3 ms·

You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical - and deeply considering complex communicational

You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical - and deeply considering complex communicational structures before posting/conveying information can eventuate in serious injury or loss of life. During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individuals. Again, I sympathize deeply that some people are hurting badly right now, but what should we do when we're dealing with life-and-death situations and there isn't time to craft the perfect message on the perfect platform?

marcus_holmes 6y ago
Can you give me an example of an urgent, mission critical communication that could be offensive to people?
- AHappyCamper 6y ago
  Of course - and thank you for asking. One of my friends is a paramedic who primarily works in ambulances in LA. One day, he arrives at a scene after a passer-by called 911. A homeless man is lying on the street on top of garbage and cardboard boxes. There is urine and feces everywhere - it's a bad situation - and there are used needles lying next to the man. The man is obviously in medical distress, and is unable to respond. When they try to attend to him, he wakes up and swears at them and swats at them, but then says he feels like he's dying and wants help. When they come close again, he again swears at them and swings at them. As a matter of protocol, they have to radio in to headquarters and explain their situation. This is tricky - they have to be politically correct about how they describe him. He's visibly degrading quickly, and may soon die if they don't intervene, but instead, they have to spend previous time on the radio making sure they use all the politically terminology so that no offense is caused - describing the homeless in California is a very politically charged subject and they could be disciplined if they use the wrong words. If he is going into cardiac arrest, seconds can be the difference between life and death, and they're using them on trying to remember all the correct terminology and socially-acceptable phrasing.
  - marcus_holmes 6y ago
    Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology. If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is. If they can't remember what term to use when they have been briefed on it, then they have bigger problems (there are thousands of medical terms they presumably also struggle to remember). So, were they briefed on the correct term or not?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - AHappyCamper 6y ago
      I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive. For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms. Trying to describe a homeless man sleeping on rotten cardboard boxes who is covered in urine and feces with needles strewn around everywhere, who is both asking for help and attacking them is VERY HARD to do without using a term that someone could potentially find offensive.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        I don't understand: you just did that. What was difficult about it? (and I'll note that you spent a bunch of time mentioning ultimately irrelevant details. Being homeless, or in an area with feces and urine and cardboard probably aren't relevant to anyone responding. The important facts are that there's a person in need of immediate medical assistance, the area is potentially hazardous, and the person is being uncooperative). Those are the three things that need to be conveyed.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  Communication around birth control and abortion comes to mind. You can always pretend we are right about this and those who are offended are biggots, but then you would make your parent's point.
TuringTest 6y ago
> You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical ... During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individuals. True, but in those cases, you limit the participation in that channel. They didn't allow everyone to call in on the communication channels of the Apollo project, right?

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Can you give me an example of an urgent, mission critical communication that could be offensive to people?

AHappyCamper 6y ago
Of course - and thank you for asking. One of my friends is a paramedic who primarily works in ambulances in LA. One day, he arrives at a scene after a passer-by called 911. A homeless man is lying on the street on top of garbage and cardboard boxes. There is urine and feces everywhere - it's a bad situation - and there are used needles lying next to the man. The man is obviously in medical distress, and is unable to respond. When they try to attend to him, he wakes up and swears at them and swats at them, but then says he feels like he's dying and wants help. When they come close again, he again swears at them and swings at them. As a matter of protocol, they have to radio in to headquarters and explain their situation. This is tricky - they have to be politically correct about how they describe him. He's visibly degrading quickly, and may soon die if they don't intervene, but instead, they have to spend previous time on the radio making sure they use all the politically terminology so that no offense is caused - describing the homeless in California is a very politically charged subject and they could be disciplined if they use the wrong words. If he is going into cardiac arrest, seconds can be the difference between life and death, and they're using them on trying to remember all the correct terminology and socially-acceptable phrasing.
- marcus_holmes 6y ago
  Radio protocol is extremely specific. As is medical terminology. If they're required to use a term for a person, but haven't been briefed on what term to use, then I think there are bigger problems there and "political correctness" is not the problem. Basic communication is. They will also not be penalised for using the wrong term when there's no briefing on what the correct term is. If they can't remember what term to use when they have been briefed on it, then they have bigger problems (there are thousands of medical terms they presumably also struggle to remember). So, were they briefed on the correct term or not?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AHappyCamper 6y ago
    I don't understand. Why does it matter if it's a specific communication protocol? If you have to filter your language when you're in a life and death situation with a potentially dangerous person who has used needles lying around, you've used up precious processing power that could otherwise be used to keep yourself safe and the sick person alive. For the record - I checked with them - and they told me they were asked to take a test to check if they harbored "unknown biases". They were then sent to diversity and inclusion training, and came out totally confused about what to do and say, but they were assured that the hospital and the ambulance services were monitoring comms and wouldn't look favorably on "potentially offensive" terms. Trying to describe a homeless man sleeping on rotten cardboard boxes who is covered in urine and feces with needles strewn around everywhere, who is both asking for help and attacking them is VERY HARD to do without using a term that someone could potentially find offensive.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      I don't understand: you just did that. What was difficult about it? (and I'll note that you spent a bunch of time mentioning ultimately irrelevant details. Being homeless, or in an area with feces and urine and cardboard probably aren't relevant to anyone responding. The important facts are that there's a person in need of immediate medical assistance, the area is potentially hazardous, and the person is being uncooperative). Those are the three things that need to be conveyed.
BiteCode_dev 6y ago
Communication around birth control and abortion comes to mind. You can always pretend we are right about this and those who are offended are biggots, but then you would make your parent's point.

TuringTest 6y ago

> You bring up some really interesting ideas, but there are certain times where communication is mission critical ... During those times, you simply need to be able to "get the message out" without worrying about the potential offense that you words may cause to a certain individuals. True, but in those cases, you limit the participation in that channel. They didn't allow everyone to call in on the communication channels of the Apollo project, right?