The younger Allyn Gibson tried to take a picture of the shoplifter as evidence and he was violently attacked. I don't know where you got the idea that he was the aggressor, but that simply is not the case.
So the courts decide calling the family and the store racist was libel and slanderous, and it was upheld after sever appeals. Despite that, you are trying to claim that the Gibson's are racist? I don't understand what point you're making. I'm sure these comments were taken into account in the court proceedings and decisions, so why bring it up here. I'm not condoning what was said, but this puts nothing in a new light, as the court already ruled on what you are claiming.
It does not single them out in opposition to the group. Say "we don't do that here" puts the transgressor on one side and the "we" on the other side. Saying "when you do" is not putting the transgressor on a side, but rather placing the onus on them.
My statements don't put the transgressor in opposition to the group, is what I should have said. But I think that thats actually the intention of this author and I don't agree with it.
In situations like that, there is no need to engage. The transgressor is being defensive of their actions and I could easily see the same response to saying "we don't do that here"
"Don't do what? Why wouldn't we make jokes and have fun? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..."
At this point in the conversation, the best course, (in my opinion), is just to move on. It's hard to argue when someone clearly communicates what you did wrong, but people still do it all the time.
This was a follow up to the original transgression, you have to be clear of what you are shutting down, before you shut it down. Again the two statements I said are much clearer and don't single out the recipient.
I fully disagree with your sentiment. Yes there are outright bigoted jokes, but I believe many people have a different line in the sand of where appropriate and inappropriate are. There are many jokes that one workplace may deem 100% harmless and another might cause offense. My general assumption is that the person didn't mean to be bigoted, they just didn't understand where the line was.
This of course is not speaking of outright racism, but an example might be wearing a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo. Some workplaces would find this perfectly acceptable, whereas others might deem this racially insensitive and rude. It's not outright bigoted, (in my opinion), and not meant to cause harm, but the workplace culture is the what determines if it is acceptable or not.
Your point is fine when it comes to a group of friends, that you most likely self selected, but I have to disagree when it is in the workplace, (a mixture of different values and opinions).
It is important that everyone is aware of the rules, (boundaries), not just the person that may have violated them. I agree a public group wide discussion is not appropriate, but we still need to communicate what rule was violated for the sake of the entire group, not just the transgressor.
>Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.
I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them.
Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.
>It makes clear, though still implicit, that was has been transgressed is a social norm specific to that context.
But it really doesn't though. In the example of the off color, (e.g. racist), joke, saying "we don't do that here", doesn't specify what "we" don't do. We don't make jokes about that specific race, but others are ok? We don't make any race based jokes, but sex based jokes are OK? We don't make jokes specifically about that topic?
Its farm more effective to say something along the lines of "what you just said is inappropriate for our work environment, please keep others in mind when making jokes"
>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful.
But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.
But people HATE pay as you go installed apps. Take Word, (MS office), for example. The way I see it, I downloaded this software, it is fully available on my computer taking up space, but I have to pay you for the key to just use it? Somehow that feels different than going to a website where I don't even have access to the application without paying.
>but the sensitivity and security required for dealing with healthcare data
I'm curious why you think this. Disclaimer I have worked for a cloud based EHR system as well as a HIPAA compliant mobile/web app. We haven't had any issues with sensitivity or security, (obviously following best practices). A password on a physical computer only goes so far, I would venture to say that our systems are *more* secure than a desktop app.
You are trying to argue semantics and claim that I am maliciously lying.
>Your characterization of historic vaccines is not correct at all.
Please point out exactly what I said that is not correct.
>It's no different for the mRNA and adenovirus vaccines that we use for COVID, because the definition of a vaccine has nothing to do with the content of the biological prep: only with the effect it causes (increased immune response)
This is semantic argument. You are saying that because the outcome of the vaccine fits the definition of the word vaccine that we have a designated Omicron vaccine. This on its face is patently ridiculous. We do not have a vaccine for omicron, and if the current vaccines provided sufficient protection, why is Pfizer currently working on a new one[0]? Granted, they have not yet reported the results of the study, but the fact that they are even doing a study to determine variant needs, proves my original point.
>The second false statement is that "the previous vaccines offer quite little protection". If you had qualified this as "quite little protection against infection" or "quite little protection against spreading the virus", it would have been accurate, but you did not.
I did qualify my point here:
>The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron.
and here:
>That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread.
It seems that you chose to change the context of our discussion to call me a liar.
First of all, yes your definition of a vaccine is fine, but it doesn't negate what I said. Vaccines serve as a way to "train" your immune system to fight a specific thing by historically providing a weakened or impotent version that is easy to kill. However, mRNA vaccines are a much different methodology and can be very very specific on targeting, by creating individual spike proteins. However, they fail to provide significant protection against mutation in some cases.
The vaccines helped in the way that they prevented the virus from being able to replicate and cause serious illness, your immune system had to still figure out how to kill the thing on its own. So the vaccines on their own did not provide you with immunity, (not even close the level of historic, or "perfect" vaccines do), they did help train your immune system to kill the virus. That is how they are helpful for the symptoms of omicron not the spread. Because the spike proteins that were effective for alpa/delta are less effective for Omicron, it is still causing disease. Again, because your system has most likely already fought off the Alpha and Delta strains, you are unlikely to develop serious illness if you have natural immunity or have been vaccinated.
There is no "lying" here. And your sources of wiki-pedia vaccine definition and a CBS news article are not disproving anything that I have stated.
Actually it is correct. The mRNA vaccine types target specific spike proteins of the virus. So no we do not currently have a vaccine, so the previous vaccines actually offer quite little protection, (other than any coincidental overlap of proteins). But my statement about it being the same for every other infectious disease is not false. If you have ever had the flu in your life, (or different corona virus cold for that matter), you have some degree of immunity from COVID-19. Just like if you received the vaccine you have some degree of immunity from omicron and future variants.
>Natural immunity from which strain and how long ago?
Doesn't matter. If you have already take the vaccines, it is my opinion that it is better to get the omicron variant and have natural immunity, (unless of course you are particularly vulnerable).
Your point that vaccinated people take up less beds is exactly right. Omicron is a highly contagious, weak strain and would provide and amazing opportunity for mass natural immunity, without the fear of hospitalization and death.
>but this misinformation about the effectiveness of COVID vaccines is getting out of hand.
Nothing I stated is misinformation. The the current vaccines are not effective at preventing the spread of omicron. So to say that the best approach, if you are already vaccinated, is to just get virus, is not a stretch. The same can apply to any future, (weak), variants as well.
The younger Allyn Gibson tried to take a picture of the shoplifter as evidence and he was violently attacked. I don't know where you got the idea that he was the aggressor, but that simply is not the case.