Only think is that I'd have trouble trusting them with cash and things like that. So I would probably keep a close eye on them or try to ensure they are not really able to cause much trouble.
If they do, obviously they are fired (but i'd try to do it in a nice way so they don't mess with my business)

[wilsonlam97]

I would open a shop that sells sports branded bullet proof vests. Appears to be demand.

It must be Jordan's then.

[wilsonlam97]

I know car insurance increases a lot in those neighbourhoods. We moved out of Malvern into a nicer area of Scarborough and saved a ton of money on insurance.

Dammit lol. The car insurance is so expensive.

[jerrysiz]

I think jobs are key to get youth out of gangs, but by the time you reach 15-16 and are legally able to work, many youth are already going down the wrong path. There needs to be something that targets youth earlier - extra-curricular activities after school for example - some place where they feel they belong.

This. It's easy for Ford to deflect responsibility by saying it should be the private sector's job to help at-risk youth, but these kids are at-risk for a reason, and that starts long before they get old enough to hold down a job. Ford can't just neglect to recognize all the social issues that create the situation in the first place, then ignore his responsibility to help these kids and their communities, and simply throw out a pie-in-the-sky "solution" (that he's not even backing with any form of programs or incentives). If the root causes are not recognized, none of this is going to help.


I know car insurance increases a lot in those neighbourhoods. We moved out of Malvern into a nicer area of Scarborough and saved a ton of money on insurance.

Was it by switching to Geico? :D

[vero95]

a crappy minimum wage job isnt gonna get troubled youth off the street. they could easily go work in a warehouse somewhere but they dont because they're lazy, stupid and dont like following orders. its easier to sell weed and get welfare.

+1
Giuliani faced similar problems. here is what he did

Combating Gangs and Drugs with Law Enforcement,
Intervention, and Education
by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 8, I announced a new strategy to combat the growing problem of street gang violence. Even though New York City does not have the same severe street gang problem as many other American cities, it's important that we deal with this now, before it gets any larger.

The new strategies build on the coordinated street-gang crackdown initiated more than a year ago by Police Commissioner Safir. Equally important, they focus on enhancing preventative education among children and strengthening legislation in order to protect New Yorkers from the indiscriminate acts of violence perpetrated by criminal gangs.

The Board of Education and the NYPD will double the size of the Gang Resistance Education and Training program (GREAT) from 20 to 40 schools, and will develop additional anti-gang after-school programs.

Our public schools will implement a "no-tolerance" approach to street gang criminal activity that will include banning gang-related graffiti, banning the wearing of gang colors, establishing Gang Free School Zones in cooperation with the Police Department, drug-testing all school safety officers, reporting all street gang activity to the NYPD, precluding the mediation of street gang-related incidents by school personnel, and prohibiting the hiring of street gang members in any capacity.

On the legislative front, the City will propose an anti-gang legislative package which will, among other things, make it a crime to recruit new gang members into criminal street gangs and make it a crime for minors to possess a box-cutter for criminal purposes.

Our efforts to educate children about the dangers of gangs and dismantle street gangs using innovative tactics parallel our efforts to fight drug abuse. The battle against drug abuse starts with prevention and education of our children.

This must be complemented by aggressive law enforcement strategies and intelligent treatment programs. With all three components in place -- education, law enforcement, and treatment -- I am confident we will make unprecedented progress in fighting drug abuse and returning more and more New Yorkers to accountable lives.

Law Enforcement

The NYPD has made great progress in fighting drugs. Our 60 percent reduction in homicides since 1993 would simply be impossible without targeting drug dealers and getting them off our streets. And in 1996 the NYPD made an all-time high number of misdemeanor and felony drug arrests, and recorded a 51 percent increase in drug seizures and a 116 percent increase in drug currency seizures over 1993.

We must build on these successes, eradicating drugs from our neighborhoods and schools. Modeled after the successful drug enforcement initiatives currently at work in Brooklyn North and Northern Manhattan, we will target the South Bronx and Southeast Queens, committing over 1,000 uniformed officers to the task.

We will also immediately make Washington Square Park -- which has been allowed to be a symbol of unaccountability for over a decade -- a drug-free zone.

All New Yorkers must feel safe from the fear and intimidation that are so closely connected to drug abuse. The NYPD will expand its Drug Free School Zone program from 40 to 100 schools. And the Safe Corridor program, which gives children additional protection as they walk to and from school, will be doubled, to involve 240 schools.

City residents are encouraged to help in our anti-drug efforts by reporting drug activity in their neighborhoods to the NYPD's new 24-hour, seven-day-a-week hotline, 1-888-374-DRUG.

Treatment

Given the fact that the overwhelming majority of those arrested and imprisoned have some form of substance abuse problem, and given that those same individuals consumed over 60 percent of the nation's cocaine and heroin, we must provide appropriate treatment services in the criminal justice system. Treatment models already in place have shown promising results in reducing both drug dependency and recidivism.

The Department of Correction will increase the number of drug treatment beds available in the Department's Substance Abuse Intervention Division, and the Department of Probation will double its current residential drug treatment capacity.

Later this fall, the City, working in cooperation with the court system and the Special Narcotics Prosecutor, will be opening a Drug Court in Manhattan to complement the Drug Court currently operating in Brooklyn. The court is expected to target 300 non-violent drug abusing defendants annually, and put them on the road to drug-free lives.

The prevailing wisdom among drug policy experts is that less than 25 percent of substance abusers ever seek treatment. Substance abusers must and will be held accountable for seeking treatment. If they do not, they run the risk of being arrested.

To ensure that those seeking treatment have access to information regarding available programs in or near their communities, we are creating a Drug Treatment Coordinator Unit within the Mayor's Office to track, through an electronic database, the capacity of programs on a daily basis, and make referrals to appropriate programs. Through a toll-free hotline, substance abusers will have access to this information at any time.

The Administration for Children Services (ACS) will team up with the Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) to implement a program designed to provide substance abuse treatment services to mothers whose children have been placed in foster care.

Drug abuse is a mammoth and complex problem, but we are not afraid to confront it. Just as we have proven time and time again by turning around the most serious problems our City faced -- crime, welfare dependency, a public education system with no accountability, and a suffering economy -- we can rise to this challenge and build a better New York City for our children.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/97/me971014.html

[NorthYorker]

no one working in Canada, whatever their background, "troubled" youth or not, is going to tolerate being threatened with rape as part of their job.OK, I'm not sure you've read the hypothetical situation correctly. It is not "part of the job". Someone popping up Monday morning half-drunk and pretending that s/he "reported for the job" is NOT "part of their job". This is a serious violation, and, in the world of small business, generally a cause for layoff (be it completely legal or not, but this is how it works). Being super-PC employer I should just throw the kid back into ghetto dumpster he came from, and be absolutely legal and self-righteous about it, right? Well, I could have done just that, and bleeding hearts like you and MM would grumble against heartless me, but quietly admit that I was "in my right" to deny the kid a chance to straighten himself out. What I'm doing instead, by unleashing a hail of profanities, is letting it through his thick skull that what he had done is absolutely unacceptable. He can get postal and stab me for insulting his fragile self, or get all "legal Canadian-y" and make a formal complain to police about threatening with an assault, sure. But I know that most EE "toughies" would not do it, as much as this "indecent behaviour" grieves the bleeding hearts PC crowd. I've dealt this those guys in Canada for years, I've hired them for home renovation projects (amazing savings are to be found this way, those guys have no construction experience and therefore are ready to accept "hand labour" wages, but a single experienced construction guy can guide them into doing decent job), I've had my car repaired in shops staffed mostly by kids like this, I've lived in most dumpy apartment buildings of "Little Moscow".
Whatever outdated and backwards ideas people may have had in their home countries about their "right" as the boss to threaten their workers with physical/sexual violence for job performance issues, this would in no way be acceptable here.Sigh... You just don't get it, do you? This not more a "threat" than very Canadian "F... you". It is just much more verbose :D
it's abusive and threatening, and quite possibly triggering (you have no idea what the past experiences of your workers has been, this is not something to joke about). You obviously missed my little essay about black magic of being able to pick "salvable" types among the crowd. In my personal view, someone who's gonna snap at "FK U" for appearing drunk on the job, is beyond salvation. I'm not a social service, I would not hire someone I see as capable of doing it. Again, as much as it might grieve bleeding hearts, but I haven't seen bleeding hearts hiring troubled Russian, Israeli or Polish guys. I did hire those "troubled", on occasion.
you seem to think there's nothing wrong with using your position as a hypothetical role model for "troubled youth" to teach them that using threats of sexual violence is a totally acceptable way to solve a problem Hold your horse right here. In a situation like this, I do not see myself as "role model" for anyone, not in the slightest. Look at OP question. "Would you hire troubled youths?" I would, not because I'm such a nice role model, but because I can give them jobs and still keep my hypothetical business afloat, despite them occasionally letting me down and behaving absolutely unacceptable. There's nothing "role model"-y about it, just a business transaction between two parties. Since said transaction involves "unusual" participants (I can repeat hundredth time, "usual" reaction of a bleeding heart liberal wold be to leave those kids in a dump they're living in and hire clean nice-behaving non-troubled kids), it involves some unusual clauses, written or not, but well understood by both sides.

Finally, I'd like to thank you for providing a good example for my statement that understanding cultural backgrounds is important.

[UrbanPoet]

This. It's easy for Ford to deflect responsibility by saying it should be the private sector's job to help at-risk youth, but these kids are at-risk for a reason, and that starts long before they get old enough to hold down a job. Ford can't just neglect to recognize all the social issues that create the situation in the first place, then ignore his responsibility to help these kids and their communities, and simply throw out a pie-in-the-sky "solution" (that he's not even backing with any form of programs or incentives). If the root causes are not recognized, none of this is going to help.



Was it by switching to Geico? :D

Hey,

That is exact way to stop 'gun violence'.
At the root.

These troubled youth live this life style for a reason. They lack family support.
Black brothers and sisters have faced hundreds of years of white oppression. Till this day they're marginalized in society.
What does that mean in 2012?

We have families living in poverty.
We have fathers who are quick to leave their children and baby mothers. They don't accept responsibility.
We have mothers with no way out.
Babies that are starving.
Teens with no direction and education.
They seek gangs as a means of social and financial support. Thats when we get all this violence. To make it worst its black people killing their own people.

We must find ways to empower the community and change this mentality. Only then will the violence stop.
The only problem is when this type of thinking is ingrained into certain communities, its hard turning back.

If there are creative solutions to help empower youth in these communities that would be great. But this kind of stuff doesn't happen over night... But these efforts can hopefully create strong leaders in the community who will help spread positive messages and empower others.

[flashy_mcflash]

+1
Giuliani faced similar problems. here is what he did

http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/97/me971014.html

And as we all know, NYC was drug- and crime-free from then on.

[UrbanPoet]

And as we all know, NYC was drug- and crime-free from then on.

I imagine it was all pushed out of the touristy areas.
But I can imagine rough pockets of the city where drug and crime rates are high.

They can make gang activity illegal... but there will still be poor and marginalized people. I imagine that they'll still shoot, steal, and kill for whatever they need to survive.

[vero95]

And as we all know, NYC was drug- and crime-free from then on.


you are fighting with facts again :facepalm:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Giuliani_crime_rate.png/300px-Giuliani_crime_rate.png

[NorthYorker]

you are fighting with facts again :facepalm:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Giuliani_crime_rate.png/300px-Giuliani_crime_rate.pngTo be honest with you, it does look like trend did not change a bit under Rudi. Crime rate in NYC was going down before he assumed the office, and continued to do so after him. Angle of curve did not change during his reign.

[BornRuff]

To be honest with you, it does look like trend did not change a bit under Rudi. Crime rate in NYC was going down before he assumed the office, and continued to do so after him. Angle of curve did not change during his reign.

Looks to be more or less in line with the trends in Newark, LA, and the nation at large.

[jerrysiz]

OK, I'm not sure you've read the hypothetical situation correctly. It is not "part of the job". Someone popping up Monday morning half-drunk and pretending that s/he "reported for the job" is NOT "part of their job". This is a serious violation, and, in the world of small business, generally a cause for layoff (be it completely legal or not, but this is how it works). Being super-PC employer I should just throw the kid back into ghetto dumpster he came from, and be absolutely legal and self-righteous about it, right? Well, I could have done just that, and bleeding hearts like you and MM would grumble against heartless me, but quietly admit that I was "in my right" to deny the kid a chance to straighten himself out. What I'm doing instead, by unleashing a hail of profanities, is letting it through his thick skull that what he had done is absolutely unacceptable.

Yep, and no one had a problem with any of that. Where you crossed the line is when you said you would threaten them with rape. I see you left that out of your little defense here.


But I know that most EE "toughies" would not do it, as much as this "indecent behaviour" grieves the bleeding hearts PC crowd. I've dealt this those guys in Canada for years, I've hired them for home renovation projects (amazing savings are to be found this way, those guys have no construction experience and therefore are ready to accept "hand labour" wages, but a single experienced construction guy can guide them into doing decent job), I've had my car repaired in shops staffed mostly by kids like this, I've lived in most dumpy apartment buildings of "Little Moscow".

So what you're saying is that you know this would work from personal experience, as you've made a habit of hiring desperate EE young people and keeping them in line with threats of rape when they do things that are inappropriate on the job? You sound like a real prince. :rolleyes: So, even if this is true, why do you think your limited experiences can be generalized to all EE "troubled" youth? You may have had experience with some kids that "didn't mind" being threatened with rape, and I'm sure you could find some secretaries that don't mind being ogled and slapped on the ***** , but that doesn't mean that all of them do, and it doesn't make it acceptable business practice.

And you think just because no one objected to this kind of treatment, that they were necessarily okay with it? You're discounting the possibility that you have triggered someone who was just reluctant to speak up due to the false macho EE stereotype you're encouraging in your workplace. You do realize that "troubled" youth have a higher likelyhood of having been victims of sexual or physical abuse...so obviously you think threatening them with sexual or physical violence is totally fine. smh.


Sigh... You just don't get it, do you? This not more a "threat" than very Canadian "F... you". It is just much more verbose :D

Ah, so now we're laughing while we minimize the seriousness of rape threats. It just gets better and better. Actually, describing in detail how you're going to rape someone is worse than just saying "F... you", and if you can't see that, there's something very wrong with you.


In my personal view, someone who's gonna snap at "FK U" for appearing drunk on the job, is beyond salvation.

Possibly, but again, you're not saying "FK U", You. Are. Threatening. To. Rape. Them.


Hold your horse right here. In a situation like this, I do not see myself as "role model" for anyone, not in the slightest. Look at OP question. "Would you hire troubled youths?" I would, not because I'm such a nice role model, but because I can give them jobs and still keep my hypothetical business afloat, despite them occasionally letting me down and behaving absolutely unacceptable. There's nothing "role model"-y about it, just a business transaction between two parties. Since said transaction involves "unusual" participants (I can repeat hundredth time, "usual" reaction of a bleeding heart liberal wold be to leave those kids in a dump they're living in and hire clean nice-behaving non-troubled kids), it involves some unusual clauses, written or not, but well understood by both sides.

Well, maybe if you'd read past the title of the thread... :facepalm: The whole point of the article was the importance of social programs in priority neighborhoods to give the youth there alternatives to gang mentality and lives of crime. The whole point of starting a business to employ at-risk youth in priority neighborhoods is to have jobs as a social program. Jobs as social programs to decrease youth crime in priority communities, that's what the entire article was about. Creating such a business involves more of a comittment to these youth than simply using them as desperate employees willing to deal with any kind of working conditions you feel like dishing out while your only concern is bringing in money to your business.

Also interesting is the fact that this is the second time in this response where you demonstrate that you can't seem to see any middle ground between firing those kids "leaving them in the dump they're living in" and threatening to rape them. What happened to simply threatening to fire them if they came in hungover again? In a previous response you admitted that this would be sufficient.


Finally, I'd like to thank you for providing a good example for my statement that understanding cultural backgrounds is important.

And I'd like to thank you for proving that willfull ignorance is a force to be reckoned with. There's really nothing anyone here can say to change your mind. There are people here with EE backgrounds, who do have an understanding of the culture, but it's easier for you to just ignore that. Just as it's easier for you to make light of threatening rape as no worse than cursing at someone instead of entertaining the possibility that you have perpetuated a culture that minimizes the suffering of others just so you can be proud of how politically incorrect you are.

[vero95]

To be honest with you, it does look like trend did not change a bit under Rudi. Crime rate in NYC was going down before he assumed the office, and continued to do so after him. Angle of curve did not change during his reign.

the national trend is flatter. some say that his input was not significant but it's hard to say. he could have done nothing like McGuinty and things might have looked completely different

[NorthYorker]

you're not saying "FK U", You. Are. Threatening. To. Rape. Them.And saying "FK U" is an offer to give them a million dollars, correct? Look, you are just ignorant of cultural context, ignoring the stuff you know ("wah, mere F U, what's the deal???"), and making a huge woolly mammoth out of molehill you are not familiar with. And, as we are being honest, ignorance mixed with self-righteousness does not make for rational thinking. There's something to be said for each sentence of your post, but you lost my interest by misinterpreting not only my words but OP too ("if you'd read past the title of the thread", my leg; what are you, divinator, to read OP's mind?). YOU JUST HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT MATTERS YOU DARE TO JUDGE!
And, to give you an example of how clueless you are in this particular issue:
it's easier for you to make light of threatening rape as no worse than cursing at someone There's a certain group (Georgians from Georgia the country, habitually considered "Russians" by Canadians) who would consider casual "F U" a mortal attack on their dignity, as bad as rape attempt (not just mere talking about rape). That is because they are DIFFERENT this way, this is their cultural background. But you had no clue about it till I shared this fact with you, didn't you? However, you allow yourself to judge things you are terminally clueless about.

[NorthYorker]

the national trend is flatter. I was looking at NYC trend. It (and it's relationship with national trend) did not change a single bit, if you posted a correct graph.

[jerrysiz]

And saying "FK U" is an offer to give them a million dollars, correct?

:confused: No, it's not an offer to give them a million dollars...so that makes it exactly the same as a detailed threat about how you're going to rape them?


Look, you are just ignorant of cultural context, ignoring the stuff you know ("wah, mere F U, what's the deal???"), and making a huge woolly mammoth out of molehill you are not familiar with. And, as we are being honest, ignorance mixed with self-righteousness does not make for rational thinking.

Ah, yes, look at me getting all touchy just because someone's saying there's nothing wrong with threatening kids with rape for unacceptable performance on the job. :rolleyes: There have been people here who have all that cultural context you're talking about who totally contradict what you're saying, but obviously you're the only one who has the requisite level of experience to speak on the subject because you've had kids from this community fix your car. :facepalm: That last sentence you wrote? You should really take that on board, as your assumption that no EE kid in your employ would ever be hurt or triggered by you threatening to rape them is really the height of ignorance.


There's something to be said for each sentence of your post, but you lost my interest by misinterpreting not only my words but OP too ("if you'd read past the title of the thread", my leg; what are you, divinator, to read OP's mind?). YOU JUST HAVE NO CLUE ABOUT MATTERS YOU DARE TO JUDGE!

:lol: I didn't read the OP's mind, I actually read the article he was referring to, you know, the one he linked to in the OP? So, yeah, when I say that the thread was about Ford's comment that jobs are the best social programs for at-risk youth, I feel confident saying that the topic of discussion here isn't about whether you would just hire "troubled" youth to increase your bottom line and have someone to threaten with rape occasionally, but that part of the point of opening such a business in a priority neighborhood and hiring at-risk youth would be to improve the community and the lives of those youth. But, like I said, if you didn't bother to read the article the thread is about, I can see where you would get confused.


And, to give you an example of how clueless you are in this particular issue: There's a certain group (Georgians from Georgia the country, habitually considered "Russians" by Canadians) who would consider casual "F U" a mortal attack on their dignity, as bad as rape attempt (not just mere talking about rape). That is because they are DIFFERENT this way, this is their cultural background. But you had no clue about it till I shared this fact with you, didn't you? However, you allow yourself to judge things you are terminally clueless about.

So don't tell them to "F off" if you know it's going to cause such offense...that doesn't make threatening them with rape any better. You're taking a stereotype that may have been true for some of them in their home country (or, more likely, their parents' home country) and claiming with absolute certainty that you know what they will or will not be okay with now. Talk about self-righteous ignorance. You think you know how every Georgian youth now living in Canada is going to react with 100% certainty. :rolleyes: How do you know none of your workers have been the victims of sexual violence, or have had family members who were, that your careless words could trigger PTSD or other serious emotional reactions in? And, in any case, just because it might have been commonplace to perpetuate this kind of macho stereotype in workplaces in Georgia, doesn't make it okay to continue to create this kind of environment in Canadian workplaces. If you're taking on these "troubled" youth as a "social program" type of job (and, yes, that is what is under discussion in this thread), teaching them that making light of rape is accpetable goes against everything you should be trying to do.

[MissMalfoy]

NorthYorker, why do you insist on assuming and making things up about people's cultural backgrounds and experiences? You don't know how aware or unaware of "the old country" we are. I don't post a lot of my personal life on here, mostly in the Student forum, so I don't see how you are to judge? My older brother is the exact kind of Eastern European you're talking about - he is not very educated and works jobs with little skill required, low paying, a lot of work in factories and stuff like that. I have gone to Belarus where my grandparents and cousins live. I know what it is like. And still, I don't know anyone who will put up with threats like that, especially when they have moved to a new country for a better life. A country that has regulations about this kind of stuff in place. Just because I am a Canadian citizen does not mean I'm ignorant to the world.

I hope you never threaten someone in this way who can be triggered - or worse (for you), snap. People will not tolerate this as much as you think, especially people that live in Canada.

[BornRuff]

the national trend is flatter. some say that his input was not significant but it's hard to say. he could have done nothing like McGuinty and things might have looked completely different

They are all trending down. With the vastly different types of areas that encompass the entire USA, you can't expect those three urban areas to have the same slope as the national average. That graphic you posted appears to show a reduction in crime in urban areas. Since urban areas are only a portion of the USA as a whole, it makes sense that you would see a reduction in the national average, but not as steep.

The biggest issue you have there though is that it simply doesn't show that Rudy made any impact at all. Things look like they continued on the same path as they were headed before he took office and as similar cities took.

[Siskie]

Who turns down free money? :facepalm:

Money started growing on trees?

[ssharm02]

I wouldn't go near the troubled youths. I am not that kind of person....

[vero95]

They are all trending down. With the vastly different types of areas that encompass the entire USA, you can't expect those three urban areas to have the same slope as the national average. That graphic you posted appears to show a reduction in crime in urban areas. Since urban areas are only a portion of the USA as a whole, it makes sense that you would see a reduction in the national average, but not as steep.

The biggest issue you have there though is that it simply doesn't show that Rudy made any impact at all. Things look like they continued on the same path as they were headed before he took office and as similar cities took.

if you look at the graph, you will see that
1. NYC went below national average
2. other cities did not accomplish that
that's the difference Giuliani made. do you understand now?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Giuliani_crime_rate.png/300px-Giuliani_crime_rate.png

[BornRuff]

if you look at the graph, you will see that
1. NYC went below national average
2. other cities did not accomplish that
that's the difference Giuliani made. do you understand now?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Giuliani_crime_rate.png/300px-Giuliani_crime_rate.png

What evidence is there that this was anything other than a continuation of the trend that was already there before he came into office?

The second point is blatantly wrong. Many other cities were below the national average. Do you know what an average is? The two other cities mentioned here were not, but they also both started with a higher crime rate than New York in the first place. Not to mention that being above or below average doesn't really have any practical significance for individual cities.

Based on that graph, the person you really want to talk to is whoever was in charge of Newark.

[vero95]

What evidence is there that this was anything other than a continuation of the trend that was already there before he came into office?

The second point is blatantly wrong. Many other cities were below the national average. Do you know what an average is? The two other cities mentioned here were not, but they also both started with a higher crime rate than New York in the first place. Not to mention that being above or below average doesn't really have any practical significance for individual cities.

Based on that graph, the person you really want to talk to is whoever was in charge of Newark.

of course what I say is wrong :facepalm:
crime in the city is generally higher than the average of the country. they compared with west coast LA and Newark and only NYC went below
it made me laugh when you said being below or above average has no significance. that was one of the dumbest statements from you LOL
why Newark? if the crime rate was initially high, it's much easier to drop it quicker. it's much more difficult to make more progress once you get closer to the average
now stop writing your nonsense dude as if understood what you are talking about and understood those graphs ;)

[spike1128]

Hey,

That is exact way to stop 'gun violence'.
At the root.

These troubled youth live this life style for a reason. They lack family support.
Black brothers and sisters have faced hundreds of years of white oppression. Till this day they're marginalized in society.
What does that mean in 2012?

We have families living in poverty.
We have fathers who are quick to leave their children and baby mothers. They don't accept responsibility.
We have mothers with no way out.
Babies that are starving.
Teens with no direction and education.
They seek gangs as a means of social and financial support. Thats when we get all this violence. To make it worst its black people killing their own people.

We must find ways to empower the community and change this mentality. Only then will the violence stop.
The only problem is when this type of thinking is ingrained into certain communities, its hard turning back.

If there are creative solutions to help empower youth in these communities that would be great. But this kind of stuff doesn't happen over night... But these efforts can hopefully create strong leaders in the community who will help spread positive messages and empower others.

It means this will continue. Will like to see concrete numbers to show that given support by government and other volunteer groups can change this in a big way.

1) You grew up poor too. Didn't force you to be a gangsta. So families living in poverty != going to be gangsta
2) Take two people to get a baby. Father no responsibility, can't change that. The mother's fault for being to open?
3) Already pay big $ to support single mothers
4) Yes, need more mentors that grew up and made it out of poverty the right way => education / direction
5) Only I see this in poor black communities, no other cultural groups come here poor than next gen is poor as well. Not generalizing/stereotyping. You know, u work in housing.

[BornRuff]

of course what I say is wrong :facepalm:
crime in the city is generally higher than the average of the country. they compared with west coast LA and Newark and only NYC went below
it made me laugh when you said being below or above average has no significance. that was one of the dumbest statements from you LOL
why Newark? if the crime rate was initially high, it's much easier to drop it quicker. it's much more difficult to make more progress once you get closer to the average
now stop writing your nonsense dude as if understood what you are talking about and understood those graphs ;)

Explain to me exactly what the national average means to individual situations?

You happen to be wrong a lot, especially when you attempt to prove things. You have a real problem with interpreting information.

What magically changes when you pass the national average? Why does it necessarily get harder to lower the crime rate as you approach the national average? What significance does the crime rate in Kansas, Texas, etc, really have to people living in New York?

[vero95]

Explain to me exactly what the national average means to individual situations?

You happen to be wrong a lot, especially when you attempt to prove things. You have a real problem with interpreting information.

What magically changes when you pass the national average? Why does it necessarily get harder to lower the crime rate as you approach the national average? What significance does the crime rate in Kansas, Texas, etc, really have to people living in New York?

I already did explain what I meant. the national average is smaller than the ones in the cities

Crime among the country's twenty largest cities tended to be above the national average.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
therefore it's hard for a large city to be below average. both LA and Newark did not go below even though LA was on the right track
you are known to provide lots of "analysis" and phony information. I suggest you stop trolling or start to explain what you mean and give the source of your data :facepalm:

[BornRuff]

I already did explain what I meant. the national average is smaller than the ones in the cities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
therefore it's hard for a large city to be below average. both LA and Newark did not go below even though LA was on the right track
you are known to provide lots of "analysis" and phony information. I suggest you stop trolling or start to explain what you mean and give the source of your data :facepalm:

I am interpreting the very data that you provided. You said that it gets harder to reduce crime as you get closer to the national average, but you provided no information that would suggest anything about exactly when it is easier or harder to reduce crime.

What do you think crime in Texas or Wyoming really has to do with crime in New York?

[vero95]

I am interpreting the very data that you provided. You said that it gets harder to reduce crime as you get closer to the national average, but you provided no information that would suggest anything about exactly when it is easier or harder to reduce crime.

What do you think crime in Texas or Wyoming really has to do with crime in New York?

do not fool yourself that you are interpreting anything :facepalm:
it's obvious that poorer states have on average more crime
explain to me why I was wrong when I said neither LA nor Newark were not below national average or just stop trolling :facepalm:
you are well known to troll on this forum :facepalm:

[BornRuff]

do not fool yourself that you are interpreting anything :facepalm:
it's obvious that poorer states have on average more crime
explain to me why I was wrong when I said neither LA nor Newark were not below national average or just stop trolling :facepalm:
you are well known to troll on this forum :facepalm:

Haha, when did I disagree about their position relative to the national average? I disagree with your interpretation of that graph.

How do you know it is harder to reduce crime by the amount crime was reduced in New York, than say, the amount that it was reduced in Newark? Newark had a dramatically larger drop in crime over that time.

[rommelrommel]

Haha, when did I disagree about their position relative to the national average? I disagree with your interpretation of that graph.

How do you know it is harder to reduce crime by the amount crime was reduced in New York, than say, the amount that it was reduced in Newark? Newark had a dramatically larger drop in crime over that time.

He clearly has no idea what you're (rightly) pointing out. Unless you want to leave a breadcrumb trail have fun with this one.

[vero95]

He clearly has no idea what you're (rightly) pointing out. Unless you want to leave a breadcrumb trail have fun with this one.

why is that? :facepalm:

[vero95]

if you look at the graph, you will see that
1. NYC went below national average
2. other cities did not accomplish that


The second point is blatantly wrong. Many other cities were below the national average. Do you know what an average is? The two other cities mentioned here were not, but they also both started with a higher crime rate than New York in the first place. Not to mention that being above or below average doesn't really have any practical significance for individual cities.





Haha, when did I disagree about their position relative to the national average? I disagree with your interpretation of that graph.
here, dude. I quoted my second point that you said is wrong. I then quoted a statement for you that crime in the cities is usually greater than the national average. if crime in the city is below the national average, it's an accomplishment
do you know now why you are a troll?



How do you know it is harder to reduce crime by the amount crime was reduced in New York, than say, the amount that it was reduced in Newark? Newark had a dramatically larger drop in crime over that time.
I explained to you why, didn't I? it's harder to reach below the national average level in the city. LA did not do that but the graph indicated it was going to
also assuming the national average is your benchmark, if you are far from that number, it's easier to make a change
if speed of light is the speed limit, it's much easier to speed up particles to the vicinity of that limit and much harder to make linear progress when you are close to the limit
the problem with dudes like you is they do not even understand when they are trolling :facepalm:

[BananaHunter]

Troubled youth is a difficult thing to rectified. It's not a simple matter of giving them jobs. If you take Ford's words it'll seem too simplistic but you have to keep in mind that if you take Einstein's relativity principal and summed it up in one sentence, it'll be too simplistic. Ideas start simple and you build on it. But everything starts off small and grows. Obviously Ford (or any speech giver) is not going to spend 15 minutes explaining all the little details.

Troubled youth don't rise out of one traumatic childhood incident. People have a tendency to attribute things to 1-3 events for simplicity. The reality is that troubled youth became that way because of the environment they grew up in. It could be a combination of their parents or living in an area where certain types of negative behavior are more prevalent. Over many small incidences kids learn and adopt negative behaviour to adapt to their environment. Usually these conditions stem from poverty.

So by this logic, creating more jobs does indeed reduce a lot of problems. Parents with stable jobs are more likely to provide a better environment for their kids. Such kids are less likely to become troubled youth to begin with. With less troubled youth, kids have less negative role models to follow.

Of course, the real challenge is not if creating jobs is good. The real question is how economically viable is it to do business in these areas. Setting up shops in these areas brings a lot of problems. Not only is there higher risk of damage and theft, the customer base is also less wealthy. This forces you to push price down. Without substantial subsidies, I don't think anyone sane will run a business in troubled areas. With the way government subsidies work, they'll likely do a lot of anal things like audits and what not. The end result is that you're unlikely to make a return on your investment.

[Heero01]

My dad has been robbed at gun point 4 times by black youths when he tried to first start a business near Jane and Finch (25-30 years ago).

Now - every black person from Africa or the ghettos seems to lack respect for property which doesn't belong to them. Have you seen how they treat public housing?

People are spitting inside the buildings - shitting in the hall ways, pissing in the hallways. Its a stupid situation.

so NO

[BornRuff]

here, dude. I quoted my second point that you said is wrong. I then quoted a statement for you that crime in the cities is usually greater than the national average. if crime in the city is below the national average, it's an accomplishment
do you know now why you are a troll?

You stated "other cities didn't accomplish that" which is wrong. Newark and LA are not the only other cities in the country.

You can choose to use the national average as a milestone if you want, but as you will hopefully eventually realize, the national average has little practical significance to individual cities. It is mostly a measure of what is happening elsewhere. What magically changes when you pass the national average?


I explained to you why, didn't I? it's harder to reach below the national average level in the city. LA did not do that but the graph indicated it was going to
also assuming the national average is your benchmark, if you are far from that number, it's easier to make a change
if speed of light is the speed limit, it's much easier to speed up particles to the vicinity of that limit and much harder to make linear progress when you are close to the limit
the problem with dudes like you is they do not even understand when they are trolling :facepalm:

You have not explained anything, you have just stated that it is harder.

The national average is not a physical limit. There is no reason to believe that proximity to the national average is really going to have any effect on how hard it is to reduce crime. Think about it, why would it? Why would an average of the crime rates from places like Wyoming and New Mexico make it physically harder to reduce the crime rate at a certain point in New York?

[vero95]

You stated "other cities didn't accomplish that" which is wrong. Newark and LA are not the only other cities in the country.

it's not wrong. those in the graph did not. crime in cities tends to be greater than the national average so there should not be many. what other cities did? you should really start backing everything what you say with facts. I todl you things are not always like you think they are




You can choose to use the national average as a milestone if you want, but as you will hopefully eventually realize, the national average has little practical significance to individual cities. It is mostly a measure of what is happening elsewhere. What magically changes when you pass the national average?
what else should be used as a benchmark? zero rate? the national average tells you what's the expected crime rate at any given time. it does not change that much over time




You have not explained anything, you have just stated that it is harder.

The national average is not a physical limit. There is no reason to believe that proximity to the national average is really going to have any effect on how hard it is to reduce crime. Think about it, why would it? Why would an average of the crime rates from places like Wyoming and New Mexico make it physically harder to reduce the crime rate at a certain point in New York?

I did but you do not understand that

it's not a physical limit. zero is a physical limit. the average is a benchmark. zero crime is not possible in reality. if crime in cities tends to be higher than average, reaching levels below the average is an accomplishment and that's what I was saying
if you think this is wrong, please provide facts that there is lots of cities that started above national average (I mean crime level is very low in those areas) and made it below average at the time Giuliani was in the office

btw, Wyoming and Mexico may have nothing to do with crime in NYC like blood pressure of my two neighbours is meaningless if I wanted to check if my pressure is normal or not. you need to compare with something that is considered "normal" and in a healthy society that normal will be close to the average. do you understand now

you really need to educate yourself when you say someone is wrong. you are well known for trolling and to be wrong ;)

[BornRuff]

it's not wrong. those in the graph did not. crime in cities tends to be greater than the national average so there should not be many. what other cities did? you should really start backing everything what you say with facts. I todl you things are not always like you think they are

You never said "other cities in this graph", you said "other cities".

Even your own source said that crime rates "tend" to be higher than the national average, so right there it would imply that there are large cities that are below the national average.

You are attempting to infer things from data that is in no way supported by the data you presented, so pointing out where you are wrong doesn't really take any additional data.


what else should be used as a benchmark? zero rate? the national average tells you what's the expected crime rate at any given time. it does not change that much over time

The national average is in no way the expected crime rate in any particular city. Averaging crime rates from all over the nation doesn't give you the expected crime rate for New York. Do you understand that?

Looking at the crime rates compared to historical crime rates in that particular community might be a better benchmark, or to cities of a comparable size. Compared to LA, New York performed roughly the same. Passing the national average didn't have any sort of magical impact.


I did but you do not understand that

it's not a physical limit. zero is a physical limit. the average is a benchmark. zero crime is not possible in reality. if crime in cities tends to be higher than average, reaching levels below the average is an accomplishment and that's what I was saying
if you think this is wrong, please provide facts that there is lots of cities that started above national average (I mean crime level is very low in those areas) and made it below average at the time Giuliani was in the office

btw, Wyoming and Mexico may have nothing to do with crime in NYC like blood pressure of my two neighbours is meaningless if I wanted to check if my pressure is normal or not. you need to compare with something that is considered "normal" and in a healthy society that normal will be close to the average. do you understand now

you really need to educate yourself when you say someone is wrong. you are well known for trolling and to be wrong ;)

When you talk about breaking the sound barrier as you did in the previous post, there are physical forces at play. The national average has no effect on crime rates in any particular region as you approach the average. When you say it gets harder to reduce the crime rate as you approach the national average, that is what you are saying, but there is simply nothing to support that.

If you are trying to lower your blood pressure, the average blood pressure has nothing to do with how hard it may be to reduce any one persons blood pressure. Some people have a very easy time keeping their blood pressure down, others are more genetically predisposed to it and have a very hard time keeping their blood pressure down. The national average doesn't tell you anything about that.

[rommelrommel]

Your arguement is simply logically and statistically nonsense. At best you showed a mild correlation between relative NYC reported crime rates decreasing and RG being in power. Your extremely limited data set also tended to suggest that NTC reported crime rate was falling at about the same rate before and after RG being in power. It tells us nothing about the causes of or solutions to NYC's crime. Hell, RG could have simply decreased reported crime rates by giving the impression to citizens that reporting minor crime was not worthwhile. The factors that drive crime reporting are just about as varied and hard to pin down as those that cause the actual crime. A city that investigates everything no matter how minor may have a very high reported rate relative to actual crime as citizens report everything. A high crime rate city that doesn't bother may have a very low reported rate since citizens don't tend to bother making reports if they know that no one investigates. Proving causation between policy and actual crime rate is practically impossible and you can find data to suggest that virtually anything reduces crime.

Also, RG didn't invent broken window theory by any means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

New York City

The book's author, George L. Kelling, was hired as a consultant to the New York City Transit Authority in 1985, and measures to test the broken windows theory were implemented by David Gunn. The presence of graffiti was intensively targeted, and the subway system was cleaned from 1984 until 1990. Kelling has also been hired as a consultant to Boston's and Los Angeles's Police Departments.

In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton described George L. Kelling as his "intellectual mentor", and implemented zero tolerance of fare-dodging, easier arrestee processing methods and background checks on all those arrested. Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bill Bratton as his police commissioner who adopted the strategy more widely in New York City after Giuliani's election in 1993, under the rubrics of "quality of life" and "zero tolerance".

Thus, Giuliani's "zero-tolerance" roll out was part of an interlocking set of wider reforms, crucial parts of which had been underway since 1985. Bratton had the police more strictly enforce the law against subway fare evasion, public drinking, urination, and the "squeegee men" who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and demanding payment. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa,[3] rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.

Criminology

According to most criminologists who speak of a broader "backlash",[12] the broken windows theory is not theoretically sound.[13] They claim that the "broken windows theory" closely relates correlation with causality, a reasoning which is prone to fallacy. David Thacher, assistant professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of Michigan, stated in a 2004 paper that:[13]


[S]ocial science has not been kind to the broken windows theory. A number of scholars reanalyzed the initial studies that appeared to support it.... Others pressed forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between disorder and crime. The most prominent among them concluded that the relationship between disorder and serious crime is modest, and even that relationship is largely an artifact of more fundamental social forces.

It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other U.S. cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted "zero-tolerance" policies and those that had not.[14] In the Winter 2006 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the later Department of Housing and Urban Development program that re-housed inner-city project tenants in New York into more orderly neighborhoods.[15] The broken windows theory would suggest that these tenants would commit less crime once moved, due to the more stable conditions on the streets. Harcourt and Ludwig found instead that the tenants continued to commit crime at the same rate.

[vero95]

You never said "other cities in this graph", you said "other cities".

Even your own source said that crime rates "tend" to be higher than the national average, so right there it would imply that there are large cities that are below the national average.

You are attempting to infer things from data that is in no way supported by the data you presented, so pointing out where you are wrong doesn't really take any additional data.

do you understand the meaning of majority? again, show me stats that show the majority of other cities went below national average and then I will agree that what I said is blatantly wrong
until then you are trolling



The national average is in no way the expected crime rate in any particular city. Averaging crime rates from all over the nation doesn't give you the expected crime rate for New York. Do you understand that?

Looking at the crime rates compared to historical crime rates in that particular community might be a better benchmark, or to cities of a comparable size. Compared to LA, New York performed roughly the same. Passing the national average didn't have any sort of magical impact.
the national average is not an expected crime rate. it's a benchmark, dude. do you know what's benchmark? in reality, zero crime rate is impossible in large cities. you should really educate yourself about the basics when you try to "explain" things to other people. not everyone will take your garbage




When you talk about breaking the sound barrier as you did in the previous post, there are physical forces at play. The national average has no effect on crime rates in any particular region as you approach the average. When you say it gets harder to reduce the crime rate as you approach the national average, that is what you are saying, but there is simply nothing to support that.

If you are trying to lower your blood pressure, the average blood pressure has nothing to do with how hard it may be to reduce any one persons blood pressure. Some people have a very easy time keeping their blood pressure down, others are more genetically predisposed to it and have a very hard time keeping their blood pressure down. The national average doesn't tell you anything about that.

what do you mean I gave you nothing to support what I was talking about? I showed you that crime rate in large cities tend to be larger than the national average. the graph was showing you two other cities that did not cross that average. you claim it's blatantly wrong to say it's difficult to cross the national average so I asked you to provide me stats that indicate the majority of large cities in US crossed the national average. if you give me that data to back what you are saying, I will agree that you are right
again, until then you are trolling. do you understand what's your homework? you have to prove what you are saying

[vero95]

Your arguement is simply logically and statistically nonsense. At best you showed a mild correlation between relative NYC reported crime rates decreasing and RG being in power. Your extremely limited data set also tended to suggest that NTC reported crime rate was falling at about the same rate before and after RG being in power. It tells us nothing about the causes of or solutions to NYC's crime. Hell, RG could have simply decreased reported crime rates by giving the impression to citizens that reporting minor crime was not worthwhile. The factors that drive crime reporting are just about as varied and hard to pin down as those that cause the actual crime. A city that investigates everything no matter how minor may have a very high reported rate relative to actual crime as citizens report everything. A high crime rate city that doesn't bother may have a very low reported rate since citizens don't tend to bother making reports if they know that no one investigates. Proving causation between policy and actual crime rate is practically impossible and you can find data to suggest that virtually anything reduces crime.

Also, RG didn't invent broken window theory by any means:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

New York City

The book's author, George L. Kelling, was hired as a consultant to the New York City Transit Authority in 1985, and measures to test the broken windows theory were implemented by David Gunn. The presence of graffiti was intensively targeted, and the subway system was cleaned from 1984 until 1990. Kelling has also been hired as a consultant to Boston's and Los Angeles's Police Departments.

In 1990, William J. Bratton became head of the New York City Transit Police. Bratton described George L. Kelling as his "intellectual mentor", and implemented zero tolerance of fare-dodging, easier arrestee processing methods and background checks on all those arrested. Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani hired Bill Bratton as his police commissioner who adopted the strategy more widely in New York City after Giuliani's election in 1993, under the rubrics of "quality of life" and "zero tolerance".

Thus, Giuliani's "zero-tolerance" roll out was part of an interlocking set of wider reforms, crucial parts of which had been underway since 1985. Bratton had the police more strictly enforce the law against subway fare evasion, public drinking, urination, and the "squeegee men" who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and demanding payment. According to the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa,[3] rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years.

Criminology

According to most criminologists who speak of a broader "backlash",[12] the broken windows theory is not theoretically sound.[13] They claim that the "broken windows theory" closely relates correlation with causality, a reasoning which is prone to fallacy. David Thacher, assistant professor of public policy and urban planning at the University of Michigan, stated in a 2004 paper that:[13]


[S]ocial science has not been kind to the broken windows theory. A number of scholars reanalyzed the initial studies that appeared to support it.... Others pressed forward with new, more sophisticated studies of the relationship between disorder and crime. The most prominent among them concluded that the relationship between disorder and serious crime is modest, and even that relationship is largely an artifact of more fundamental social forces.

It has also been argued that rates of major crimes also dropped in many other U.S. cities during the 1990s, both those that had adopted "zero-tolerance" policies and those that had not.[14] In the Winter 2006 edition of the University of Chicago Law Review, Bernard Harcourt and Jens Ludwig looked at the later Department of Housing and Urban Development program that re-housed inner-city project tenants in New York into more orderly neighborhoods.[15] The broken windows theory would suggest that these tenants would commit less crime once moved, due to the more stable conditions on the streets. Harcourt and Ludwig found instead that the tenants continued to commit crime at the same rate.

sorry buddy but you have no clue what you are talking about. you should google first before you disagree with someone and not the opposite
quoting unrelated stuff from wiki will not make you an intelectual. saying that the graph does not tell you the causes and solution is just a cliche. everyone knows that so it does not make you smart. if you disagree too that it's hard to cross the national average for a large city, show me the proof that the majority of cities crossed that average. do not tell me some cr*p that is not related to the question

[NorthYorker]

:confused: No, it's not an offer to give them a million dollars...so that makes it exactly the same as a detailed threat about how you're going to rape them?
NorthYorker, why do you insist on assuming and making things up about people's cultural backgrounds and experiences?OK, ladies, it was fun while it lasted. But I strongly feel that we should end this conversation, because I was pulling your around all the time. You see, anyone wading into debate about communications with Russophone toughies should know one thing. In Russian profane language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_mat) same word is used to say "I'll kick you out" and "I rape you". Literally, the same word, not just similarly sounding. MM, you can ask your brother about it, he should know. I am apologizing for pulling you deeper and deeper into the fray, all the time very clearly seeing that you are unaware of basic cornerstone of the situation you're trying to discuss. On the top of that, I could not resist an urge to let you repeat, almost verbatim, several Russian jokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_joke#Taboo_vocabulary) about well-meaning but clueless outsiders (usually foreigners) trying to figure out the situation.

However, while I'm guilty of pranking you, it does not change the main premise. You fell victims of the prank because you took upon yourself to judge things you were and are clearly unaware about. Also, looking at my own comments now, couple of days later, I made one surprising discovery. I've participated in quite a few Internet debates related to Arab-Israel conflict, and it always surprised me how livid Israelis would get about some well-wisher wading in and saying "OK, guys, you must do so-and-so, and everything would be just perfect". I used to tell my Israeli friends "OK, guys, you need to be patient, explaining this and that instead of telling ignoramuses to sod off." Well, I've lost my cool just as fast, once you ladies started to accuse me of things bred by your cluelessness. And I want to thank you for letting me to discover this side of my character. Bottomless patience for ignorance is a Divine virtue, and I don't possess it, being a mere human.

And, one final clarification:

My older brother is the exact kind of Eastern European you're talking about - he is not very educated and works jobs with little skill required, low paying, a lot of work in factories and stuff like that.I draw a very clear line between "toughies" and "working-class kids", especially among 2nd-gen immigrants (it is very tough to grow a respect for education in a kid who can tell his Ph.D. father "I can drive a cab just like you without friggin Ph.D." and to his Ph.D. mother "I can pour coffee in Tims, like you do, without a scientific degree"). From what you've revealed about your brother, he's a working-class, but (hopefully) not among "troubled people".

[divx]

It means this will continue. Will like to see concrete numbers to show that given support by government and other volunteer groups can change this in a big way.

1) You grew up poor too. Didn't force you to be a gangsta. So families living in poverty != going to be gangsta
2) Take two people to get a baby. Father no responsibility, can't change that. The mother's fault for being to open?
3) Already pay big $ to support single mothers
4) Yes, need more mentors that grew up and made it out of poverty the right way => education / direction
5) Only I see this in poor black communities, no other cultural groups come here poor than next gen is poor as well. Not generalizing/stereotyping. You know, u work in housing.

ditto, people are in charge of their own live and is responsible for their own actions, don't blame on anyone else.

[jerrysiz]

OK, ladies, it was fun while it lasted. But I strongly feel that we should end this conversation, because I was pulling your around all the time. You see, anyone wading into debate about communications with Russophone toughies should know one thing. In Russian profane language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_mat) same word is used to say "I'll kick you out" and "I rape you". Literally, the same word, not just similarly sounding. MM, you can ask your brother about it, he should know. I am apologizing for pulling you deeper and deeper into the fray, all the time very clearly seeing that you are unaware of basic cornerstone of the situation you're trying to discuss. On the top of that, I could not resist an urge to let you repeat, almost verbatim, several Russian jokes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_joke#Taboo_vocabulary) about well-meaning but clueless outsiders (usually foreigners) trying to figure out the situation.

However, while I'm guilty of pranking you, it does not change the main premise. You fell victims of the prank because you took upon yourself to judge things you were and are clearly unaware about. Also, looking at my own comments now, couple of days later, I made one surprising discovery. I've participated in quite a few Internet debates related to Arab-Israel conflict, and it always surprised me how livid Israelis would get about some well-wisher wading in and saying "OK, guys, you must do so-and-so, and everything would be just perfect". I used to tell my Israeli friends "OK, guys, you need to be patient, explaining this and that instead of telling ignoramuses to sod off." Well, I've lost my cool just as fast, once you ladies started to accuse me of things bred by your cluelessness. And I want to thank you for letting me to discover this side of my character. Bottomless patience for ignorance is a Divine virtue, and I don't possess it, being a mere human.

Well, isn't this an interesting attempt at backpedaling? Nice try, but without even trying I see two problems with it. First, your assumption that every kid from every eastern european country, even those that were not raised in EE, would both share your understanding of these idioms, and deem them an acceptable way to treat workers in Canada. Second, you didn't just say you'd use the word, you said you would give them a description of just what kind of sexual acts you would subject them to. While a single word might have a double meaning, a vivid description of particular acts takes away the ambiguity of whether you're using a term in a sexual context. Describing the sexual acts negates the possibility you were using the term to mean "kick you out".

I guess after a couple of days when you re-read what you wrote in this thread, you realized just how disgusting you sounded with your defense of threatening to rape kids, and thought you'd rather be seen as a troll than a guy that would advocate describing to young workers just how he was going to have sex with them. I don't blame you, being seen a troll is definitely the lesser of two evils in this case. So now it's "Ha ha, I was just trolling you all along, aren't you guys stupid. Obviously every EE kid or kid with parents from any part of EE shares my understanding of this regional idiom wherein saying I'm going to rape them and describing the particular sexual acts I am going to subject them to is totally fine and not at all sexual. You are obviously just ignorant of the ways of those with my EE background because all you've got is...your EE background." Yeah, okay, if that's what you need to say to make yourself feel better.

[trixstar]

i don't think this would work.. By morning, the business will only have it's foundation left.

[NorthYorker]

Well, isn't this an interesting attempt at backpedaling?This was not an "attempt at backpedaling". This was an explanation why you should not wade into debate about a stuff you have no clue about. But I see that you share a trait of many teachers, being unable to admit your mistake. Seriously, there is nothing to discuss here and conversation goes in loops. You insist on your right to judge stuff based on absolutely incomplete translation. I've used this "incomplete translation" deliberately, to test if you have a slightest clue about the matter. And you immediately dished your ignorance in huge steaming hips, with cherry garden on top, producing gazillions of cherries. So be it.

By that way, you are being racist in treating "EE background" as blood thing. "Parents of EE origin" have absolutely no relevance to the matter. I was talking about "mentality (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/would-you-open-business-priority-neighbourhood-hire-troubled-youth-1204221/#post15057061)I'm familiar with", not "EE origin (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/would-you-open-business-priority-neighbourhood-hire-troubled-youth-1204221/8/#post15080113)", and you are either racist in equating those, or are again ignoring dirty facts (what I actually said) in favour of your right to judge, even if you judge things I've never said. Really, there's no other explanation.

[NorthYorker]

First, your assumption that every kid from every eastern european country, even those that were not raised in EE, would both share your understanding of these idiomsNot true, I was talking about mentality. Best case scenario, you did not notice it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously.

Second, you didn't just say you'd use the word, you said you would give them a description of just what kind of sexual acts you would subject them to.I've given you a link to the article explaining some basics of Russian profane (understood by youths of mentality I'm familiar with). In this lingo, "giving a description of the act" is verbatim same as "threatening to lay off". You clearly don't know it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously.
Describing the sexual acts negates the possibility you were using the term to mean "kick you out".I've given you a link to the article explaining some basics of Russian profane (understood by youths of mentality I'm familiar with). In this lingo, "giving a description of the act" is verbatim same as "threatening to lay off". You clearly don't know it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously. Even your deepest belief that "it is impossible" does not change the fact that it is. You are just being ignorant about it (not that I expect a lady to be familiar with this unprintable stuff, but I expect anyone passing judgement to possess at least modicum of knowledge, and you does not).
I guess after a couple of days when you re-read what you wrote in this thread, you realized just how disgusting you soundedNope, I just got tired of playing you for ignoramuses, explained the situation and apologized. However, you are still very insistent that you can possess no knowledge about the matter and still judge on it.

[jerrysiz]

This was not an "attempt at backpedaling". This was an explanation why you should not wade into debate about a stuff you have no clue about. But I see that you share a trait of many teachers, being unable to admit your mistake. Seriously, there is nothing to discuss here and conversation goes in loops. You insist on your right to judge stuff based on absolutely incomplete translation. I've used this "incomplete translation" deliberately, to test if you have a slightest clue about the matter. And you immediately dished your ignorance in huge steaming hips, with cherry garden on top, producing gazillions of cherries. So be it.

By that way, you are being racist in treating "EE background" as blood thing. "Parents of EE origin" have absolutely no relevance to the matter. I was talking about "mentality (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/would-you-open-business-priority-neighbourhood-hire-troubled-youth-1204221/#post15057061)I'm familiar with", not "EE origin (http://forums.redflagdeals.com/would-you-open-business-priority-neighbourhood-hire-troubled-youth-1204221/8/#post15080113)", and you are either racist in equating those, or are again ignoring dirty facts (what I actually said) in favour of your right to judge, even if you judge things I've never said. Really, there's no other explanation.


Not true, I was talking about mentality. Best case scenario, you did not notice it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously.
I've given you a link to the article explaining some basics of Russian profane (understood by youths of mentality I'm familiar with). In this lingo, "giving a description of the act" is verbatim same as "threatening to lay off". You clearly don't know it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously.I've given you a link to the article explaining some basics of Russian profane (understood by youths of mentality I'm familiar with). In this lingo, "giving a description of the act" is verbatim same as "threatening to lay off". You clearly don't know it. However, you are still being judgmental and wrong simultaneously. Even your deepest belief that "it is impossible" does not change the fact that it is. You are just being ignorant about it (not that I expect a lady to be familiar with this unprintable stuff, but I expect anyone passing judgement to possess at least modicum of knowledge, and you does not).Nope, I just got tired of playing you for ignoramuses, explained the situation and apologized. However, you are still very insistent that you can possess no knowledge about the matter and still judge on it.

<yawn> Sure, I'm a racist when I point out inconsistencies in your arguments and the fact that others with the same background as you have provided completely contradictory evidence (oh, but I guess that doesn't count because we're "ladies" and so couldn't possibly understand, just dig yourself deeper why don't you?). Like I said, whatever makes you feel better. No one here is going to believe that you seriously think that you know the minds of every EE youth (or, youth with an EE mentality, if you think that makes such a big difference) or that you're the supreme authority on what every single one of them is or is not going to find offensive now that they're in Canada, but as long as you believe it you don't have to care that everyone else just sees you justifying threatening kids who work for you by describing in detail just how you're going to rape them, and then making pathetic claims that you never really did that. You'd really do better to just drop this and stop trying to defend the indefensible. I'm happy to let you have your little out, but if you continue to justify what you said and insult those of us who find it disgusting I'll just have to continue pointing out how innane your arguments are. So, sure, we're just innocent women who can't understand, and what you're saying is a totally acceptable way to treat workers in Canada. That's a completely reasonable and believeable position. Are we done now? :rolleyes:

[NorthYorker]

<yawn> Sure, I'm a racist when I point out inconsistencies in your arguments and the fact that others with the same background as you have provided completely contradictory evidence (oh, but I guess that doesn't count because we're "ladies" and so couldn't possibly understand, just dig yourself deeper why don't you?). Like I said, whatever makes you feel better. No one here is going to believe that you seriously think that you know the minds of every EE youth (or, youth with an EE mentality, if you think that makes such a big difference) or that you're the supreme authority on what every single one of them is or is not going to find offensive now that they're in Canada, but as long as you believe it you don't have to care that everyone else just sees you justifying threatening kids who work for you by describing in detail just how you're going to rape them, and then making pathetic claims that you never really did that. You'd really do better to just drop this and stop trying to defend the indefensible. I'm happy to let you have your little out, but if you continue to justify what you said and insult those of us who find it disgusting I'll just have to continue pointing out how innane your arguments are. So, sure, we're just innocent women who can't understand, and what you're saying is a totally acceptable way to treat workers in Canada. That's a completely reasonable and believeable position. Are we done now? :rolleyes:I'm just saving this post of yours so anyone can compare your pathetic lack of knowledge with bottomless depth of belief in your holy right to judge things you are ignorant about.

I have to admit I'm truly delighted by a marvel of wisdom "mentality is not a big difference". You are not just clueless about the topic of EE mentality, you have no clue in general that mentality can be different. We're not done, by the way, I'm having a great fun watching your denial of every single fact which does not fit which your fantasies. From having no clue about differences in mentality you graduated to questioning importance of knowing it at all. Please continue, I'm curious what would you declare "not a big difference" next time.

[deltone]

To Northyorker

I'm not even going to bother to try to tear apart all of your posts because jerrysiz has done a wonderful job at doing that, and besides, I must acknowledge I'm not as eloquent as she so I'll keep it REAL simple.

Last time I looked, this is CANADA and we don't care what is acceptable in whatever country you came from. It's not acceptable here in CANADA so case closed.

[jerrysiz]

I'm just saving this post of yours so anyone can compare your pathetic lack of knowledge with bottomless depth of belief in your holy right to judge things you are ignorant about.

I have to admit I'm truly delighted by a marvel of wisdom "mentality is not a big difference". You are not just clueless about the topic of EE mentality, you have no clue in general that mentality can be different. We're not done, by the way, I'm having a great fun watching your denial of every single fact which does not fit which your fantasies. From having no clue about differences in mentality you graduated to questioning importance of knowing it at all. Please continue, I'm curious what would you declare "not a big difference" next time.

Ah, comprehension issues (or perhaps just deliberately misstating what I said). You're talking about kids from EE, or canadian born kids with EE parents. You prefer to refer to them as kids with EE mentality, fine. I don't see the big difference in practise because obviously these kids developed this "mentality" living in EE, or living in Canada with EE parents and community, but if you want to spell out "EE mentality", that's fine, it makes no difference to your argument. Just out of interest, how do you suppose these kids developed this "mentality" if not having lived in EE or within an EE family and community in Canada? Oh, wait, that's "racist" apparently. :confused: Just where exactly do you see this big difference? The only thing I can think of is that there are kids that are from EE or born into EE communities in Canada that would not have this "mentality", but you couldn't mean this, as that would prove my point that they would not share your understanding or acceptance of the idioms, and therefore that you cannot presume to be able to read the possible reactions of every troubled youth you would hire, no matter what their background.

I tried to give you an out, but feel free to continue embarassing yourself. The wiki page you linked simply shows that russian profanity is sex-based, shocking (and, yes, I did know this already). It does not prove that providing a vivid description of just how you're going to rape a kid is simply a totally non-sexual, non-offensive way to say you'll fire them. If you say "suck my c***", it can be seen as a simple but profane denial or negation of what someone has said to you, but if you describe in detail they way you want someone to perform that act, it is no longer a flippant non-sexual negation. Even if I grant you that there is a word that has a double meaning of I'm going to rape you/I'm going to kick you out (not that you've provided any evidence of this either, but I wouldn't find it surprising), going on to describe the act in detail removes the ambiguity. And, let's say I even grant you that you could vividly describe the several specific sexual acts you're going to perform during this rape and that this is still just a non-offensive term for "I'll kick you out" (nonsense, but let's just say) it still does nothing to defend your position that this would be an acceptable business practice in Canada. You're working in Canada, you cannot presume to judge the level of your employees' EE "mentality" with such certainty, and in any case, in setting up a business in a priority neighborhood for at-risk youth, it is abhorrent that you would be teaching them that this kind of statement is acceptable (and, yes, that is part of the purpose of running this kind of business, your lack of understanding of the article in the OP notwithstanding).

Please, continue to ignore all these points and just hammer away at how no one but you understands what might or might not be potentially offensive to your young workers. Refuse to believe that you might possibly misjudge someone's "mentality" and seriously offend or trigger them by using an idiom they do not understand or accept as inoffensive. Like I said, you only have to convince yourself, there's no chance that anyone else will buy any of this crap.

[NorthYorker]

I'm not even going to bother to try to tear apart all of your posts because jerrysiz has done a wonderful job at doing thatSeriously? That's what it look like? :( I'm seriously disappointed, because the simple statement of fact is that she, as I said, being absolutely ignorant about the matter. She provides abundance of very well-written but absolutely baseless attacks, tearing apart a strawman she created out of her own ignorance, but that's about it. I was hoping that links I've posted do prove that she's attacking an imagined target. But, apparently, it was too boring for you to read them.


Ah, comprehension issuesNo, I think it is more than that. You graduated from not knowing stuff you dare to pass judgement about, to deliberate misrepresentation of what you've claimed you've read.
The wiki page you linked simply shows that russian profanity is sex-based, shocking (and, yes, I did know this already).To begin with, I've posted TWO links, and your use of singular proves that you read ONE of them. Again, this proves that you do not pay too much attention at boring facts, just ignoring information about stuff before issuing your judgement. Next comes the deliberate misrepresentation. That is what the article said:

Another series of jokes exploits the richness of the mat vocabulary, which can give a substitute to a great many words of everyday conversation. Other languages often use profanity in a similar way (like the English *****, for example), but the highly synthetic grammar of Russian provides for the unambiguity and the outstandingly great number of various derivations from a single mat root. Emil Draitser points out that linguists explain that the linguistic properties of the Russian language rich in affixes allows for expression of a wide variety of feelings and notions using only a few core mat words I have no doubt that an Anglophone teacher can NOT be confused about meaning of "wide variety of notions", so I have to conclude that you deliberately misinterpreted what you've read.

if you want to spell out "EE mentality", that's fine, it makes no difference to your argument. Just out of interest, how do you suppose these kids developed this "mentality" if not having lived in EE or within an EE family and community in Canada?All Chinese are humans, but not all humans are Chinese. All EE toughies did grow up with EE parents, but not all kids of EE extraction are toughies, so your argument about "every kid from every eastern european country" is, at best, a logical fallacy and, at worst, deliberate distortion of my words.
Just where exactly do you see this big difference? Above.
you couldn't mean this, as that would prove my point that they would not share your understanding or acceptance of the idioms, and therefore that you cannot presume to be able to read the possible reactions of every troubled youth you would hire, no matter what their background.Oh sure, since I've started with comment that I can only "read" the type of toughies who do have "the mentality", it must mean that I could not have meant it. As illogical as your other comments, but deltone proved that boring logic and facts are irrelevant in this conversation.

It does not prove that providing a vivid description of just how you're going to rape a kid is simply a totally non-sexual, non-offensive way to say you'll fire them. Speaking about "vivid description", what part of the "wide variety of notions" statement don't you understand exactly? Yes, this vivid description can provide a "wide variety of notions". Offensive? Yes, it is moderately offensive :( Somewhat along the lines of "F U" in the Canadian culture. Can you, with your boundless "depth" of knowledge, share a recipe to get the message across without throwing the kid back into dumpster he's trying to dig himself out of? Firing him would be non-offensive, but would deny him a chance.

If you say "suck my c***", it can be seen as a simple but profane denial or negation of what someone has said to you, but if you describe in detail they way you want someone to perform that act, it is no longer a flippant non-sexual negation. Again, we're having a "lost in translation" moment. Your argument is basically "I don't believe that any profane statement in any language can be different from the English, so it can not be". Seriously, I do not know how to deal with this situation. You believe in "how it must be for me to fell happy" not in "how it is".
not that you've provided any evidence of this eitherPlease ask MissMalfoy to consult with her brother. I know it is so, he knows it too.
it still does nothing to defend your position that this would be an acceptable business practice in Canada.jerrysiz, have you tried to go to China and ask questions in Swahili? Seriously, does a notion "there's an appropriate communication tool for each group" ever cross your mind? Yes, swearing is not a good business practice anywhere in the world, not just (surprise, surprise) in Canada. No, there might be no other tools to communicate with this particular group but in profane. Again, in umpteen time (and all in vain), we're not talking about "all EE kids" being communicated with in this fashion. But for this particular group, profane is just an indication "this is a serious talk". You can repeat the "you're backpedaling" mantra ad nauseam, it does not make it true. Although it works to convince other clueless that you are right.
you cannot presume to judge the level of your employees' EE "mentality" with such certaintyI can. I must. OP was asking "would you hire troubled", and I've responded that I might deal with very narrow subset of "troubled". So, would I hire a troubled youth, I would be do my level best to ensure that he's from this particular and narrow background. At first sign that he is not I would get all formal on him and would just throw a book at him and fire him for being drunk on the job.
Refuse to believe that you might possibly misjudge someone's "mentality" and seriously offend or trigger them by using an idiom they do not understand or accept as inoffensive.Oh, I do not refuse to believe it. I would be treating everyone I suspect of not having this mentality completely by the book. The trouble is, a troubled kid dealt with by the book usually finds himself in the same dumpster he was trying to get himself out of. Why? Exactly because he's troubled, and sometimes his troubles would let his employer down. So, inoffensive way of treating the trouble would be to kick his butt out, instead of having "the talk". Profane here is just a mean to convey that this is a serious talk, I don't know why you are so offended by it. Seriously, you sound like 10 y.o. girl who just found out that there's blood and pain during childbirth. "Ohmigod! Yikes! This is so gross!!!"

[jerrysiz]

*lots of words to say exactly the same thing over again*

Well, nothing new there. Still nothing proving that providing a graphic description of non-consensual sexual acts shares an exact meaning with a word meaning to kick out (some vague reference to "wide variety of notions" won't cut it, if you have evidence cite it), nothing illuminating your 100% ironclad ability to distinguish "toughies" that wouldn't be offended by their much older boss threatening to rape them from your average run-of-the-mill EE kid (not even a passing concern that if your magic powers of divination fail you, you may trigger someone with PTSD...nice), and the continued defense of threatening to rape your young workers as "an appropriate communication tool for the group" indicative of nothing more than "that this is a serious talk". It's actually somewhat amazing that you wrote that much and didn't even accidentally come close to addressing any of the actual points in the criticism against you.

You're in Canada, the kids you hire are in Canada. Regardless of what may or may not be acceptable in EE workplaces (or EE workplaces for those with EE "mentalities" or for EE "toughies", or whatever semantics you want to use to excuse your behaviour), it is unacceptable to treat young workers in Canada this way. Yes, it's possible they may not object, either because they truly don't mind being threatened with rape, or because they need the job and don't want to take the chance of objecting to this kind of treatment, but the simple fact that they may not object does not make it okay. It's also possible that if they've had a history of sexual abuse or assault you may trigger an extreme emotional episode in them by threatening them with rape, not that you seem at all concerned with this possibility. What you are proposing is that you can ignore the customs and laws of the country in which you have your business, and your workers will just deal with it. Maybe they will, and maybe they won't, but for the type of business under discussion in this thread, it is completely irresponsible for you to model this kind of discourse to your hypothetical workers.

Now, please continue to ignore all the points above and fashion a response insulting me again for being a racist, stupid, little girl.


So, would I hire a troubled youth, I would be do my level best to ensure that he's from this particular and narrow background. At first sign that he is not I would get all formal on him and would just throw a book at him and fire him for being drunk on the job.

While nothing in your rambling post was particularly novel, this one comment did tickle me and so is worthy of singling out. So ironic that you call me a racist. First, you'd only hire those "from this particular and narrow background", no possible issues there :rolleyes:...and then, to make it even better, if you realize you've made a mistake and hired someone who refuses to subject himself to your abuse, you'll fire him...and the way you'll know you've made a mistake? If he objects to having you threaten him with rape. :lol: Good luck explaining that to the ministry of labour and employment standards people!

[vero95]

Ah, comprehension issues (or perhaps just deliberately misstating what I said). You're talking about kids from EE, or canadian born kids with EE parents. You prefer to refer to them as kids with EE mentality, fine. I don't see the big difference in practise because obviously these kids developed this "mentality" living in EE, or living in Canada with EE parents and community, but if you want to spell out "EE mentality", that's fine, it makes no difference to your argument. Just out of interest, how do you suppose these kids developed this "mentality" if not having lived in EE or within an EE family and community in Canada? Oh, wait, that's "racist" apparently. :confused: Just where exactly do you see this big difference? The only thing I can think of is that there are kids that are from EE or born into EE communities in Canada that would not have this "mentality", but you couldn't mean this, as that would prove my point that they would not share your understanding or acceptance of the idioms, and therefore that you cannot presume to be able to read the possible reactions of every troubled youth you would hire, no matter what their background.

I tried to give you an out, but feel free to continue embarassing yourself. The wiki page you linked simply shows that russian profanity is sex-based, shocking (and, yes, I did know this already). It does not prove that providing a vivid description of just how you're going to rape a kid is simply a totally non-sexual, non-offensive way to say you'll fire them. If you say "suck my c***", it can be seen as a simple but profane denial or negation of what someone has said to you, but if you describe in detail they way you want someone to perform that act, it is no longer a flippant non-sexual negation. Even if I grant you that there is a word that has a double meaning of I'm going to rape you/I'm going to kick you out (not that you've provided any evidence of this either, but I wouldn't find it surprising), going on to describe the act in detail removes the ambiguity. And, let's say I even grant you that you could vividly describe the several specific sexual acts you're going to perform during this rape and that this is still just a non-offensive term for "I'll kick you out" (nonsense, but let's just say) it still does nothing to defend your position that this would be an acceptable business practice in Canada. You're working in Canada, you cannot presume to judge the level of your employees' EE "mentality" with such certainty, and in any case, in setting up a business in a priority neighborhood for at-risk youth, it is abhorrent that you would be teaching them that this kind of statement is acceptable (and, yes, that is part of the purpose of running this kind of business, your lack of understanding of the article in the OP notwithstanding).

Please, continue to ignore all these points and just hammer away at how no one but you understands what might or might not be potentially offensive to your young workers. Refuse to believe that you might possibly misjudge someone's "mentality" and seriously offend or trigger them by using an idiom they do not understand or accept as inoffensive. Like I said, you only have to convince yourself, there's no chance that anyone else will buy any of this crap.

if you are going to accuse fim of sexual harrassment, you will have to prove that he really meant he would rape and not fire a guy, no? will that simple fact stop you from posting your bs?

[jerrysiz]

:facepalm: No, if your boss threatens you with rape and describes how he's going to rape you, you wouldn't need to "prove" what he "meant" by that for it to be considered sexual harassment. Because, in Canada, despite what NorthYorker seems to think, workers do not give up all their rights, and bosses do not have the license to use violent sexual imagery as threats and then claim to have meant something else by it. Even NorthYorker isn't out-of-touch enough to claim this wouldn't be considered sexual harassment if reported. Great contribution to the thread though, exactly what I'd expect of you, vero.

[deltone]

if you are going to accuse fim of sexual harrassment, you will have to prove that he really meant he would rape and not fire a guy, no? will that simple fact stop you from posting your bs?

Again, this is Canada and you can't go around threatening people with bodily harm. Check out this link regarding workplace violence.

What is Workplace Violence?

Workplace violence is an occupational health and safety hazard. For Ontario workplaces that are subject to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, as of June 15, 2010, workplace violence is defined as:

the exercise of physical force by a person against a worker, in a workplace, that causes or could cause physical injury to the worker;
an attempt to exercise physical force against a worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker; or,
a statement or behaviour that it is reasonable for a worker to interpret as a threat to exercise physical force against the worker, in a workplace, that could cause physical injury to the worker.

Some of the types of violence that workers could experience in the workplace include hitting, pushing, physical assault, sexual assault, stalking, criminal harassment, robbery, or threats of violence.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act also defines workplace harassment. For more information, see page 26.

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/hs/pubs/wvps_guide/guide_4.php

[deltone]

Just as an aside, I find it very disturbing that there has to be a dispute and disagreement as to whether it's okay to threaten to rape someone. I mean seriously, this can't be for real, can it? I will just hope that it's merely trolling because as annoying as trolls are, it's better to hope for that than to beleive that anyone is being serious in saying that it's okay.

[vero95]

:facepalm: No, if your boss threatens you with rape and describes how he's going to rape you, you wouldn't need to "prove" what he "meant" by that for it to be considered sexual harassment. Because, in Canada, despite what NorthYorker seems to think, workers do not give up all their rights, and bosses do not have the license to use violent sexual imagery as threats and then claim to have meant something else by it. Even NorthYorker isn't out-of-touch enough to claim this wouldn't be considered sexual harassment if reported. Great contribution to the thread though, exactly what I'd expect of you, vero.

you welcome. you have not disappointed me either
if you go to Russia, say f**k you and decribe the act visaully, will you also be charged with workplace violance? will you use the fact that the phrase has several meanings as your defence?
it would be so easy to charge people with sexual harassment if all what you are saying were true
btw. how are you enjoying your vacations. feeling bored? leave your "material" for the next school year

[deltone]

you welcome. you have not disappointed me either
if you go to Russia, say f**k you and decribe the act visaully, will you also be charged with workplace violance? will you use the fact that the phrase has several meanings as your defence?
it would be so easy to charge people with sexual exploitaion if all what you are saying were true
btw. how are you enjoying your vacations. feeling bored? leave your "material" for the next school year

Why do you feel the need to defend the act of threatening rape? Do you have any children? Are you married? Would you find it acceptable for someone to threaten to rape your kid, your wife, your mother?

Also, why are you getting so personal that you feel the need to make a personal attack against jerrysiz? I won't bother reporting your personal attack as I think it should stand as it says a lot about you and your character.

[vero95]

Why do you feel the need to defend the act of threatening rape? Do you have any children? Are you married? Would you find it acceptable for someone to threaten to rape your kid, your wife, your mother?

Also, why are you getting so personal that you feel the need to make a personal attack against jerrysiz? I won't bother reporting your personal attack as I think it should stand as it says a lot about you and your character.

thanks for not reporting
based on NorthYorker's explanation and knowledge of three languages I am aware that a phrase even supported by visual description may have a totally different meaning in his native language. you can't translate everything word for word if the "threat" was expressed in foreign language. in other words, what you believe is a threat is not a threat

[ishfish]

Just to give you one example - although drinking is a favourite pastime (especially for "troubled" types) there, folks aren't proud of screwing up at work next day because they have a hangover. So, being a superior, I can invoke f-word (and, generally, any description of sexual relationship I'll have with them next time they screw up) with impunity. Because "it is my right", they pretty much gave up their human rights by screwing up ;) (I'm deliberately exaggerating to make the gist of my message more clear). But I might be in trouble, if I treat somebody with different background this way. I might not be, I just do not know, and I have no desire to find out. Hence the clarification. Sorry if it offended anyone.

Wow. That is a lot of info to go through. But this seems to be the root statement. A poor choice NewYorker.

I am guessing that NewYorker is not referring to actually threatening someone with rape, but is referring to a "subculture" where the "I'll f*** you..." is a common exchange of slang and that the recipient of the slang is (assumed to be) aware that the boss is angry but not really threatening with rape. I do not think he really meant to say they were giving up their human rights. - the unfortunate "deliberate exaggeration."

I like to think that people are socially evolving and such interactions will be gone one day, but presently they do exist - as do many rotten and wrong things.

[rommelrommel]

sorry buddy but you have no clue what you are talking about. you should google first before you disagree with someone and not the opposite
quoting unrelated stuff from wiki will not make you an intelectual. saying that the graph does not tell you the causes and solution is just a cliche. everyone knows that so it does not make you smart. if you disagree too that it's hard to cross the national average for a large city, show me the proof that the majority of cities crossed that average. do not tell me some cr*p that is not related to the question

Umm, your whole premise was that RG's reforms were good and reduced crime and that your data showed it. Spinning this into whether it's hard to cross the national average or not is just nonsense. A chart tells us nothing about how hard it is to cross the national average. And even the odds of it happening tells us nothing about how hard it is. A large city could have a very simple to institute change cause crime to plummet. And, obviously, the majority of large cities crossing the national average is unlikely. I don't need to prove that the majority of large cities crossed the national average to show that you're making a poor arguement. I wouldn't disagree that NY crossing the national average was notable but it really tells us little to nothing about why it happened or how to replicate it.

[jerrysiz]

Just as an aside, I find it very disturbing that there has to be a dispute and disagreement as to whether it's okay to threaten to rape someone. I mean seriously, this can't be for real, can it? I will just hope that it's merely trolling because as annoying as trolls are, it's better to hope for that than to beleive that anyone is being serious in saying that it's okay.

I'd be happier to think it was trolling, but unfortunately I don't think it is (in NorthYorker's case that is, Vero is of course just trolling as usual). Oh, and I don't know how closely you've been following the thread, but since you're female and not an EE "toughie", your opinion is automatically invalid. :lol:


you welcome. you have not disappointed me either
if you go to Russia, say f**k you and decribe the act visaully, will you also be charged with workplace violance? will you use the fact that the phrase has several meanings as your defence?
it would be so easy to charge people with sexual harassment if all what you are saying were true
btw. how are you enjoying your vacations. feeling bored? leave your "material" for the next school year

"Describe the act visaully"? What? You plan to use diagrams? I don't know what would happen if you go to Russia and do that, and, as this thread is about businesses in priority neighborhoods in Canada, I'm not sure what relevance you think it has. As I've said previously, even if this kind of behaviour is totally acceptable in some Eastern European countries, it doesn't make it any more acceptable here.

I'm enjoying my vaccation fine, thanks. Not at all bored, lots to do to prepare for next year. Can't just leave it all for later as you suggest since I'll have mostly new students with new needs and disabilities, which will all require new individual programs and resources, so I've brought some of those home to research and prepare over the summer...but thanks for the totally off-topic suggestion.

Now, if all you've got is pointless "but what if you did it in Russia?" tangents and tired old teacher-bashing thread-derailing insults, perhaps you'd like to take your trolling elsewhere.


Also, why are you getting so personal that you feel the need to make a personal attack against jerrysiz? I won't bother reporting your personal attack as I think it should stand as it says a lot about you and your character.

Meh, like I said, it's all he's got. When you lack the ability to make a coherent argument to contribute to the thread, threadcraping by bringing lazy underworked teachers into a totally unrelated topic is really your only trolling option. ;) What I'm amused by is that he thinks such a pathetic attempt is going to get a rise out of me.

[ishfish]

What I'm amused by is that he thinks such a pathetic attempt is going to get a rise out of me.

No one is that dim.

[vero95]

Umm, your whole premise was that RG's reforms were good and reduced crime and that your data showed it. Spinning this into whether it's hard to cross the national average or not is just nonsense. A chart tells us nothing about how hard it is to cross the national average. And even the odds of it happening tells us nothing about how hard it is. A large city could have a very simple to institute change cause crime to plummet. And, obviously, the majority of large cities crossing the national average is unlikely. I don't need to prove that the majority of large cities crossed the national average to show that you're making a poor arguement. I wouldn't disagree that NY crossing the national average was notable but it really tells us little to nothing about why it happened or how to replicate it.

I tought I said it's not 100% sure if the improvement was because of Giuliani. you may only be sure that he did not s*rew the job. you may put some other guy in his place (McGuinty?) and the results could have been totally different

[jerrysiz]

Wow. That is a lot of info to go through. But this seems to be the root statement. A poor choice NewYorker.

I am guessing that NewYorker is not referring to actually threatening someone with rape, but is referring to a "subculture" where the "I'll f*** you..." is a common exchange of slang and that the recipient of the slang is (assumed to be) aware that the boss is angry but not really threatening with rape. I do not think he really meant to say they were giving up their human rights. - the unfortunate "deliberate exaggeration."

I like to think that people are socially evolving and such interactions will be gone one day, but presently they do exist - as do many rotten and wrong things.

Yep, I'd agree with that. The problem lies in the certainty with which he makes that assumption (that the recipient understands and accepts the idiom), and also his view of this kind of exchange not as "rotten and wrong" but as an acceptable management strategy and the only way to get through to these at-risk kids. So if you guess right about your common understanding of the idiom, you're "merely" perpetuating this kind of "rotten and wrong" exchange, but if you guess wrong you could be triggering an extreme emotional episode in a vulnurable kid. And IMO, if you can't find a better way to manage kids than threatening them with rape (even if you're not really meaning to threaten them with rape), you shouldn't be working anywhere near kids in the first place.

[jerrysiz]

No one is that dim.

Well... :lol:

[ishfish]

Yep, I'd agree with that. The problem lies in the certainty with which he makes that assumption (that the recipient understands and accepts the idiom), and also his view of this kind of exchange not as "rotten and wrong" but as an acceptable management strategy and the only way to get through to these at-risk kids. So if you guess right about your common understanding of the idiom, you're "merely" perpetuating this kind of "rotten and wrong" exchange, but if you guess wrong you could be triggering an extreme emotional episode in a vulnurable kid. And IMO, if you can't find a better way to manage kids than threatening them with rape (even if you're not really meaning to threaten them with rape), you shouldn't be working anywhere near kids in the first place.

Agreed.

[vero95]

I'd be happier to think it was trolling, but unfortunately I don't think it is (in NorthYorker's case that is, Vero is of course just trolling as usual). Oh, and I don't know how closely you've been following the thread, but since you're female and not an EE "toughie", your opinion is automatically invalid. :lol:

"Describe the act visaully"? What? You plan to use diagrams? I don't know what would happen if you go to Russia and do that, and, as this thread is about businesses in priority neighborhoods in Canada, I'm not sure what relevance you think it has. As I've said previously, even if this kind of behaviour is totally acceptable in some Eastern European countries, it doesn't make it any more acceptable here.


if you can't charge him with sexual harassment, the only one who is trolling is you, no? :facepalm:




I'm enjoying my vaccation fine, thanks. Not at all bored, lots to do to prepare for next year. Can't just leave it all for later as you suggest since I'll have mostly new students with new needs and disabilities, which will all require new individual programs and resources, so I've brought some of those home to research and prepare over the summer...but thanks for the totally off-topic suggestion.

Now, if all you've got is pointless "but what if you did it in Russia?" tangents and tired old teacher-bashing thread-derailing insults, perhaps you'd like to take your trolling elsewhere.

Canada, Russia, does not matter. would you claim you are sexually harassed if soemone tells you "f**k you"? :facepalm:



Meh, like I said, it's all he's got. When you lack the ability to make a coherent argument to contribute to the thread, threadcraping by bringing lazy underworked teachers into a totally unrelated topic is really your only trolling option. ;) What I'm amused by is that he thinks such a pathetic attempt is going to get a rise out of me.
looks like I did; otherwise you wouldn;t even mention that ;)

[jerrysiz]

if you can't charge him with sexual harassment, the only one who is trolling is you, no? :facepalm:

Canada, Russia, does not matter. would you claim you are sexually harassed if soemone tells you "f**k you"? :facepalm:

Can't charge who with what now? Of course you can charge someone who threatens you with rape in a Canadian business with sexual harassment (among other things). As for what you can do in Russia, I'm not entertaining that argument as it's not pertinent to a thread about Canadian businesses. And as for your assertion that there is absolutely no difference in labour laws in different countries, that's just lazy and pathetic non-argument, even for you. Troll harder.


looks like I did; otherwise you wouldn;t even mention that ;)

So you equate me mocking your sad attempts at trolling with you having successfully gotten a rise out of me?...That explains a lot, actually. :facepalm:

[vero95]

Can't charge who with what now? Of course you can charge someone who threatens you with rape in a Canadian business with sexual harassment (among other things). As for what you can do in Russia, I'm not entertaining that argument as it's not pertinent to a thread about Canadian businesses. And as for your assertion that there is absolutely no difference in labour laws in different countries, that's just lazy and pathetic non-argument, even for you. Troll harder.



So you equate me mocking your sad attempts at trolling with you having successfully gotten a rise out of me?...That explains a lot, actually. :facepalm:

you did not answer my question: would you claim you are sexually harassed if soemone tells you "f**k you"?
I repeat: you can't translate everything word for word if the "threat" was expressed in foreign language. in other words, what you believe is a threat is not a threat
enjoy your two months vacation. do not waste it on things you do not understand. you seem stressed out already :(

[jerrysiz]

you did not answer my question: would you claim you are sexually harassed if soemone tells you "f**k you"?
I repeat: you can't translate everything word for word if the "threat" was expressed in foreign language. in other words, what you believe is a threat is not a threat
enjoy your two months vacation. do not waste it on things you do not understand. you seem stressed out already :(

Have you not been reading the thread? I've answered that question several times, it's not "f**k you", it's "I'm going to f**k you", and yes, that's considered sexual harassment in Canada, idiom or not. And even in the foreign language the threat does mean "I'm going to rape you" as well as "I'm going to fire you" (or so NorthYorker claims, though he's still not provided evidence of this), so yes, saying it is sexual harassment in Canada. Dude, even NorthYorker isn't denying that this would be seen as sexual harassment by Canadian standards, give it up. And I see we're back to tired old teacher bashing...is this really all you've got?

[vero95]

Have you not been reading the thread? I've answered that question several times, it's not "f**k you", it's "I'm going to f**k you", and yes, that's considered sexual harassment in Canada, idiom or not. And even in the foreign language the threat does mean "I'm going to rape you" as well as "I'm going to fire you" (or so NorthYorker claims, though he's still not provided evidence of this), so yes, saying it is sexual harassment in Canada. Dude, even NorthYorker isn't denying that this would be seen as sexual harassment by Canadian standards, give it up. And I see we're back to tired old teacher bashing...is this really all you've got?

"I'm going to f**k you" in his native language has multiple meanings. that's what he was saying, no? you can't claim it's a rape threat because one of them is exactly what it says. it's not a threat
do you understand that? where did he say it's a threat to rape someone? I thought he's spent quite some time to explain the opposite
I am not bashing teachers. I am bashing you as a teacher because based on your posts you do not seem to be professional
btw, I gave up on schooling in Canada and sent my son to study back to Europe

[flashy_mcflash]

I gave up on schooling in Canada

That much, at least, is abundantly clear from your posts.

[NorthYorker]

reference to "wide variety of notions" won't cut itIgnorance is a bliss, isn't it? Your position comes down to "It is not that I don't know, I insist on my holy right to judge things I have no clue about." And, on top of that, you claim I'm racist for admitting that I'm aware of cultural differences. But, as I've said, the saddest part of it is deltone's admiration of your ignorance.
What you are proposing is that you can ignore the customs and laws of the country in which you have your businessYou are not in a position to even start discussing adherence to any customs, since your staring point is being proud of your ignorance of cultural differences and insistent that "F U" in English is a simple saying but a sexual harassment if uttered in different language.

[NorthYorker]

Just as an aside, I find it very disturbing that there has to be a dispute and disagreement as to whether it's okay to threaten to rape someone. I mean seriously, this can't be for real, can it?Deltone, are you getting all upset about each "F U" you hear on the street, or just presume that your Canadianess give you right to judge languages and cultures you have no clue about (I'm not "presume" your cluelessness in this particular issue, I know about it; I could have been getting a lot of flack from someone actually familiar with the culture, but it would be a flack of different kind).
I am guessing that NewYorker is not referring to actually threatening someone with rape, but is referring to a "subculture" where the "I'll f*** you..." is a common exchange of slang and that the recipient of the slang is (assumed to be) aware that the boss is angry but not really threatening with rape. I do not think he really meant to say they were giving up their human rights. - the unfortunate "deliberate exaggeration."You are immigrant, aren't you? There's obvious lack of smugness in your responce :) You got the gist of the situation right. If translated verbatim, Russian profane expression of "I'm disappointed in your behaviour and, would you repeat it once more, you would pay a dire price and I'll kick you out" may be translated as description of the sexual encounter. Obviously, it would be properly understood by "true Scots" only, and should never be used on someone not familiar with the language.
Yep, I'd agree with that. No you are not, but you even making this claim of understanding clearly reveals your belated understanding of your ignorance of the matter you dared to force your opinion on.

Summing up this pointless conversation with ignoramuses proud of being ignorant, let me familiarize you with another morsel of the Russian culture. There's a famous stand-up comic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Zhvanetsky) in Russia, who once said: "Let's talk about taste of oysters. Let's get into discussion about it. Let's have a heated debate of oysters' taste. But let's discuss taste of oysters with those who've actually tasted them." I'm paying now for ignoring this sage advice and trying to discuss a cultural issue with those who have no slightest clue about this particular culture, and being obviously proud of their ignorance.

[jerrysiz]

"I'm going to f**k you" in his native language has multiple meanings. that's what he was saying, no? you can't claim it's a rape threat because one of them is exactly what it says. it's not a threat
do you understand that? where did he say it's a threat to rape someone? I thought he's spent quite some time to explain the opposite
I am not bashing teachers. I am bashing you as a teacher because based on your posts you do not seem to be professional
btw, I gave up on schooling in Canada and sent my son to study back to Europe

:facepalm: You can use unambiguous language meaning "I'll fire you", but if you make the deliberate choice to instead use profane and sexually graphic language that says "I'll rape you" but may also mean "I'll fire you", you don't get to dictate how people interpret that remark and say they cannot be offended by what you "meant".

And all these pathetic personal attacks against me in lieu of actual arguments are just illuminating how you're just not capable of making a reasonable argument. When you can't get the best of someone with logic, you lash out on a personal level with comments completely unrelated to the topic. I understand, and I'm sorry you feel so overwhelmed here, but maybe now it's best if you just be quiet and let the grown ups talk.


That much, at least, is abundantly clear from your posts.

Well, if you had such poor logic and critical thinking skills, you'd probably be angry at the education system failing you too. ;) But, since he claims to have tried so many different types of education systems, and has not been happy with any of them, perhaps the common denominator is not the education systems?

[vero95]

That much, at least, is abundantly clear from your posts.

are you obsessed with me, flashy? :D
have you coloured your hair orange yet?

[flashy_mcflash]

huh?

[deltone]

That much, at least, is abundantly clear from your posts.

Aint that the truth!!


Deltone, are you getting all upset about each "F U" you hear on the street, or just presume that your Canadianess give you right to judge languages and cultures you have no clue about (I'm not "presume" your cluelessness in this particular issue, I know about it; I could have been getting a lot of flack from someone actually familiar with the culture, but it would be a flack of different kind).

" I'm paying now for ignoring this sage advice and trying to discuss a cultural issue with those who have no slightest clue about this particular culture, and being obviously proud of their ignorance.

Well, here's the thing. I don't give a cr*p about what is acceptable in Russia, or China, or Germany, or Poland, or New Zealand, or anywhere else because guess what? This is CANADA and what is allowed in other countries is their problem and or business, it's not mine. If you want to go around threatening kids that you are going to rape them, well, go to Russia. I will still think it's sick and wrong but whatever washes in that country is not my concern.

If someone says to me "F... You" that is a WHOLE lot different than telling me they are going to rape me and if you haven't figured that out, then you have a problem. Also, you are changing your story because someone on the street telling someone FU is not at all the same as threatening an employee with rape if they don't do what you tell them to do. There is an expression "When in Rome..." Well, same goes here "When in Canada..." Keep threatening kids with rape and maybe one day you'll do it to someone who reports you and then come and tell us what you think.


are you obsessed with me, flashy? :D
have you coloured your hair orange yet?

There you go with another personal attack. (How predictable).

[NorthYorker]

And all these pathetic personal attacks against me in lieu of actual arguments are just illuminating how you're just not capable of making a reasonable argument.jerrysiz, have it ever crossed your mind that similar reasoning can be applied to repeated accusations you've thrown at me? I would be first to admit, in your case it is bred by woeful lack of factual knowledge, not inability to think logically, but that's about the only difference I see.

[vero95]

:facepalm: You can use unambiguous language meaning "I'll fire you", but if you make the deliberate choice to instead use profane and sexually graphic language that says "I'll rape you" but may also mean "I'll fire you", you don't get to dictate how people interpret that remark and say they cannot be offended by what you "meant".

And all these pathetic personal attacks against me in lieu of actual arguments are just illuminating how you're just not capable of making a reasonable argument. When you can't get the best of someone with logic, you lash out on a personal level with comments completely unrelated to the topic. I understand, and I'm sorry you feel so overwhelmed here, but maybe now it's best if you just be quiet and let the grown ups talk.



Well, if you had such poor logic and critical thinking skills, you'd probably be angry at the education system failing you too. ;) But, since he claims to have tried so many different types of education systems, and has not been happy with any of them, perhaps the common denominator is not the education systems?

being offended is not the same as being threatened, no? who cares how you interpret a phrase and if you get offended? you may be oversensitive. people get offended by many things at work
you've been trolling about rape threats for few days now
how do you know I've been unhappy will all school systems if I expressed my opinion about the school system here only? :-0

[jerrysiz]

Ignorance is a bliss, isn't it? Your position comes down to "It is not that I don't know, I insist on my holy right to judge things I have no clue about." And, on top of that, you claim I'm racist for admitting that I'm aware of cultural differences. But, as I've said, the saddest part of it is deltone's admiration of your ignorance.You are not in a position to even start discussing adherence to any customs, since your staring point is being proud of your ignorance of cultural differences and insistent that "F U" in English is a simple saying but a sexual harassment if uttered in different language.

This is your response to my request that you cite a source for your claims? For someone whose entire "defense" is that describing specific sexual acts that would make up a rape is exactly the same thing as saying "I'll fire you", you do seem to be very reluctant to provide any evidence for the crux of your argument, and very angry that people will not just blindly accept what you say. You keep equating "F U" with "I'm going to rape you and here's how...". First, you can provide some evidence that what you're saying is a valid analogy, and then we can get into whether (even if it is) if this is an appropriate term to be threatening kids with in a Canadian business.

And, I didn't "call you racist for being aware of cultural differences", comprehension issues again, I guess. I simply said it's ironic that you called me a racist when you would start a business with clearly discriminitory hiring practices, and fire kids that stood up to you threatening them with profane and abusive language (because this would be proof they weren't sufficiently "like you" to have been hired in the first place), and that you'd likely have trouble explaining this to the labour board.


Deltone, are you getting all upset about each "F U" you hear on the street, or just presume that your Canadianess give you right to judge languages and cultures you have no clue about (I'm not "presume" your cluelessness in this particular issue, I know about it; I could have been getting a lot of flack from someone actually familiar with the culture, but it would be a flack of different kind).

Countries judge what is acceptable or not with regard to customs of those from other countries all the time. Just because something is cultural does not make it automatically sacred, there are lots of practices from people's home countries that are judged (legally and socially) as unacceptable in Canada. Screaming "cultural differences" is not a free pass to say or do anything you want.

So, let's review. You still have not provided any evidence to show that the profane and graphic description of particular acts involved in a rape is simply a benign way to threaten to fire someone. You've not explained how you are so confident that everyone you hire will share your knowledge and acceptance of this idiom as inoffensive. You've not said why you show so little concern that, if your telepathy fails you, you could cause real psychological damage to your young workers. And you've yet to explain how, even if something is acceptable in EE, it should automatically supercede Canadian laws and customs in a Canadian business. There's more that you've ignored, but let's start with those.


You are immigrant, aren't you? There's obvious lack of smugness in your responce :) You got the gist of the situation right. If translated verbatim, Russian profane expression of "I'm disappointed in your behaviour and, would you repeat it once more, you would pay a dire price and I'll kick you out" may be translated as description of the sexual encounter. Obviously, it would be properly understood by "true Scots" only, and should never be used on someone not familiar with the language

No you are not, but you even making this claim of understanding clearly reveals your belated understanding of your ignorance of the matter you dared to force your opinion on.

Yes, I do agree with what he said. I know you claim to have some kind of magic psychic ability to know the minds of EE kids and what they will or will not think is offensive, but don't presume to tell me what I think. I completely agree with him that, though the term may have multiple meanings (which, as of yet you have not even proven), it is still a very poor choice and a rotten and wrong practice that will hopefully be erradicated when people become more evolved. And subjecting a new generation of kids to this kind of discourse and showing your approval of its use is not going to aid in this evolution (and completely defeats the purpose of opening a business and hiring at-risk youth in priority neighborhoods in the first place). There is language you can use to threaten to fire a kid without taking the chance that you will trigger him with violent profane descriptions of how you're going to rape him. If you deliberately use language you know may be offensive and triggering, and honestly can't think of another way to manage and motivate your workers, you shouldn't be working with kids in the first place.

Also, I think you might want to brush up on the definition of "translated verbatim".

[NorthYorker]

There is an expression "When in Rome..." Well, same goes here "When in Canada..."I absolutely agree with that reasoning. But you keep ignoring the communication problem. Talking to this particular group (and, in umpteeen time - not to ALL kids of this background, not to ALL people of this background) in formal language would not carry the message across. I'm making the same mistake again, trying to discuss a taste of ousters with someone who've never heard of them, but still... Profane language, for this particular group, is an indication that this is serious talk. Sterilized business-like English, Russian, French or Swahili would just glide over their skulls, "teacher's empty talk, not important". This might not be perfect, but this is so. And it is so happened, that in profane Russian (almost all other Slavics as well) this explanation is almost verbatim same as a description of sexual act. Just try to understand it.

[vero95]

huh?

why do you quote me in your sig, flashy? wouldn't it be easier to just answer the question?
is the fish good because no one orders it? :D

[vero95]

There you go with another personal attack. (How predictable).


do you knwo why he quotes me in his signature? is it funny?
the only funny thing is the claim that the fish is good because people do not order it but that's what he and rems , not me, claimed in another thread


Aint that the truth!!


your personal attacks are OK though
do not worry, I am not going to report you :D

[jerrysiz]

jerrysiz, have it ever crossed your mind that similar reasoning can be applied to repeated accusations you've thrown at me? I would be first to admit, in your case it is bred by woeful lack of factual knowledge, not inability to think logically, but that's about the only difference I see.

Mmmm hmmmm. :rolleyes: Because saying that using profane language that means "I'm going to rape you" to threaten a kid with firing is irresponsible and disgusting, and accusing you of not citing sources, is exactly the same as bringing in off-topic personal attacks about your job. Your feelings may be hurt because I'm attacking your argument and positions, but that does not a personal attack make.

[NorthYorker]

you claim to have some kind of magic psychic ability to know the minds of EE kidsNope, I claim "a magic ability" to distinguish between those kids who get this "talk" and everyone else. I claim it on the ground of being a Jewish kid who survived 15 years of living in Russian ghetto city block, among lowlifes and toughies who drank Antisemitism with their mother's milk (to use another Russian idiom for something extremely ingrained in one's mind). My life, quite literally, depended on ability to "read" those folks and being able to communicate with them in whatever lingo they speak. So yes, I'm able to do that, and that's why I am still alive (and even willing to work with kids like this, as you can see).
Because saying that using profane language that means "I'm going to rape you" to threaten a kid with firing is irresponsible and disgusting, and accusing you of not citing sources, is exactly the same as bringing in off-topic personal attacks about your job.Yes it is. You are both struggling to understand what's being said (he is due to his thinking abilities or lack of it, you are due to being completely ignorant of the subject you're trying to judge), and end up resorting to personal attacks.

[deltone]

do you knwo why he quotes me in his signature? is it funny?
the only funny thing is the claim that the fish is good because people do not order it but that's what he and rems , not me, claimed in another thread

I don't know why he quotes you in his signature, and frankly I don't care but that is a lot different than making a comparison to some guy who just killed and maimed over 70 people. I mean really. :facepalm: Dramatic much?

[vero95]

I don't know why he quotes you in his signature, and frankly I don't care but that is a lot different than making a comparison to some guy who just killed and maimed over 70 people. I mean really. :facepalm: Dramatic much?

if someone quotes you in his sig and then follows you from thread to thread personally attacking you, it's not normal, no?
you are so sweet, btw, and so rigtheous

[flashy_mcflash]

if someone quotes you in his sig and then follows you from thread to thread personally attacking you, it's not normal, no?
you are so sweet, btw, and so rigtheous

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/wp-content/blogs.dir/311/files/2012/04/i-5061fe7ab12700cb708665ac1f667230-tinfoil-hat.jpg

[vero95]

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/wp-content/blogs.dir/311/files/2012/04/i-5061fe7ab12700cb708665ac1f667230-tinfoil-hat.jpg

is that a threat, flashy? I thought you are younger :D

[jerrysiz]

Nope, I claim "a magic ability" to distinguish between those kids who get this "talk" and everyone else. I claim it on the ground of being a Jewish kid who survived 15 years of living in Russian ghetto city block, among lowlifes and toughies who drank Antisemitism with their mother's milk (to use another Russian idiom for something extremely ingrained in one's mind). My life, quite literally, depended on ability to "read" those folks and being able to communicate with them in whatever lingo they speak. So yes, I'm able to do that, and that's why I am still alive (and even willing to work with kids like this, as you can see).

Out of all I wrote, this is the only thing you choose to address? :facepalm: So what, you think you have a good ability to read people? Good for you. That does nothing to explain why you think this ability is so infallable that you're willing to take such a risk, or why you continue to totally discount the very real possibility that you might trigger a kid with PTSD (you think "toughies" are immune to sexual abuse and it's after effects?). Not to mention why you think your "cultural differences" automatically supercede the laws and customs of the country your business would be in. You may say you're willing to work with these kids, but if you honestly think the best and only way to mentor them is to use profane language involving rape threats (whatever you say its "meaning" is), you really should stay far, far away from them and let others take on the task. Not everyone who is willing to work with at-risk kids is qualified or suited to do so.


Yes it is. You are both struggling to understand what's being said (he is due to his thinking abilities or lack of it, you are due to being completely ignorant of the subject you're trying to judge), and end up resorting to personal attacks.

:lol: Personal attacks. Right. :rolleyes: Go on then, find me something I've said that is a completely off-topic jab at you personally, not just something attacking a point or argument you were making in this thread. If I say your use of profane and violent terminology to threaten kids is disgusting, that's not a personal attack, it's an attack on points you have made in this thread and your position on the topic of the discussion. Do you even know what a personal attack is?

[flashy_mcflash]

is that a threat, flashy? I thought you are younger :D

A threat....of making you a tinfoil hat?

[Heero01]

Seems Jerrysiz constantly derails topics and fights with other posters. I have reported his posts and suggest everyone else does as well.

I would like to see him banned.

[flashy_mcflash]

seems jerrysiz constantly derails topics and fights with other posters. I have reported his posts and suggest everyone else does as well.

I would like to see him banned.
nope

[jerrysiz]

nope

Hmmmm. A relatively new member I've never spoken to before seems to have it out for me for some reason...think we've seen this one before under another name? :lol:

[deltone]

Seems Jerrysiz constantly derails topics and fights with other posters. I have reported his posts and suggest everyone else does as well.

I would like to see him banned.

LOL, wow, what an amazing contribution YOU have made to this thread! NOT

[deltone]

Hmmmm. A relatively new member I've never spoken to before seems to have it out for me for some reason...think we've seen this one before under another name? :lol:

My thoughts, exactly. LOL

[vero95]

A threat....of making you a tinfoil hat?

I do not blame you for anything you say, flashy. I blame the school system that failed you and teachers like jerrysiz
if anyone calls you a troll or something like that, remember that

[NorthYorker]

Out of all I wrote, this is the only thing you choose to address? :facepalm:Yes, because everything else (as in "judging a conversation in foreign language between peoples of foreign background") just an illustration of your eagerness to judge completely unfamiliar things.
That does nothing to explain why you think this ability is so infallable that you're willing to take such a riskI haven't said that it is infallible (nothing really is), but yes, I'm willing to take the risk.
why you continue to totally discount the very real possibility that you might trigger a kid with PTSD (you think "toughies" are immune to sexual abuse and it's after effects?).You see, the very way your question is structured is a proof that you have no business to discuss communication in profane Russian. Because you lack understanding of it so hard, you don't even understand how much you don't understand. Seriously, I appreciate your drive, but vero95 looks positively expert on Canadian school comparing to your knowledge of communication in Russian :)
Not to mention why you think your "cultural differences" automatically supercede the laws and customs of the country your business would be in.Let us leave the issue of "law" aside, just for now (yes, a judge making up in eagerness what s/he lacks in factual knowledge can, given "too literal" translation, consider almost any profane statement in unfamiliar language a "sexual harassment", but it does not make it true). Let us concentrate on "custom". Don't you think that the very fact that a kid is "troubled" means that Canadian "way of doing things" (a.k.a. customs) failed him in a big way? So, the gist of your idea to repeat a failed attempt. It does not make a lot of sense to me, but I'm just an immigrant with poor English :)
You may say you're willing to work with these kids, but if you honestly think the best and only way to mentor them is to use profane languageThe best? I dunno. The only? Well. my humble 15 years of experience say that it is sometimes the only way to get the "this is serious" message across. Again, those are kids you've already tried your politically correct teacher magic on, and failed miserably. So, what's you next perfect idea to carry a message to them, and what makes you think it will work this time?

[jerrysiz]

Yes, because everything else (as in "judging a conversation in foreign language between peoples of foreign background") just an illustration of your eagerness to judge completely unfamiliar things.

So, instead of citing some evidence for your claims, I see you're still just bemoaning the fact that no one understands why it's totally okay for you to use those rape threats, and so we're all just wrong to judge you. Without any kind of proof, no one's going to believe that threats of rape are so benign simply because they're in "a conversation in foreign language between peoples of foreign background". Like I said, screaming "cultural differences" does not equal a free pass, and no one's going to believe anything you claim just because you keep saying it's true.


Let us leave the issue of "law" aside, just for now (yes, a judge making up in eagerness what s/he lacks in factual knowledge can, given "too literal" translation, consider almost any profane statement in unfamiliar language a "sexual harassment", but it does not make it true). Let us concentrate on "custom". Don't you think that the very fact that a kid is "troubled" means that Canadian "way of doing things" (a.k.a. customs) failed him in a big way? So, the gist of your idea to repeat a failed attempt. It does not make a lot of sense to me, but I'm just an immigrant with poor English :)

The best? I dunno. The only? Well. my humble 15 years of experience say that it is sometimes the only way to get the "this is serious" message across. Again, those are kids you've already tried your politically correct teacher magic on, and failed miserably. So, what's you next perfect idea to carry a message to them, and what makes you think it will work this time?

Wow, huge logic fail here. Your entire argument rests on the assertion that these kids are not "Canadianized", that they've been so immersed in the EE "toughie" culture that it's entirely shaped their mentality to the point where profane threats are the only methods that get through to them. Now you turn around and say that they've been raised for years with Canadian customs? No, I don't think so. Either they are "Canadianized" by living in our culture (and would therefore not necessarily accept your profane idioms as inoffensive and non-threatening), or they are a product of EE toughie culture (which, according to you makes them different from other Canadian kids to a point where the rest of us mere mortals have no hope of understanding why they can only be reached through profane threats of rape). You can't have it both ways.


You see, the very way your question is structured is a proof that you have no business to discuss communication in profane Russian. Because you lack understanding of it so hard, you don't even understand how much you don't understand. Seriously, I appreciate your drive, but vero95 looks positively expert on Canadian school comparing to your knowledge of communication in Russian :)

Ah, a non-answer that ends in a smiley face, because I suppose the idea of sexual abuse is just that worthy of dismissal and joking to you. Again, rather than just saying how stupid I am, how about you answer the question? If one of your young workers has a history of sexual abuse, your using a term that references raping them (even if the consciously know it is not being used in that way) would very likely trigger an extreme emotional response. Despite it having been brought up several times, you still seem completely dismissive of this. So, do you think your "toughies" are immune to this response, or do you just not care that you'd be invoking it?


I haven't said that it is infallible (nothing really is), but yes, I'm willing to take the risk.

This right here is why you should never ever work with at-risk kids. I just sincerely hope that you never have opportunity to trigger a vulnurable youth with throwaway threats involving rape language, because their emotional state should not have to be victim of your hubris.

[NorthYorker]

Like I said, screaming "cultural differences" does not equal a free pass, and no one's going to believe anything you claim just because you keep saying it's true.You've nailed the problem. You have no knowledge of your own on the subject, and it comes down to "whom to believe". And, since you rode into the battle accusing me of all kinds of transgressions, you are not going to believe me. I offered MM to ask her brother (who, she claims, is a Belarus and know the language), she did not come back :(
Wow, huge logic fail here. Your entire argument rests on the assertion that these kids are not "Canadianized", that they've been so immersed in the EE "toughie" culture that it's entirely shaped their mentality to the point where profane threats are the only methods that get through to them. Now you turn around and say that they've been raised for years with Canadian customs?Nope, I've claimed that, regardless of the time they actually interacted with Canadian culture, they had already been branded as "troubled youths" by Canadian society (see the thread's header). So something obviously did not work in the dialog between them and society. If they were toughies back home but became productive hard-working members of Canadian society on arrival (it happens too, and more often than majority thinks), there's no point to even start a discussion about doing business with them. Yes, any sane employer would hire a hardworking guy, there's nothing special about it.
You can't have it both ways.See my response above. I can only add that I would not dare to work with a "sufficiently Canadianized" toughie, as I don't instinctively know what makes him tick. This might be the key difference between teacher's and employer's take on the situation. Employer has luxury of choice. Teacher has to work with whatever comes to him/her.
Ah, a non-answer that ends in a smiley faceThere's no "weary smile" smiley, so I've used an ordinary one. Look, your argument is "I don't know a thing, but I dare to judge. Now, educate me". Sorry, this is too big of a task and, to begin with, it requires perfect communication skills in at least one Slavic language. Do you possess them?
Again, rather than just saying how stupid I am, how about you answer the question? I'd prefer to train a fresh-out-of-the-jungle Pigmy to Ph.D in nuclear physics. His body of knowledge on the subject is roughly equal to what you know on Slavic profane language and it's use, but it would be more fun to train him. This is, by the way, is not about stupidity. Just a lack of knowledge. However, I'm still surprised that a simple thought "should not I figure out the issue before judging it" still does not cross your mind.
If one of your young workers has a history of sexual abuse, your using a term that references raping them (even if the consciously know it is not being used in that way) would very likely trigger an extreme emotional response.Every action creates a new chance of mistake. Only those who don't drive can't make a mistake while driving, this kind of thing. Yes, there's this risk. However, both sides should possess modicum of knowledge about language before we start to discuss it. Don't you think that you can't discuss something you have no clue about?
This right here is why you should never ever work with at-risk kids. I just sincerely hope that you never have opportunity to trigger a vulnurable youth with throwaway threats involving rape language, because their emotional state should not have to be victim of your hubris.Just a friendly reminder that the very topic of "troubled youths" assumes that those highly professional Canadian educators who should only ever work with at-risk kids already failed them. Kids are already considered "troubled" by your colleagues before they ever crossed the threshold of my hypothetical business. Aren't we running circles around the basic collision of lack of knowledge and abundance of readiness to judge?

[jerrysiz]

Aren't we running circles

Apparently so. If you have no intention of citing any sources for your claims (and, I'm not sure with all your professed knowledge, why the opinion of missmalfoy's brother is the only evidence you could hope to come up with, added to the fact that she repeatedly stated he would find the behaviour abhorrent and never put up with it, so I'm not sure why you think his interpretation would count in your favour) there's really no point in continuing this.

Something you might want to think about though: You keep going on about how I don't understand the language, but what you don't understand is that being triggered has nothing to do with mutual understanding of language, or intent of the speaker. You can completely understand the harmless intention of a person's comment and still have it throw you into a major PTSD spiral, no survivor is immune to this regardless of culture, age, or gender. If you'd had any experience working with survivors you'd know this and would not be so blase about it. I've seen triggering happen, and it's not pretty, certainly the kind of pain and trauma I'd want to avoid causing by simply not invoking rape in a threat, no matter what the context or language. So, yes, you should know that, despite your mutual lingusitical understanding and benign intent, you may very well trigger someone when invoking threats of rape. Whether they let you know that you've done so or just suffer in silence, you should be aware it's a possibility when you make the conscious choice to use those "colourful" descriptions instead of less profane and violent options. So from now on if you do this and trigger someone, you won't be able to claim you didn't know it was a possible outcome, you'll have to own it and live with the fact that your knowing choice of words just made them relive the most horrifying experience of their life.

Having said that, I'm sure you'll go on believing that what you're doing is perfectly fine, and that everyone else is just ignorant, and never for a minute entertain the idea that your viewpoint might be putting real people in danger of being triggered (or recognizing the enormity of what that entails). But I find the fact that you are so "willing to take that risk" with another persons psyche (especially when working with a population where this outcome is a very real possibility), and the fact that you seem to feel it is your right to do so, even when eliminating that risk would cost you nothing, extremely disturbing.

[NorthYorker]

So from now on if you do this and trigger someone, you won't be able to claim you didn't know it was a possible outcome, you'll have to own it and live with the fact that your knowing choice of words just made them relive the most horrifying experience of their life.What is better, let one kid snap or fail 100 of them? You see, this is the imperfect life, and the dirty fact is that, would you take 100 kids from this background, not a single one is going to get the seriousness of "politically correct" message. Including, likely, the PTSD kid you keep to mention. There's a communication breakdown between them and politically correct society, this is part of the trouble with them. So, if you go all PC on them, they miss the message, fail again, and go back to the ghetto they're trying to escape. All 100 of them. Is it an appropriate price? I'm seriously interested in your opinion, because "acceptable losses" notion is absolutely OK in "Soviet" (for lack of better definition, but it is "Russian" for you) culture. There's a price to pay for everything, the thinking goes, and "triggering an awful memory" might be appropriate. On a flip side, Canadian ideal of "perfection" does look unreachable to me. What's your take on the matter?

[Rainne]

Probably not. It's not so much as I wouldn't hire troubled youth (actually it is), also, the surrounding area is dangerous as well (don't really feel like being robbed). The reward is there, it's just not worth the hassle and headache.

[jerrysiz]

What is better, let one kid snap or fail 100 of them? You see, this is the imperfect life, and the dirty fact is that, would you take 100 kids from this background, not a single one is going to get the seriousness of "politically correct" message. Including, likely, the PTSD kid you keep to mention. There's a communication breakdown between them and politically correct society, this is part of the trouble with them. So, if you go all PC on them, they miss the message, fail again, and go back to the ghetto they're trying to escape. All 100 of them. Is it an appropriate price? I'm seriously interested in your opinion, because "acceptable losses" notion is absolutely OK in "Soviet" (for lack of better definition, but it is "Russian" for you) culture. There's a price to pay for everything, the thinking goes, and "triggering an awful memory" might be appropriate. On a flip side, Canadian ideal of "perfection" does look unreachable to me. What's your take on the matter?

No, I don't think knowingly triggering anyone with threats of rape is ever acceptable. You know it's possible that you will have kids with histories of sexual abuse, so don't take the chance you will trigger flashbacks by invoking threats of rape. Simple. In fact, just as a general rule, don't threaten anyone with rape or use language that could be interpreted as "I'm going to rape you". I can't believe you're seriously asking these questions.

There are other ways to phrase things strongly, you admitted earlier in the thread in response to missmalfoy that saying you will fire them would be sufficient but that invoking rape was more "colourful", I don't think "colourful" justifies you "taking that risk", and I don't think it's ever your right to "take that risk" with someone else's emotional well-being when you can easily avoid it by simply not evoking rape in your threats.

I don't accept your assertion that 100% of these kids will fail if you don't use violent and profane threats that invoke images of rape. You have no proof of this, and just because you can't imagine another way to motivate and manage kids doesn't mean that one does not exist. You're saying these kids are "troubled" so you're going to reinforce their violent and profane way of communicating with violent imagery and threats, and that will "save" them how exactly? Accepting and perpetuating this aggressive and sexually profane attitude does little to make them fully functioning members of Canadian society.

The "seriousness" of your message has to come from your attitude and the fact that you practise what you preach when you work with kids, you can't rely just on profane language to convey the seriousness of your message for you. If it's just an easy way to get their attention and show them you're serious, you might just have to try harder. You make it seem like any kid you give a serious threat to without the violent profanity is totally going to just ignore you and do it again, and every kid you threaten with violent sexual imagery will never ever transgress again. So even if you say "I'm going to rape you" and he knows this means "You screwed up and I'm going to fire you if you do it again", what do you do when he does it again? I don't believe for a minute that 100% of "troubled" kids are going to immediately comply with "I'm going to rape you", and 0% will comply with "If you do it again, you're fired".

So, no, I don't accept that knowingly triggering young victims of sexual abuse might ever be appropriate. If you knew any survivors or had ever seen someone have a flashback I don't think you'd even ask the question. I think you're making baseless assumptions about the "benefit" of using threats with violent sexual imagery, and your threshhold for what constitutes having "saved" these kids is very low.

[bcbgboy13]

Just a friendly reminder that the very topic of "troubled youths" assumes that those highly professional Canadian educators who should only ever work with at-risk kids already failed them. Kids are already considered "troubled" by your colleagues before they ever crossed the threshold of my hypothetical business.

You got me thinking out loud here.

Why we as a society just make the highly professional and highly paid Canadian educators to have the same 2-4 weeks paid vacation as all other people and actually work during the summer and during the other breaks with the so called troubled youth. And I guess "jerrysiz" can volunteer for that and start a grass-root campaign.

No need for more money, we have the trained people. Discuss.

[jerrysiz]

You got me thinking out loud here.

Why we as a society just make the highly professional and highly paid Canadian educators to have the same 2-4 weeks paid vacation as all other people and actually work during the summer and during the other breaks with the so called troubled youth. And I guess "jerrysiz" can volunteer for that and start a grass-root campaign.

No need for more money, we have the trained people. Discuss.

I'm sure if you wanted to start paying teachers in the summer you'd get lots of takers for those kind of programs. Now, take your political teacher-bashing thread derail elsewhere please.

[ishfish]

In communication there is content (what is being said) and process (how it is being said).

When there is conflict it is common to engage with an "in your face" approach. Typically this will result in a reaction which is strong. Strong and fixed. Communication ends quickly. Content may continue but it rarely changes.

"In your face" is an option.

"Putting your feet on the coffee table" is another option. Relaxed chatting. No game or strategy to trap - never ingenuine. One may not reach an agreement. That is fine, agreement is not necessary.

But if you are fortunate you build a bridge.

[NorthYorker]

No, I don't think knowingly triggering anyone with threats of rape is ever acceptable. You know it's possible that you will have kids with histories of sexual abuse, so don't take the chance you will trigger flashbacks by invoking threats of rape.Well, the discussion, in all fairness, should stop right here, because you've just proved, again, that you have zero knowledge on the subject. The thing is, those kids use this type of language between themselves all the time (this is easy to proof - just teach yourself how Russian profane sounds and hang out next to a high school around Bathurst/Finch or Bloor West; you'll hear more of it than normal Russian). So, any Russian "troubled youth" with PTSD who's likely to snap when the topic is raised, likely snapped long before our paths crossed. However, it is also a part of the culture that profane is used freely "among buddies" but means "serious business" in the workplace. Again, you are unaware of that, but you don't hesitate to pass your judgement.

I'm feeling now like I'm trying to communicate with Rogers technical support. Regardless of how much I'm trying to clarify what I need, I'm always getting the same well-rehearsed answer, very proper and very devoid of meaning.



what do you do when he does it again? Most likely, fire him. May be not for second transgression but for third. Understanding that there's a consequence for each action is also part of an education process.

[jerrysiz]

Well, the discussion, in all fairness, should stop right here, because you've just proved, again, that you have zero knowledge on the subject. The thing is, those kids use this type of language between themselves all the time (this is easy to proof - just teach yourself how Russian profane sounds and hang out next to a high school around Bathurst/Finch or Bloor West; you'll hear more of it than normal Russian). So, any Russian "troubled youth" with PTSD who's likely to snap when the topic is raised, likely snapped long before our paths crossed. However, it is also a part of the culture that profane is used freely "among buddies" but means "serious business" in the workplace. Again, you are unaware of that, but you don't hesitate to pass your judgement.

Wow, really? Kids joke aroud using profane sexual language? :rolleyes: In all my years working with them I never knew that until you told me. :facepalm: You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and your blase dismissal of it is one day going to cause someone to suffer real pain. Of course kids joke around with each other using disgusting violent sexual language. You think that means they can't be triggered by it? You think they're going to let their friends find out they're "different" or be seen as weak for not participating in the macho nonsense? I've had kids tell me about these kind of situations where they were triggered by the topic of discussion and they felt their heart speed up and got nauseous and sweaty, but kept a smile on their face and didn't let on...that didn't stop it from haunting them for days afterwards, nightmares, jumpiness, all those feelings stirred up again. And you presume to think that you have the right to "take the risk" that you're going to cause this reaction in a kid, and even worse, to completely deny even the possibility that your EE "toughies" are capable of having these feelings. It's people with attitudes like yours that make it so hard for survivors, especially male ones. You don't understand, you make no effort to understand, and you have no problem denying the problem even exists...so of course they're not going to open up to you, you're the one that's reinforcing the macho mentality that not being able to deal with this kind of sexually threatening talk equals weakness.

I've tried my best to explain this to you nicely, but you're just not hearing it. Like I said, one day this dismissive attitude of yours is going to cause someone real lasting emotional pain (if it hasn't already). Kids in all communities have been victims, just because they might hide it well doesn't mean they're not hurting. If you run a business with at-risk kids, you will come across survivors. If you choose to deliberately foster an environment where threats and jokes about sexual violence are acceptable (and you use this language yourself) you are causing harm. That's all I can say, you can choose to ignore it, but for the sake of people around you, I sincerely hope you don't.



Most likely, fire him. May be not for second transgression but for third. Understanding that there's a consequence for each action is also part of an education process.

So, your reasoning for why you have to use the rape threat is so they know you're serious, but now you're admitting that despite that they may do the same thing again, and maybe a third time? And you're mocking all the "PC bleeding hearts" for not taking the "hard line" these kids need (because in your eyes violent sexual language presumably counts as discipline) and assuming we'd "just throw them back into the dumpster they came from", but you'd just do the same, wouldn't you? Your management style has no progressive discipline at all, just violent sexual threat then firing. Yes, "there's a consequence for each action" is a part of the education process, but it's kind of hard to teach them anything when your first action is to kick them out.

It's interesting, you seem to have so little respect for these kids. You think the only thing they are capable of understanding is violence and threats, and your definition of success seems to be that they will begrudgingly fall in line, no aspirations beyond that. This is exactly why we need real social programs like those mentioned in the article in the OP, as Ford's suggestion that any person that wants to can help these kids simply by giving them a job leads exactly to situations like this. These kids need people who can teach them self-regulation and mentor them on to better things, instead of just a boss who says they come from a dumpster and bullies them before giving up on them completely.

You're so sure these kids can't understand anything but threats and violence, I'll tell you if I had a nickle for every time I've heard that with the kids I work with...and yet I've always managed to improve their behaviour without treating them with so little respect as to think they are incapable of learning anything beyond the violence they know. If you've talked to successful people that were part of social programs that turned their lives around, they don't mention being threatened and fired as what helped them, as anyone who has any knowledge of the subject knows that strict authoritarian approaches just lead to short term begrudging compliance. For kids to learn to truly manage their lives long term, they need more than that. Everyone thinks their kids are so special, that their behaviour is so much worse and uncontrollable than any other group's, that they just will not listen to reason, I've heard it all before. But I'm telling you, they can learn, not that you're going to see that if all that's in your toolbox is threatening and firing.

[NorthYorker]

You think that means they can't be triggered by it?Nope. I wrote very clearly (I thought it was clear, but you either misunderstood or deliberately twisting; not that you shied away of twisting before in our conversations). What was so hard to understand in my statement "any Russian "troubled youth" with PTSD who's likely to snap when the topic is raised, likely snapped long before"? OK, I'll try to explain once more, in faint hope (I'll say there's about 1-5% probability of that) that this was a honest misunderstanding. Your argument comes down to probability of a PTSD kid to snap if this kind of language is used. I've said that these kids hear hours of such language that day. So, can you estimate chances that anyone who did not snap after being exposed to 1000s of hours of this language yearly, would snap after me using it for 1-5 minutes. If your math skills are at par with 5 grader, you would come down to correct answer "infinitesmall". So, all that horsing around is about infinitesmall chance, from a person who keeps demonstrating absolute void of knowledge.
In all my years working with them I never knew that until you told me. :facepalm: Ism't this facepalming over belated understanding that 5 more minutes of what been done 1000s of hours is not likely to cause terminal consequences?
that didn't stop it from haunting them for days afterwards, nightmares, jumpiness, all those feelings stirred up again.Oh my, how many times should I remind you that we're talking about longo those kids are exposed to daily? This is like "you should not feed a peanut to a peanut factory worker because s/he might have a peanut allergy". In all honesty, if someone has a peanut allergy and works at peanut roasting facility, allergy would have been triggered long ago. Same thing here.
I've had kids tell me about these kind of situations where they were triggered by the topic of discussion and they felt their heart speed up and got nauseous and sweaty, but kept a smile on their face and didn't let on...You again managed to miss an elephant in the room, a huge whale of fact that this "trigger" happens multiple times a day for anyone in this group.
I've tried my best to explain this to you nicely Ma'am, I'm an engineer. I can't buy an explanation which is built on very persistent avoidance of very key facts.
And you're mocking all the "PC bleeding hearts" for not taking the "hard line" these kids need and assuming we'd "just throw them back into the dumpster they came from"Nope, I've accused bleeding hearts of daring to judge stuff they have not a faintest idea about and insisting on "one size fits all" approach. Your suggestions as steeped in reality as Taliban's suggestions on Western lifestyle (something they've never seen or experienced).
now you're admitting that despite that they may do the same thing again, and maybe a third time? Are you seriously surprised by the fact that sometimes peoples are repeating the same mistake? Or do you think that it is everyone's but perp's fault? If a kid get a B in your class room, is it your fault that s/he hasn't got an A?
You're so sure these kids can't understand anything but threats and violenceEnd of conversation, madam. Not a single time in this whole thread I ever said that violence is acceptable. You chose to falsely accuse me, and lost any credibility you've had. Bye, feel free to indulge in as many falsehoods as your character allows.

[vero95]

is that the end of it?

[jerrysiz]

Nope. I wrote very clearly (I thought it was clear, but you either misunderstood or deliberately twisting; not that you shied away of twisting before in our conversations). What was so hard to understand in my statement "any Russian "troubled youth" with PTSD who's likely to snap when the topic is raised, likely snapped long before"? OK, I'll try to explain once more, in faint hope (I'll say there's about 1-5% probability of that) that this was a honest misunderstanding. Your argument comes down to probability of a PTSD kid to snap if this kind of language is used. I've said that these kids hear hours of such language that day. So, can you estimate chances that anyone who did not snap after being exposed to 1000s of hours of this language yearly, would snap after me using it for 1-5 minutes. If your math skills are at par with 5 grader, you would come down to correct answer "infinitesmall". So, all that horsing around is about infinitesmall chance, from a person who keeps demonstrating absolute void of knowledge. Ism't this facepalming over belated understanding that 5 more minutes of what been done 1000s of hours is not likely to cause terminal consequences?Oh my, how many times should I remind you that we're talking about longo those kids are exposed to daily? This is like "you should not feed a peanut to a peanut factory worker because s/he might have a peanut allergy". In all honesty, if someone has a peanut allergy and works at peanut roasting facility, allergy would have been triggered long ago. Same thing here.You again managed to miss an elephant in the room, a huge whale of fact that this "trigger" happens multiple times a day for anyone in this group. Ma'am, I'm an engineer. I can't buy an explanation which is built on very persistent avoidance of very key facts.Nope, I've accused bleeding hearts of daring to judge stuff they have not a faintest idea about and insisting on "one size fits all" approach. Your suggestions as steeped in reality as Taliban's suggestions on Western lifestyle (something they've never seen or experienced). Are you seriously surprised by the fact that sometimes peoples are repeating the same mistake? Or do you think that it is everyone's but perp's fault? If a kid get a B in your class room, is it your fault that s/he hasn't got an A?End of conversation, madam. Not a single time in this whole thread I ever said that violence is acceptable. You chose to falsely accuse me, and lost any credibility you've had. Bye, feel free to indulge in as many falsehoods as your character allows.

Yep, that's pretty much the response I was expecting. Just continue to lash out (comparing me to the taliban now? Classy. But, like Vero, if you've got nothing else...) and assert with absolutely no evidence that your way is the only right way, causes no damage, and everyone who disagrees is just ignorant (oh, and racist, and lodging "personal attacks" against you, and like the taliban :facepalm:).

So go ahead, continue to believe that no one that does not stand up and speak out against being sexually threatened or hearing rape jokes cannot be triggered, that it's just not possible that one of your EE toughies could have ever been a victim of sexual abuse. You keep talking like being triggered leads someone to "snap" with a total psychological breakdown, and that this happens only once (after which, presumably, they're taken away to the funny farm and therefore will never be among your potential hiring pool). This kind of response just shows how ignorant you are. Survivors can be triggered hundreds or thousands of times, they learn to hide their reactions (especially males who run in "macho" circles) because they want to fit in. Just because they don't show it, does not mean this kind of talk does not hurt them.

So continue to encourage an environment in which violent sexual jokes and threats are seen as completely acceptable, continue to deny that anyone in your employ could possibly be a survivor that will be seriously hurt by this, continue to perpetuate the "macho" stereotypes about sexual abuse, weakness, and "acceptable losses". But, one day you're going to threaten to rape a kid and see them have a reaction to it. Maybe they avert their eyes, maybe their face goes blank for a moment, maybe their smile is just a little too forced. They're going to have just a split second of a reaction before they're able to hide it, and you're going to know what you've done. And you'll have to live for the rest of your life with the fact that you caused that kid pain and trauma, when you could have easily made choices that would have prevented that. It's possible for someone to unknowingly trigger a survivor because they've never had someone explain to them how serious rape threats and rape jokes are, but to continue to make threats or jokes about rape after they have been made aware of the possible concequences just makes them a terrible, terrible person.

Your entire argument here is an excellent demonstration of why we need real social programs for at risk-kids, run by qualified people. Not everyone that is simply willing to give these kids a job is equipped to work with them, and with this kind of attitude will very likely just make things worse. These kids deserve better than someone who is just going to perpetuate the macho aggressive interactions they are familiar with, who is just going to take an authoritarian approach and bully them into submission with threats and if that doesn't work just give up and fire them, who is completely unqualified to mentor kids and teach them the self-regulation that they need to manage their own lives, who doesn't believe they are capable of more.

You're defending some really disgusting things in the name of "cultural differences", half of my family is from the same background you are and there are lots of people in the community who would be horrified that you appear to be trying to speak for them when you advocate these things and make these sweeping negative generalizations. You have a hypothetical business model that starts with discriminitory hiring practices, assumes that these kids are just delinquents that can't learn more than what they already know, moves on to profane threats of rape, and ends with firing the kids and throwing them out. No one who works successfully with at-risk kids would hold such a low opinion of them or give up on them so easily.

You've shown you don't understand even the basics of how to work with these kids. Grandiose threats that you're not even going to follow through on untill maybe the third offense are just empty and do nothing to erradicate the problem behaviour (heck, every parent of a two year old knows that). Oh, you're going to fire them (and because you used the rape threat they know your serious), but when they do it again you don't fire them, you just threaten them again (this is working great, isn't it?), and when they do it a third time, you fire them. Well, you've certainly helped them a lot. :rolleyes: You really should just leave this to people who know what they're doing.

[NorthYorker]

Yep, that's pretty much the response I was expecting. Just continue to lash out (comparing me to the taliban now? Classy. But, like Vero, if you've got nothing else...) and assert with absolutely no evidence that your way is the only right way, causes no damage, and everyone who disagrees is just ignorant (oh, and racist, and lodging "personal attacks" against you, and like the taliban :facepalm:).

So go ahead, continue to believe that no one that does not stand up and speak out against being sexually threatened or hearing rape jokes cannot be triggered, that it's just not possible that one of your EE toughies could have ever been a victim of sexual abuse. You keep talking like being triggered leads someone to "snap" with a total psychological breakdown, and that this happens only once (after which, presumably, they're taken away to the funny farm and therefore will never be among your potential hiring pool). This kind of response just shows how ignorant you are. Survivors can be triggered hundreds or thousands of times, they learn to hide their reactions (especially males who run in "macho" circles) because they want to fit in. Just because they don't show it, does not mean this kind of talk does not hurt them.

So continue to encourage an environment in which violent sexual jokes and threats are seen as completely acceptable, continue to deny that anyone in your employ could possibly be a survivor that will be seriously hurt by this, continue to perpetuate the "macho" stereotypes about sexual abuse, weakness, and "acceptable losses". But, one day you're going to threaten to rape a kid and see them have a reaction to it. Maybe they avert their eyes, maybe their face goes blank for a moment, maybe their smile is just a little too forced. They're going to have just a split second of a reaction before they're able to hide it, and you're going to know what you've done. And you'll have to live for the rest of your life with the fact that you caused that kid pain and trauma, when you could have easily made choices that would have prevented that. It's possible for someone to unknowingly trigger a survivor because they've never had someone explain to them how serious rape threats and rape jokes are, but to continue to make threats or jokes about rape after they have been made aware of the possible concequences just makes them a terrible, terrible person.

Your entire argument here is an excellent demonstration of why we need real social programs for at risk-kids, run by qualified people. Not everyone that is simply willing to give these kids a job is equipped to work with them, and with this kind of attitude will very likely just make things worse. These kids deserve better than someone who is just going to perpetuate the macho aggressive interactions they are familiar with, who is just going to take an authoritarian approach and bully them into submission with threats and if that doesn't work just give up and fire them, who is completely unqualified to mentor kids and teach them the self-regulation that they need to manage their own lives, who doesn't believe they are capable of more.

You're defending some really disgusting things in the name of "cultural differences", half of my family is from the same background you are and there are lots of people in the community who would be horrified that you appear to be trying to speak for them when you advocate these things and make these sweeping negative generalizations. You have a hypothetical business model that starts with discriminitory hiring practices, assumes that these kids are just delinquents that can't learn more than what they already know, moves on to profane threats of rape, and ends with firing the kids and throwing them out. No one who works successfully with at-risk kids would hold such a low opinion of them or give up on them so easily.

You've shown you don't understand even the basics of how to work with these kids. Grandiose threats that you're not even going to follow through on untill maybe the third offense are just empty and do nothing to erradicate the problem behaviour (heck, every parent of a two year old knows that). Oh, you're going to fire them (and because you used the rape threat they know your serious), but when they do it again you don't fire them, you just threaten them again (this is working great, isn't it?), and when they do it a third time, you fire them. Well, you've certainly helped them a lot. :rolleyes: You really should just leave this to people who know what they're doing.All this instead of simple "Sorry for false accusations of defending and promoting violence"? Yep, I was expecting it too. You started with "I don't know anything it but I judge it", continued with "blah-blah-blah, I don't even want to know, I don't read your stinky sources" and graduated, without shred of evidence, to "you defend violence" accusations.

To tell you the truth, I knew it from the very beginning. Educators around the world share one character trait. They'll do anything but accept the fact that their authority or knowledge is not boundless. Lording over kids year after year does it to people.

[vero95]

All this instead of simple "Sorry for false accusations of defending and promoting violence"? Yep, I was expecting it too. You started with "I don't know anything it but I judge it", continued with "blah-blah-blah, I don't even want to know, I don't read your stinky sources" and graduated, without shred of evidence, to "you defend violence" accusations.

To tell you the truth, I knew it from the very beginning. Educators around the world share one character trait. They'll do anything but accept the fact that their authority or knowledge is not boundless. Lording over kids year after year does it to people.

well said. I agree

[jerrysiz]

All this instead of simple "Sorry for false accusations of defending and promoting violence"?

I said you think these kids can't learn anything beyond the threats and violence they know. You seem to be confused because you think that physical violence is the only kind that ever matters. Because you've already said that causing these kids emotional trauma by using vivid descriptions of the rape you're going to subject them to might be acceptable under some circumstances. But, nah, you totally don't condone violence. :rolleyes:


Yep, I was expecting it too. You started with "I don't know anything it but I judge it", continued with "blah-blah-blah, I don't even want to know, I don't read your stinky sources" and graduated, without shred of evidence, to "you defend violence" accusations.

To tell you the truth, I knew it from the very beginning. Educators around the world share one character trait. They'll do anything but accept the fact that their authority or knowledge is not boundless. Lording over kids year after year does it to people.

Yeah, yeah, I'm ignorant, get a new tune. In this thread I've had the audacity to say that threatening kids with rape is disgusting, no matter what their background, and that it's both traumatic and ineffective as a method of discipline, as well as that all kids can learn to be fully functioning members of society if treated with respect and given the right guidance. Your position on the other hand, is that your particular little group of EE toughies is so broken that they have no hope of understanding anything but profane violent threats, and that using rape threats is no big deal, even if it might cause some kids emotional trauma. I can totally live with my position on the issue, but I don't know how you can live with yours. But I guess that's your problem.

[NorthYorker]

well said. I agreeI typically very much disagree with your teachers-bashing, but no one is perfect, not even teachers. And yes, certain overestimation of one's own infallibility seem to be an occupational hazard :)

[vero95]

I typically very much disagree with your teachers-bashing, but no one is perfect, not even teachers. And yes, certain overestimation of one's own infallibility seem to be an occupational hazard :)

yeah, that could also be observed in other occupations. therefore so much cops bashing
power is dangerous in hands of people who can't handle it
you could have stopped when shw accused you of rape threats ;)

[NorthYorker]

you could have stopped when shw accused you of rape threats ;)Nope, that was the heart of the Russian joke about clueless foreigner translating profane lingo verbatim. She swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Still clinging to it, as this idiotic "translation" is the only piece she can base her attack on.

[Mr.Sea]

Mo money mo problems?

[jerrysiz]

Nope, that was the heart of the Russian joke about clueless foreigner translating profane lingo verbatim. She swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Still clinging to it, as this idiotic "translation" is the only piece she can base her attack on.

Despite the fact that you've never provided any evidence that saying "I'm going to rape you" and describing the acts in detail is viewed as completely non-offensive, you just expect everyone to believe it blindly. But I've long since given up the idea that you are going to provide any evidence for any of your claims beyond some generic article about russian profane employing "a wide variety" of meanings. I'm sure if you could find any actual evidence you would have posted it by now.

I find it hysterical how you're now buddying up to vero. I guess when you go on for pages saying it's okay to threaten kids with rape language you need to take your allies where you can, but really. You should be proud that you've crafted such a strong argument that, while people with an EE background disagree with your claims and think what you propose is disgusting, you have at least managed to convince someone with vero's level of logic and understanding. :lol: Well done.

[Junigenmukyoku]

Yes, if I had the money and resources. It would help reduce crime and help the community change for the better.

[ishfish]

I think NewYorker should open his business. Most people voted no - so already there are a limited number wanting/able to help out the neighbourhood.
He has obviously got the ability to to take shet and give shet. And he can stick it out with jerrysiz - an accompliishment many cannot claim. Not a quitter.
The background he stated he came from would give him a unique advantage - respect earned. I wish you had talked more about your childhood.
A little rough in the mouth - yes, at times - but his business probably would outlast mine in spite of my professional properness and knowledge.

[jerrysiz]

Most people voted no - so already there are a limited number wanting/able to help out the neighbourhood.

Despite lack of interest in running these types of businesses, blindly accepting anyone who applies (whether qualified or not) is rarely a good policy, especially when dealing with kids. The idea is not just to give these kids a job, but to give them a mentor that will teach them to live their adult lives successfully and independently in Canadian society. You'd be fine with him opening this business despite the fact that you called the type of practices he was perpetuating "rotten and wrong"? Would you be okay with your kid having a job with a boss like him? And, if not, why would it be okay to have at-risk kids working for him?

[vero95]

Despite the fact that you've never provided any evidence that saying "I'm going to rape you" and describing the acts in detail is viewed as completely non-offensive, you just expect everyone to believe it blindly. But I've long since given up the idea that you are going to provide any evidence for any of your claims beyond some generic article about russian profane employing "a wide variety" of meanings. I'm sure if you could find any actual evidence you would have posted it by now.

I find it hysterical how you're now buddying up to vero. I guess when you go on for pages saying it's okay to threaten kids with rape language you need to take your allies where you can, but really. You should be proud that you've crafted such a strong argument that, while people with an EE background disagree with your claims and think what you propose is disgusting, you have at least managed to convince someone with vero's level of logic and understanding. :lol: Well done.

you will never understand that, jerry, but ther are jobs where people do not care about politics but more about the merit. in your environment, it's probably impossible to survive especially for weak ones without buddying up to someone. therefore the accusation since you do not know any better

[jerrysiz]

you will never understand that, jerry, but ther are jobs where people do not care about politics but more about the merit. in your environment, it's probably impossible to survive especially for weak ones without buddying up to someone. therefore the accusation since you do not know any better

I've just read your post three times, and I can't for the life of me see how it's in any way a response to what I wrote, or remotely related to what I wrote, or even basically literate. I assume it's supposed to be some sort of insult though, so there's that. Good job, as always, vero.

[vero95]

I've just read your post three times, and I can't for the life of me see how it's in any way a response to what I wrote, or remotely related to what I wrote, or even basically literate. I assume it's supposed to be some sort of insult though, so there's that. Good job, as always, vero.

it's not about buddying up, jerry. either someone is right or not. there are threads where rems and I take one side even though he is a complete troll in other threads

[jerrysiz]

it's not about buddying up, jerry. either someone is right or not. there are threads where rems and I take one side even though he is a complete troll in other threads

Oh, of course, everything you wrote in that post about merit, politics, my environment, weak ones, and accusations was just vero-speak, completely superfluous to your point and just serving to confuse and amuse the rest of us. Buddies or not, I can see why NorthYorker would be glad to have a mind like yours in his corner.

[vero95]

Oh, of course, everything you wrote in that post about merit, politics, my environment, weak ones, and accusations was just vero-speak, completely superfluous to your point and just serving to confuse and amuse the rest of us. Buddies or not, I can see why NorthYorker would be glad to have a mind like yours in his corner.

you seem lost. if you need a mentor, I can be your mentor
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/21558862.jpg

[ishfish]

Despite lack of interest in running these types of businesses, blindly accepting anyone who applies (whether qualified or not) is rarely a good policy, especially when dealing with kids. The idea is not just to give these kids a job, but to give them a mentor that will teach them to live their adult lives successfully and independently in Canadian society. You'd be fine with him opening this business despite the fact that you called the type of practices he was perpetuating "rotten and wrong"? Would you be okay with your kid having a job with a boss like him? And, if not, why would it be okay to have at-risk kids working for him?

I do not know NewYorker but here is my thinking.

I think he made a bravado statement which normally would be received by the "tough guy" or "red neck" type of response not uncommon on this site (there are way too many people buying into that bootcamp crape mentality). And then the thread would have disappeared.

But you challenged him and pushed him hard. In spite of that he did not respond with the tough guy nonsense(significant). Unless the moderators were doing some quick editing that I did not notice he showed more restraint than many other posters do.

So could he open a business employing troubled youth? Or youth at risk of chronic unemployment, substance misuse and abuse, teen pregnancy... Maybe. He would be an employer not a therapist. Maybe this thread highlighted that potential employers would benefit from education/support regarding troubled youth, culture...boundaries. As far as what kind of boss NewYorker would make - I do not know. I imagine that his skill set is far more than what this thread has highlighted. There was never an indepth discussion about his acknowleging positive behavior - maybe he has an inner russian cheerleader we do not know about.

Business people want their businesses to succeed - employee attendance to be solid, profits... And employeer who is nothing but bad will not keep troubled youth for long - they are not always the most committed employees.

I would not write him off is what I am saying.

[jerrysiz]

I do not know NewYorker but here is my thinking.

I think he made a bravado statement which normally would be received by the "tough guy" or "red neck" type of response not uncommon on this site (there are way too many people buying into that bootcamp crape mentality). And then the thread would have disappeared. But you challenged him and pushed him hard.

Yeah, maybe, but there are too many people advocating too many disgusting things on RFD, I don't think letting them go unchallenged is the answer. And, for the record, it wasn't me who originally called NorthYorker out on the rape threat thing, by the time I found the thread missmalfoy had already questioned his statements and called his views disgusting, I just jumped in to agree when he started defending those statements.


In spite of that he did not respond with the tough guy nonsense(significant). Unless the moderators were doing some quick editing that I did not notice he showed more restraint than many other posters do.

Maybe my definition of "tough guy nonsense" is different than yours, but IMO things like "well, I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're just a lady", or "the kids that work for me would be tough, not survivors of sexual abuse that would snap when threatened with rape", or comparing people to the taliban, or several of the other things he's said would certainly qualify. And, considering some of the posters we have here on RFD, saying that he may not have been as offensive in his response style as some other members might have been is a rather dubious compliment. ;)


So could he open a business employing troubled youth? Or youth at risk of chronic unemployment, substance misuse and abuse, teen pregnancy... Maybe. He would be an employer not a therapist.

Employers that open businesses in priority neighborhoods to work with troubled youth are running de facto social programs (that's the type of business Ford was refering to in the article in the OP). They're not therapists, but they are mentors, and need more understanding of how to motivate and guide kids to long term success than the average business owner.


Maybe this thread highlighted that potential employers would benefit from education/support regarding troubled youth, culture...boundaries.

Boundries, absolutely.


I would not write him off is what I am saying.

I do not usually write people off, as I believe in their ability to learn and change, but for that people need to want to learn and change. No matter what his other qualifications, the fact that he so strongly defends perpetuating a practise that is completely unacceptable in Canadian society, potentially harmful to kids, and entirely ineffective as a method of discipline in the long term, makes me think he has no interest in this. I agree that potential employers would need to be educated on what is appropriate when working with kids, and respecting both boundries and the kids themselves, but if these employers are so set on not listening to any of this, their businesses would be a dangerous place to put our vulnurable kids.

I notice you didn't answer the other question in my post, and I really am interested. Would you want your kid working for a boss that used profane violent threats (even leaving aside the rape issue for the moment) to keep him/her in line? If you wouldn't, it shouldn't be acceptable for anyone else's kids to have to be subjected to that kind of treatment either.

[vero95]

Yeah, maybe, but there are too many people advocating too many disgusting things on RFD, I don't think letting them go unchallenged is the answer. And, for the record, it wasn't me who originally called NorthYorker out on the rape threat thing, by the time I found the thread missmalfoy had already questioned his statements and called his views disgusting, I just jumped in to agree when he started defending those statements.



Maybe my definition of "tough guy nonsense" is different than yours, but IMO things like "well, I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're just a lady", or "the kids that work for me would be tough, not survivors of sexual abuse that would snap when threatened with rape", or comparing people to the taliban, or several of the other things he's said would certainly qualify. And, considering some of the posters we have here on RFD, saying that he may not have been as offensive in his response style as some other members might have been is a rather dubious compliment. ;)



Employers that open businesses in priority neighborhoods to work with troubled youth are running de facto social programs (that's the type of business Ford was refering to in the article in the OP). They're not therapists, but they are mentors, and need more understanding of how to motivate and guide kids to long term success than the average business owner.



Boundries, absolutely.



I do not usually write people off, as I believe in their ability to learn and change, but for that people need to want to learn and change. No matter what his other qualifications, the fact that he so strongly defends perpetuating a practise that is completely unacceptable in Canadian society, potentially harmful to kids, and entirely ineffective as a method of discipline in the long term, makes me think he has no interest in this. I agree that potential employers would need to be educated on what is appropriate when working with kids, and respecting both boundries and the kids themselves, but if these employers are so set on not listening to any of this, their businesses would be a dangerous place to put our vulnurable kids.

I notice you didn't answer the other question in my post, and I really am interested. Would you want your kid working for a boss that used profane violent threats (even leaving aside the rape issue for the moment) to keep him/her in line? If you wouldn't, it shouldn't be acceptable for anyone else's kids to have to be subjected to that kind of treatment either.

you wrongly accused NY of rape threats and now are looking for excuses LOL what makes you think you are qualified to evaluate other people's skills after you've been giving the evidence to the contrary for few days

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif

[jerrysiz]

you wrongly accused NY of rape threats and now are looking for excuses LOL what makes you think you are qualified to evaluate other people's skills after you've been giving the evidence to the contrary for few days

:facepalm: I didn't wrongly accuse him of anything and I'm not looking for any excuses, my position has remained the same throughout the thread. He is threatening kids by saying "I'm going to rape you" and describing how he's going to do it. Whether he says the term has an alternate meaning does nothing to alter the fact that one of those meanings is "I'm going to rape you". Of course, even if what he claims (but still has not proven) is true, perpetuating the kind of system that uses violent sexual threats to keep workers in line is completely unacceptable in a Canadian business, and a completely ineffective and disgusting way to treat young workers.

Go back to the downtown thread and keep trying to argue that just because one thing is more popular, it means the less popular thing is bad, at least that's funny to watch you try to justify, what you're doing here is just sad.

[vero95]

:facepalm: I didn't wrongly accuse him of anything and I'm not looking for any excuses, my position has remained the same throughout the thread. He is threatening kids by saying "I'm going to rape you" and describing how he's going to do it. Whether he says the term has an alternate meaning does nothing to alter the fact that one of those meanings is "I'm going to rape you". Of course, even if what he claims (but still has not proven) is true, perpetuating the kind of system that uses violent sexual threats to keep workers in line is completely unacceptable in a Canadian business, and a completely ineffective and disgusting way to treat young workers.

Go back to the downtown thread and keep trying to argue that just because one thing is more popular, it means the less popular thing is bad, at least that's funny to watch you try to justify, what you're doing here is just sad.

as if your comments on this thread were not disgusting LOL someone with such poor judgment should not be telling people what's acceptable. you should not be judging or mentoring people if you need a mentor
feel free to join the discussion on raising kids DT if you enjoy it so much. btw, rules in real estate are very simple. the very low demand means something is bad

[jerrysiz]

as if your comments on this thread were not disgusting LOL someone with such poor judgment should not be telling people what's acceptable. you should not be judging or mentoring people if you need a mentor

Oh no! More baseless insults from vero, however will I go on? :lol:


feel free to join the discussion on raising kids DT if you enjoy it so much. btw, rules in real estate are very simple. the very low demand means something is bad

There are others there already thrashing you quite efficiently, no need for me to join in, but it is amusing to watch. Go on then, make that "low demand=bad" arguement over there, shoo.

[Simaahoy]

Pastor opens Subway in a troubled neighborhood (in a church)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHmOfBAyLY

[vero95]

Oh no! More baseless insults from vero, however will I go on? :lol:



There are others there already thrashing you quite efficiently, no need for me to join in, but it is amusing to watch. Go on then, make that "low demand=bad" arguement over there, shoo.

you mean those who do not know why there is poor demand for raising kids DT and claim it is a great place to raise kids because if people do not order fish but order chicken instead, it does not mean the fish is bad :D

[jerrysiz]

Pastor opens Subway in a troubled neighborhood (in a church)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHmOfBAyLY

Amazing. This guy is doing it right.

[jerrysiz]

you mean those who do not know why there is poor demand for raising kids DT and claim it is a great place to raise kids because if people do not order fish but order chicken instead, it does not mean the fish is bad :D

Right, it does not. And perhaps you've noticed that you're making this argument in the wrong thread? Again, shoo.

[vero95]

Right, it does not. And perhaps you've noticed that you're making this argument in the wrong thread? Again, shoo.

you start an argument and blame me for responding to it :facepalm:

[jerrysiz]

you start an argument and blame me for responding to it :facepalm:

I wasn't starting an argument, I was telling you to go away and suggesting a thread it would be more amusing to see you troll in. Sorry you didn't understand.

[vero95]

Pastor opens Subway in a troubled neighborhood (in a church)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFHmOfBAyLY

that's just sad that a pastor did that and not some social institution. maybe the problem is those who are paid to come up with ideas or run programs like that waste time on the internet forums trying to prove how others are not qualified to run such programs

[peanutz]

I don't really want to get into the heated debate between you guys... but for what it's worth NorthYorker, I understand what you originally meant. You can use profane language to try to drive a point across but only with certain types of people, without them taking it in a way you didn't mean for.

If I was late too many times or showed up hungover, etc. and I was told by my boss the next time it happens he/she would F me in the A, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. You wouldn't know it, though, to look at me, being a petite bookish Asian girl. And yes, I do have some history of abuse that I won't go into (apparently it's far more common than statistics would tell you), but people can be resilient and often have other support networks that prevent them from breaking down.

[jerrysiz]

that's just sad that a pastor did that and not some social institution. maybe the problem is those who are paid to come up with ideas or run programs like that waste time on the internet forums trying to prove how others are not qualified to run such programs

Wow, that's lame even for you vero.


I don't really want to get into the heated debate between you guys... but for what it's worth NorthYorker, I understand what you originally meant. You can use profane language to try to drive a point across but only with certain types of people, without them taking it in a way you didn't mean for.

If I was late too many times or showed up hungover, etc. and I was told by my boss the next time it happens he/she would F me in the A, I wouldn't bat an eyelash. You wouldn't know it, though, to look at me, being a petite bookish Asian girl. And yes, I do have some history of abuse that I won't go into (apparently it's far more common than statistics would tell you), but people can be resilient and often have other support networks that prevent them from breaking down.

I'm glad you wouldn't be triggered by that, but others may well be. I agree that you can only get away with that with some people and not others, and there's really no sure-fire way to tell the difference. I also agree that abuse is much more common than most people think, and you'd never be able to tell it about someone just by looking at how they present themselves to the world.

[ishfish]

I notice you didn't answer the other question in my post, and I really am interested. Would you want your kid working for a boss that used profane violent threats (even leaving aside the rape issue for the moment) to keep him/her in line? If you wouldn't, it shouldn't be acceptable for anyone else's kids to have to be subjected to that kind of treatment either.

Man, there ain't nothin' gets past you>:lol:

I do not want anyone to have an employer who thinks that yelling/profanity/intimidation/condescendtion (is that a word)...is an option let alone close to a first choice. That goes for you too peanutz. There are many other consequence to choose from: sitting down and talking eye to eye, reduction in hours, lack of bonus/special priviledge, no raise, stay on probationary period... Certainly it is the most vulnerable people who are most at risk of work place abuse - and I would assume that anyone is an undesirable neighbourhood may fall into this category If the gov't really wants to help by encouraging businesses to open up in these neighbourhoods and employee local people then access to resources and supports would be important: How to reward/consequence, build teams, have a postive work environment, and realtime trouble shooting...

At the risk of generalizing vulnerable kids in this sense often grow up in families lacking boundaries - say more typified by chaos. If there is parental substance abuse...well that is another thread. So in a family stressed by poverty/substance abuse/chaos...there is often abuse (verbal, sexual, physical) and little opportunity for postive role modelling (school attendance, keeping a job, healthy problem solving, good priorities).

Ideally a job would be a place to receive healthy rewards, learn committment/hygeine/appropriate language, have pride in accomplishment - and it would be a safe place.

So along comes this tough boss with his big mouth trash profanity - not ok. But maybe this boss has his heart in a decent place - his approach reflects his own unfortunate experiences (and a touch of man-bravado, god help us). Maybe this guy can learn a different approach - and the reasoning behind the approach. Maybe he will learn that the opposite of being an ASSe is not being a bleeding heart pc (how horrid). - it is being someone who is in control even if that means giving up some control. And he can find an acceptable way to have potty mouth bonding if needed. Or maybe he'll decide it is not for him as he cannot/will not change.

But certainly work should be safe and positive for all - or at least never abusive.

[Doodies]

Wow, that's lame even for you vero.



I'm glad you wouldn't be triggered by that, but others may well be. I agree that you can only get away with that with some people and not others, and there's really no sure-fire way to tell the difference. I also agree that abuse is much more common than most people think, and you'd never be able to tell it about someone just by looking at how they present themselves to the world.

Yep, their is always an over sensitive bedwetting liberal type that will cry over a bad word, regardless of context or meaning. They hear a bad word and they will go and cry like a child about it. They are few and far between but when they hear something that "offends" boy do they go on and on about it.

[jerrysiz]

Man, there ain't nothin' gets past you>:lol:

Nope, mind like a steel trap. :lol:


I do not want anyone to have an employer who thinks that yelling/profanity/intimidation/condescendtion (is that a word)...is an option let alone close to a first choice. That goes for you too peanutz. There are many other consequence to choose from: sitting down and talking eye to eye, reduction in hours, lack of bonus/special priviledge, no raise, stay on probationary period... Certainly it is the most vulnerable people who are most at risk of work place abuse - and I would assume that anyone is an undesirable neighbourhood may fall into this category If the gov't really wants to help by encouraging businesses to open up in these neighbourhoods and employee local people then access to resources and supports would be important: How to reward/consequence, build teams, have a postive work environment, and realtime trouble shooting...

At the risk of generalizing vulnerable kids in this sense often grow up in families lacking boundaries - say more typified by chaos. If there is parental substance abuse...well that is another thread. So in a family stressed by poverty/substance abuse/chaos...there is often abuse (verbal, sexual, physical) and little opportunity for postive role modelling (school attendance, keeping a job, healthy problem solving, good priorities).

Ideally a job would be a place to receive healthy rewards, learn committment/hygeine/appropriate language, have pride in accomplishment - and it would be a safe place.

So along comes this tough boss with his big mouth trash profanity - not ok. But maybe this boss has his heart in a decent place - his approach reflects his own unfortunate experiences (and a touch of man-bravado, god help us). Maybe this guy can learn a different approach - and the reasoning behind the approach. Maybe he will learn that the opposite of being an ASSe is not being a bleeding heart pc (how horrid). - it is being someone who is in control even if that means giving up some control. And he can find an acceptable way to have potty mouth bonding if needed. Or maybe he'll decide it is not for him as he cannot/will not change.

But certainly work should be safe and positive for all - or at least never abusive.

I completely agree with all of this, and I'm glad to hear it...when you first made the comment about "he should open his business" without this full explaination, I was surprised that you seemed to be unconcerned about subjecting kids to this kind of abuse, so it's good to have the clarification. I do think that "rough around the edges" people can learn to work really well with these kids, like you said, if they're willing to learn a different approach. Unfortunately, I don't think all of them will be willing (as it's so much easier to just dismiss the importance of treating kids with care and respect as bleeding heart PC crap) but, then again, you've always been much more optimistic about these things than I am. ;)

[jerrysiz]

Yep, their is always an over sensitive bedwetting liberal type that will cry over a bad word, regardless of context or meaning. They hear a bad word and they will go and cry like a child about it. They are few and far between but when they hear something that "offends" boy do they go on and on about it.

Abuse victims are "oversensitive bedwetters" that "go and cry like a child" when they get triggered? That might just be the most disgusting thing said so far in this thread, and you've had a fair bit of competition. Congratulations, you've earned your tough-guy anti-pc troll stripes, you can go away now.

[ishfish]

A more interesting thread would have been - what would it take for a business to prosper in such a neighbourhood - fiscally and socially.

Oh sure we can anticipate the funny and the dimwit responses. But after those I imagine that with the great variety of RFD users there would be some very creative ideas and some fascinating stories (maybe even some nonfiction ones).

Goodnight.

[Doodies]

Abuse victims are "oversensitive bedwetters" that "go and cry like a child" when they get triggered? That might just be the most disgusting thing said so far in this thread, and you've had a fair bit of competition. Congratulations, you've earned your tough-guy anti-pc troll stripes, you can go away now.

When they get triggered...lol.. wow.. If some one gets "triggered" from hearing a bad word then that is on them, not me. Should we all stop saying words because it might trigger some one, you people really are pathetic.

[jerrysiz]

A more interesting thread would have been - what would it take for a business to prosper in such a neighbourhood - fiscally and socially.

Oh sure we can anticipate the funny and the dimwit responses. But after those I imagine that with the great variety of RFD users there would be some very creative ideas and some fascinating stories (maybe even some nonfiction ones).

Goodnight.

Yes, that would have been an interesting thread, it's something the government should be asking as well (instead of the mayor just saying, "well, any random person should just give them a job, that should totally work". That's some well thought out social programming, no? ;)). Goodnight.


When they get triggered...lol.. wow.. If some one gets "triggered" from hearing a bad word then that is on them, not me. Should we all stop saying words because it might trigger some one, you people really are pathetic.

I already awarded you your anti-PC troll stripes, I have no more of them to give, so there's really no need for you to keep on laughing at the trauma of abuse victims here.

[Doodies]

Yes, that would have been an interesting thread, it's something the government should be asking as well (instead of the mayor just saying, "well, any random person should just give them a job, that should totally work". That's some well thought out social programming, no? ;)). Goodnight.



I already awarded you your anti-PC troll stripes, I have no more of them to give, so there's really no need for you to keep on laughing at the trauma of abuse victims here.

Oh no, miss, you just triggered me.... I'm having trouble breathing.. that T word, oh my...........it hurts me..LOL


Lol, Yea im laughing at abuse victims, that is what I am doing:-0. I just sit around and find abuse victims to laugh at..... Oh my, you really are the worst of the worst. When you are out in the real world do you stop everyone you see that uses a bad word and tell them "words hurt"..lol:lol: You are too funny.

[jerrysiz]

Oh no, miss, you just triggered me.... I'm having trouble breathing.. that T word, oh my...........it hurts me..LOL


Lol, Yea im laughing at abuse victims, that is what I am doing:-0. I just sit around and find abuse victims to laugh at..... Oh my, you really are the worst of the worst. When you are out in the real world do you stop everyone you see that uses a bad word and tell them "words hurt"..lol:lol: You are too funny.

You responded to a post about abuse victims getting triggered when someone threatens them with rape, saying they were oversensitive bedwetters and laughing about it. So, yes, if I'm out in the real world and I heard someone threaten to rape someone, even as a "joke", I'd likely take issue with it. Guess that makes me a pathetic PC bedwetter then, but that insult doesn't really sting when coming from someone who laughs at rape victims.

[Doodies]

You responded to a post about abuse victims getting triggered when someone threatens them with rape, saying they were oversensitive bedwetters and laughing about it. So, yes, if I'm out in the real world and I heard someone threaten to rape someone, even as a "joke", I'd likely take issue with it. Guess that makes me a pathetic PC bedwetter then, but that insult doesn't really sting when coming from someone who laughs at rape victims.

Bull ***** , you would not stop some guy tlaking to another guy saying "I'm gonna rape you in call of duty ". If you did you would be certifiable...lol, Although, I could sort of picture it, you stopping them and saying " You know you saying that could of triggered that guy, he may have had a past history of being abused, you should really watch your language young man". LOL oh my god you are a riot....

[jerrysiz]

Bull ***** , you would not stop some guy tlaking to another guy saying "I'm gonna rape you in call of duty ". If you did you would be certifiable...lol, Although, I could sort of picture it, you stopping them and saying " You know you saying that could of triggered that guy, he may have had a past history of being abused, you should really watch your language young man". LOL oh my god you are a riot....

Yeah, making light of rape is just so funny and harmless. :rolleyes: You're not a very good troll, are you? You need to try for more subtlety.

[Doodies]

Yeah, making light of rape is just so funny and harmless. :rolleyes: You're not a very good troll, are you? You need to try for more subtlety.

Why do you have to keep responding, just stop and go away. Also stop using that T word, it offends me deeply.


Have a good night.

[jerrysiz]

Why do you have to keep responding, just stop and go away. Also stop using that T word, it offends me deeply.


Have a good night.

I've got time on my hands, but you're free to give up this trolling and leave at any point. And while you're being so cool and anti-pc by defending people who minimize rape by jokingly using it to describe something as benign as beating someone in a video game, maybe you can defend people that call their strict boss a nazi and minimize the trauma of holocaust survivors as well. You'd get double the troll points and be able to laugh at two sets of victims at once.

[Doodies]

I've got time on my hands, but you're free to give up this trolling and leave at any point. And while you're being so cool and anti-pc by defending people who minimize rape by jokingly using it to describe something as benign as beating someone in a video game, maybe you can defend people that call their strict boss a nazi and minimize the trauma of holocaust survivors as well. You'd get double the troll points and be able to laugh at two sets of victims at once.

Lol, you are funny, c'mon you are just having a laugh with all this. I don't think you actually believe the stuff you are writing it is way to :eek::eek::eek:

[jerrysiz]

Lol, you are funny, c'mon you are just having a laugh with all this. I don't think you actually believe the stuff you are writing it is way to :eek::eek::eek:

I guess when most of your interactions are with other juvinile anti-pc trolls like yourself, you lose perspective and forget that, to some people, throwing charged words like "rape" and "nazi" around as a joke is pretty despicable. Welcome to the wider world where not all people think making light of serious subjects is funny. Not everyone finds it hysterical that abuse victims might get triggered when people threaten or "joke" about raping them.

[Doodies]

I guess when most of your interactions are with other juvinile anti-pc trolls like yourself, you lose perspective and forget that, to some people, throwing charged words like "rape" and "nazi" around as a joke is pretty despicable. Welcome to the wider world where not all people think making light of serious subjects is funny. Not everyone finds it hysterical that abuse victims might get triggered when people threaten or "joke" about raping them.


OH gosh, miss, when you put like that, I mean I really should take a good long look a myself and my actions. I really needed that pep talk.


You know, there is this lady at work that had a hysterectomy, I am now going to throw all the baby pictures from the work environment into the garbage simply because they may trigger her, Gosh do you think that will cheer her up:lol:..... LOL this is fun!

[jerrysiz]

OH gosh, miss, when you put like that, I mean I really should take a good long look a myself and my actions. I really needed that pep talk.


You know, there is this lady at work that had a hysterectomy, I am now going to throw all the baby pictures from the work environment into the garbage simply because they may trigger her, Gosh do you think that will cheer her up:lol:..... LOL this is fun!

Are you really this thick or are you still just trolling?

Nazis rounded people up, tortured them, and killed them, by the millions. Your strict boss is not a nazi, and neither is the person whose view on social or political policies you disagree with.

Rape is a violent dehumanizing act that destroys a person's innocence and leaves life-long emotional scars. Someone beating you in a video game has not "raped" you. It's not something you use as a throw-away joke or a "colourful" threat.

If you're going to make light of seriously horrific things that have been done to people deliberately, against their will, by others who did not see them worthy of basic human dignity and self-determination, there's something very wrong with you. And if you can't see the difference between that and the other innane joking examples you're giving, there's even more wrong with you.

[Doodies]

Are you really this thick or are you still just trolling?

Nazis rounded people up, tortured them, and killed them, by the millions. Your strict boss is not a nazi, and neither is the person whose view on social or political policies you disagree with.

Rape is a violent dehumanizing act that destroys a person's innocence and leaves life-long emotional scars. Someone beating you in a video game has not "raped" you. It's not something you use as a throw-away joke or a "colourful" threat.



If you're going to make light of seriously horrific things that have been done to people deliberately, against their will, by others who did not see them worthy of basic human dignity and self-determination, there's something very wrong with you. And if you can't see the difference between that and the other innane joking examples you're giving, there's even more wrong with you.

Miss, the Nazi example is pretty bad, you gotta admit it has been quite a while, I doubt I will be "offending" any holocaust survivors, as they are pretty much all you know dead or close to death...

Anyways, seems like we got ourselves into a little case of the agree to disagree, if ya know what I mean;).

You can go through your life preaching about your holier than thou self righteousness and I will go through my life having a good chuckle.

Have a good night.

[jerrysiz]

Miss, the Nazi example is pretty bad, you gotta admit it has been quite a while, I doubt I will be "offending" any holocaust survivors, as they are pretty much all you know dead or close to death...

Anyways, seems like we got ourselves into a little case of the agree to disagree, if ya know what I mean;).

You can go through your life preaching about your holier than thou self righteousness and I will go through my life having a good chuckle.

Have a good night.

Well I guess that answers my question, there's something very wrong with you. Enjoy your little "chuckle" at the expense of people who have been through terrible experiences and the people who love them. Like I said, minimizing other people's pain is just so funny. :rolleyes: Maybe now you can leave, as it's obvious you just came here as an excuse to spout your anti-pc garbage and never had anything remotely on-topic to say. Thanks for the derail, now go away.

[Doodies]

Well I guess that answers my question, there's something very wrong with you. Enjoy your little "chuckle" at the expense of people who have been through terrible experiences and the people who love them. Like I said, minimizing other people's pain is just so funny. :rolleyes: Maybe now you can leave, as it's obvious you just came here as an excuse to spout your anti-pc garbage and never had anything remotely on-topic to say. Thanks for the derail, now go away.


That first part might be a little true but you derailed this thread long before I added my 2cents. Now, I will be leaving, take it easy.

[vero95]

I guess when most of your interactions are with other juvinile anti-pc trolls like yourself, you lose perspective and forget that, to some people, throwing charged words like "rape" and "nazi" around as a joke is pretty despicable. Welcome to the wider world where not all people think making light of serious subjects is funny. Not everyone finds it hysterical that abuse victims might get triggered when people threaten or "joke" about raping them.

is that the rule that whoever mentions the word "nazi" first has a moral advantage?
rape, nazi, violence. I think you have enough evidence to press charges :facepalm:

[heyjoe]

Who turns down free money? :facepalm:

there's no such thing as free money

it's OUR money

[Aznsilvrboy]

there's no such thing as free money

it's OUR money

If it doesn't go to Toronto, it'll go to somewhere else. Might as well take it.

[Hitman21]

Absolutely not, it would be way too dangerous to open up a business there. Jobs CAN help with the problem but the critical issue of why these neighborhoods are the way they are still is ignored

[l33r]

Absolutely not, it would be way too dangerous to open up a business there. Jobs CAN help with the problem but the critical issue of why these neighborhoods are the way they are still is ignored

What if the business was Hitpeople (can't be sexist!) for Hire ??

Seriously though - it would really depend on the area. St Jamestown isn't as bad as Moss Park, and Moss Park isn't as bad as Crescent Town, and Crescent Town isn't as bad as Jane and Finch (My evidence is completely empirical)

[Hitman21]

What if the business was Hitpeople (can't be sexist!) for Hire ??

Seriously though - it would really depend on the area. St Jamestown isn't as bad as Moss Park, and Moss Park isn't as bad as Crescent Town, and Crescent Town isn't as bad as Jane and Finch (My evidence is completely empirical)

Still no way for me, these areas are extremely dangerous and I avoid them