chosen
stringlengths 55
41.2k
| rejected
stringlengths 45
39.9k
| similarity
float64 -0.08
1
|
|---|---|---|
Human: I pointed a gun at a child (approx. 8-10) after he fired a rifle nearly hitting me in the process The title sounds bad, but I am currently under investigation by the Canadian Government for pointing a firearm at a child after the child in question fired a rifle (an SKS), nearly hitting me in the process. What happened was I was at the shooting range, having a nice time firing my weapons, when family (mom, dad, two sisters, and a brother) comes to the range. I notice the boy, around 8-10 not being exactly safe with the firearm (pointing the weapon in the concrete ground, leaving firearms unattended while loaded, etc.), so I remind him to always keep the gun pointed down range, and he nods. Keep in mind, the dad went to the other range with the two daughters, so the it was just me, the boy, and his mother. His mother is not shooting any weapon, just browsing facebook or playing candy crush. I am getting annoyed that this kid is not following gun safety rules very well, so I remind him again, and he says "Mhm" and at this point, I realize, this kid is obviously not able to be trusted with a gun. I dont say anything, since I do not want a mother and father yelling at me (I am very timid as a person). And not even thirty seconds later, it happens. I am reloading my pistol, when I hear the rifle fire, and a bullet wizz right past my face. Like, if I was firing my weapon, at the time, I would be dead. I am pissed at this, and tell him to get the fuck down on the ground, and he does. The mother starts screaming at me, asking what the fuck I was doing, and telling me to put my weapon down, so I do, while she takes the rifle away from the child, who is crying his eyes out. I ask her why the fuck she cant control her kid, and she yells at me, and the dad comes back and yells at me, for pointing a gun at their little angel. The daughters, on the other hand, actually seem to have a brain, and start yelling at their parents, and then a police officer comes by, and detains everyone, since he saw everything on a range camera. He asks us all questions, then he releases us, telling us to leave the range. This happened two months ago, and the parents are suing me for child endangerment, resulting in the government investigating me, suspending my PAL (Canadian firearms license), and seizing my weapons in the process. I have no idea what the outcome might be, since I was legally defending myself, but at the same time, it was a young child who pointed a gun at me. I dont want to be a felon, but at the same time, I was legally defending myself. What can I do? Sorry for the really bad grammar, I have terrible writing skills.
Assistant:Consider posting on r/legaladvicecanada as laws in Canada related to firearms, gun ranges and "self-defence" are quite different to what most contributors are knowledgable in. But considering you are already subject to legal proceedings and investigations hiring a legal representative is absolutly they path to take |
Human: I pointed a gun at a child (approx. 8-10) after he fired a rifle nearly hitting me in the process The title sounds bad, but I am currently under investigation by the Canadian Government for pointing a firearm at a child after the child in question fired a rifle (an SKS), nearly hitting me in the process. What happened was I was at the shooting range, having a nice time firing my weapons, when family (mom, dad, two sisters, and a brother) comes to the range. I notice the boy, around 8-10 not being exactly safe with the firearm (pointing the weapon in the concrete ground, leaving firearms unattended while loaded, etc.), so I remind him to always keep the gun pointed down range, and he nods. Keep in mind, the dad went to the other range with the two daughters, so the it was just me, the boy, and his mother. His mother is not shooting any weapon, just browsing facebook or playing candy crush. I am getting annoyed that this kid is not following gun safety rules very well, so I remind him again, and he says "Mhm" and at this point, I realize, this kid is obviously not able to be trusted with a gun. I dont say anything, since I do not want a mother and father yelling at me (I am very timid as a person). And not even thirty seconds later, it happens. I am reloading my pistol, when I hear the rifle fire, and a bullet wizz right past my face. Like, if I was firing my weapon, at the time, I would be dead. I am pissed at this, and tell him to get the fuck down on the ground, and he does. The mother starts screaming at me, asking what the fuck I was doing, and telling me to put my weapon down, so I do, while she takes the rifle away from the child, who is crying his eyes out. I ask her why the fuck she cant control her kid, and she yells at me, and the dad comes back and yells at me, for pointing a gun at their little angel. The daughters, on the other hand, actually seem to have a brain, and start yelling at their parents, and then a police officer comes by, and detains everyone, since he saw everything on a range camera. He asks us all questions, then he releases us, telling us to leave the range. This happened two months ago, and the parents are suing me for child endangerment, resulting in the government investigating me, suspending my PAL (Canadian firearms license), and seizing my weapons in the process. I have no idea what the outcome might be, since I was legally defending myself, but at the same time, it was a young child who pointed a gun at me. I dont want to be a felon, but at the same time, I was legally defending myself. What can I do? Sorry for the really bad grammar, I have terrible writing skills.
Assistant:\> legally defending myself ​ That's a conclusory statement. It will depend on the actual circumstances at the point you aimed your weapon at the child. Was he still pointing the gun at you? Were you in immediate danger of grievous bodily harm or death? I'm not talking about "this clumsy brat could have fired again" -- your remedy for that is to remove yourself to a safe location. If the kid represented an active and immediate threat to your life, the fact that you *did not shoot him* is evidence that you did not believe your life was in danger to the degree necessary for self-defense. Taking what you say at face value, your purpose appears to have been to neutralize the threat by terrifying the child. That is exactly not what guns are for in a self-defense situation. Now, that being said, we don't know what the actual circumstances were, so it's possible that based on those circumstances, your actions were reasonable or at least not excessively harmful. That's what the investigation is for. | 1 |
Human: CMV: The biggest issue facing the LGBTQ community is itself, and it’s full of toxic, non inclusive, insecure people that gatekeep personality and sexuality. I’m a bisexual man that tends to lean more towards guys, and in the past few days can recount multiple separate negative interactions I’ve had with other gay guys / girls. Obviously this is a small sample size below, but Ive had more negative experiences with LGBTQ people than positives. As I’ve been an open member of this community for more than a year and have made many gay friends / acquaintances, I feel I have fair grounds to comment on its toxicity. These are the three most recent experiences I’ve had and the issues I have with them: 1) Extreme body shaming / bullying — this is a big one. I’ve suffered from anorexia in my life and am currently 6’3, muscular and sitting at 210~ lbs. I was in a discord call with a couple people for league clash tonight (one gay) while we start posting pictures of ourselves comparing ourselves to League of Legends champions. Due to my hairstyle, I posted myself next to Sett. I was immediately told by the gay guy that I look nothing like “sett daddy” and was called fatty and told to “tone up and drop some more pounds.” Unoffended at this point, I informed him I used to be 300 lbs with no muscle, until I was bullied into developing anorexia and only recovered like 6 months ago. His response was “should’ve kept going, you ain’t anywhere near a snack rn.” This cut pretty deep, especially when the community preaches “inclusivity.” 2) I’m apparently a fake gay if I’m bisexual and use it for sympathy, and I’m not allowed to be “straight acting” — An IRL acquaintance I was speaking to during a zoom meeting noticed an LGBT flag hanging in the back of my room. She exclaimed “OMG u/speculatory I had no idea you were gay!” And I clarified “well actually no, haha, I’m bisexual.” I was then bombarded with accusations of “cultural appropriation” and “sympathy seeking” as I was “clearly a straight man from how I act.” Again, it seems odd for a community that is supposed to be all inclusive to degrade me for how I act and who I love. 3) EXTREME sexualization / gay is a personality trait — During the same clash game as in #1, one of my close friends had his little brother (8 years old) in the room and was playing League on speakers since he had to watch him. The gay guy died in lane, and starts moaning and saying “this rengar just raped my boy pussy oooh” and other stuff. My close friend tells him to shut up because his 8 year old brother is in the room and gay guy immediately calls me friend a “homophobic fuckboy” and says he’s probably “closeted” and should come over and try some “boy pussy.” At this point my close friend left the call and gay guy resumes with his extremely hyper sexualized remarks during a video game. There’s a fine line between being yourself and just being extremely vulgar to the point where your presence offends and shocks a group of 20 year olds. As I’ve said, these aren’t one time occurrences — similar situations to those above have happened at least half a dozen times each to me personally from different people. I can’t say I’m proud to be part of a community that is built entirely on drama, sex, and appearance.
Assistant:I absolutely agree that biphobia in the LGBTQ+ community is a massive issue, and the bodyshaming is incredibly gross and another big issue. These are for sure big issues facing the LGBTQ community, and it's also gross to have insecure people in the community (often younger white gay men from fairly affluent backgrounds) constantly screech about sex. There's no way that's the biggest issue facing the community. In Hungary the president (who just gave himself dictatorial power without oversight or end date) is trying to make being trans illegal as fast as possible, and in Idaho one priority during a pandemic was to make sure you can inspect a girl's genitals before you let her play sport, in case she's trans. There are 17 states in the USA where you can be fired for being gay and you have no legal recourse. The death penalty is in place and enforced in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and homosexuality is punishable by imprisonment across the middle east and northern Africa. Before the pandemic, if you had planned an around-the-world trip, you'd have had to take into serious consideration which countries and states you would have to avoid, and which were serious risks to your health. Try and cut out the gross people in your life, for sure, and the issues you raised are serious ones that need addressing in our community. But this is a fight for our lives; some scummy dude shouting about his boipussy in public is just an embarrassment, and embarrassment is not our biggest problem. It's the people who want to exterminate us personally, and our sexuality even in theory, who are our biggest problem. |
Human: CMV: The biggest issue facing the LGBTQ community is itself, and it’s full of toxic, non inclusive, insecure people that gatekeep personality and sexuality. I’m a bisexual man that tends to lean more towards guys, and in the past few days can recount multiple separate negative interactions I’ve had with other gay guys / girls. Obviously this is a small sample size below, but Ive had more negative experiences with LGBTQ people than positives. As I’ve been an open member of this community for more than a year and have made many gay friends / acquaintances, I feel I have fair grounds to comment on its toxicity. These are the three most recent experiences I’ve had and the issues I have with them: 1) Extreme body shaming / bullying — this is a big one. I’ve suffered from anorexia in my life and am currently 6’3, muscular and sitting at 210~ lbs. I was in a discord call with a couple people for league clash tonight (one gay) while we start posting pictures of ourselves comparing ourselves to League of Legends champions. Due to my hairstyle, I posted myself next to Sett. I was immediately told by the gay guy that I look nothing like “sett daddy” and was called fatty and told to “tone up and drop some more pounds.” Unoffended at this point, I informed him I used to be 300 lbs with no muscle, until I was bullied into developing anorexia and only recovered like 6 months ago. His response was “should’ve kept going, you ain’t anywhere near a snack rn.” This cut pretty deep, especially when the community preaches “inclusivity.” 2) I’m apparently a fake gay if I’m bisexual and use it for sympathy, and I’m not allowed to be “straight acting” — An IRL acquaintance I was speaking to during a zoom meeting noticed an LGBT flag hanging in the back of my room. She exclaimed “OMG u/speculatory I had no idea you were gay!” And I clarified “well actually no, haha, I’m bisexual.” I was then bombarded with accusations of “cultural appropriation” and “sympathy seeking” as I was “clearly a straight man from how I act.” Again, it seems odd for a community that is supposed to be all inclusive to degrade me for how I act and who I love. 3) EXTREME sexualization / gay is a personality trait — During the same clash game as in #1, one of my close friends had his little brother (8 years old) in the room and was playing League on speakers since he had to watch him. The gay guy died in lane, and starts moaning and saying “this rengar just raped my boy pussy oooh” and other stuff. My close friend tells him to shut up because his 8 year old brother is in the room and gay guy immediately calls me friend a “homophobic fuckboy” and says he’s probably “closeted” and should come over and try some “boy pussy.” At this point my close friend left the call and gay guy resumes with his extremely hyper sexualized remarks during a video game. There’s a fine line between being yourself and just being extremely vulgar to the point where your presence offends and shocks a group of 20 year olds. As I’ve said, these aren’t one time occurrences — similar situations to those above have happened at least half a dozen times each to me personally from different people. I can’t say I’m proud to be part of a community that is built entirely on drama, sex, and appearance.
Assistant:>Unoffended at this point, I informed him I used to be 300 lbs with no muscle, until I was bullied into developing anorexia and only recovered like 6 months ago. His response was “should’ve kept going, you ain’t anywhere near a snack rn.” This cut pretty deep, especially when the community preaches “inclusivity.” That has nothing to do with LGBT+. That is just a fucking asshole. Anyone from any community is prone to being an asshole. You ran into one. Fuck that person. | 1 |
Human: CMV: The government should get out of the student loan business entirely Sorry! Have to repost since there was a similar post “about student debt” a day or so ago. This is similar, but a very different idea than just “cancelling or not cancelling student loans is good/bad”. I’ve seen posts here about why we should or shouldn’t cancel student loans or relieve a portion of them, but not just about taking government loaning out of the equation. 1. It seems like government guaranteeing and lending out student loans has given colleges the blank check to increase college tuition prices 2. It encourages predatory colleges that don’t supply their student group with useful majors that know they’ll get their money regardless 3. It encourages kids to just do whatever their heart desires, instead of what is financially responsible because they feel like they have a blank check from the government and don’t necessarily understand debt. It seems like a good solution to this would just be to privatize student loaning again, with specific government projects for a select group of students who aren’t going to major in traditionally lucrative, albeit societally useful majors. 1. Students should be able to declare bankruptcy on these private loans. The loaners take out this risk and should assume it. 2. Loaners now have the liberty of deciding who they loan to depending on their intended major and previous educational grades, projects, etc. you are not guaranteed a student loan. 3. Government can keep some amount money to pay for amazing students to major in traditionally not lucrative majors in non STEM fields. 4. If your parents are loaded, pay the price out of pocket and you can major in whatever you want — even something not useful/lucrative. In the end you’ll just be transitioning money from someone not productive (yourself) to others that are majoring in more productive things, which seems like a good thing. It should eventually also lower costs of college and make sure people that go are majoring in societally beneficial and lucrative majors. I want to point out these few things: 1. I understand that this system wouldn’t be fair to children of low income families. No system ever is or has been in the modern world, and the current system certainly isn’t all — saddling low income, low earning major students with insurmountable debt with no guardrails to taking out that debt — id argue this is even worse. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that loaners WOULDN’T loan to low income people. If you’re a promising, smart student who is going to major in law, engineering, or some other lucrative major I think the data would show that these are not risky loans, regardless of your parents’ financial state. And especially won’t be as risky when prices of schooling drops due to the privatization of loans. 2. I don’t know the the solution is for the current debt crisis. I don’t necessarily think a loan you agreed was unbankrupcyable should now be able to be dismissed, but this is another topic entirely. I’m thinking about the ideal state. 3. I understand the in-between time transitioning from our current model to a private lender free market one would be painful. Schools would need to reorient, lower costs, remove unnecessary administrators, increase class sizes, target students who want to major in lucrative majors. Don’t really know how this could be a soft landing. CMV?
Assistant:Not gonna bother arguing that the government should just pay for education, since everyone else is already doing that. Here's the problem with your model. >Students should be able to declare bankruptcy on these private loans. The loaners take out this risk and should assume it. Let's say I was basically a risk free person to loan to, since I was so fucking stellar at school. I got my $100,000 in loans, went to school, crushed it, networked hard, and got offered a job making $350,000 right out of school. What should I do next? Well, before I start making money, I should declare bankruptcy. I have no assets; there's nothing to take. Sure, it'll be a hit to my credit score, but ultimately I'd be better off taking the hit than paying back a 6 figure loan. For your system to work, we'd have to alter how bankruptcy works for student borrowers to guarantee they actually pay back the loan. And once you introduce that component, banks feel free to loan to anyone. And then costs would go up. |
Human: CMV: The government should get out of the student loan business entirely Sorry! Have to repost since there was a similar post “about student debt” a day or so ago. This is similar, but a very different idea than just “cancelling or not cancelling student loans is good/bad”. I’ve seen posts here about why we should or shouldn’t cancel student loans or relieve a portion of them, but not just about taking government loaning out of the equation. 1. It seems like government guaranteeing and lending out student loans has given colleges the blank check to increase college tuition prices 2. It encourages predatory colleges that don’t supply their student group with useful majors that know they’ll get their money regardless 3. It encourages kids to just do whatever their heart desires, instead of what is financially responsible because they feel like they have a blank check from the government and don’t necessarily understand debt. It seems like a good solution to this would just be to privatize student loaning again, with specific government projects for a select group of students who aren’t going to major in traditionally lucrative, albeit societally useful majors. 1. Students should be able to declare bankruptcy on these private loans. The loaners take out this risk and should assume it. 2. Loaners now have the liberty of deciding who they loan to depending on their intended major and previous educational grades, projects, etc. you are not guaranteed a student loan. 3. Government can keep some amount money to pay for amazing students to major in traditionally not lucrative majors in non STEM fields. 4. If your parents are loaded, pay the price out of pocket and you can major in whatever you want — even something not useful/lucrative. In the end you’ll just be transitioning money from someone not productive (yourself) to others that are majoring in more productive things, which seems like a good thing. It should eventually also lower costs of college and make sure people that go are majoring in societally beneficial and lucrative majors. I want to point out these few things: 1. I understand that this system wouldn’t be fair to children of low income families. No system ever is or has been in the modern world, and the current system certainly isn’t all — saddling low income, low earning major students with insurmountable debt with no guardrails to taking out that debt — id argue this is even worse. But I fundamentally disagree with the notion that loaners WOULDN’T loan to low income people. If you’re a promising, smart student who is going to major in law, engineering, or some other lucrative major I think the data would show that these are not risky loans, regardless of your parents’ financial state. And especially won’t be as risky when prices of schooling drops due to the privatization of loans. 2. I don’t know the the solution is for the current debt crisis. I don’t necessarily think a loan you agreed was unbankrupcyable should now be able to be dismissed, but this is another topic entirely. I’m thinking about the ideal state. 3. I understand the in-between time transitioning from our current model to a private lender free market one would be painful. Schools would need to reorient, lower costs, remove unnecessary administrators, increase class sizes, target students who want to major in lucrative majors. Don’t really know how this could be a soft landing. CMV?
Assistant:The issue is that all of this stuff remains true of private lending firms. The college gets paid either way. The money was paid up front. Teenagers don't become magically more responsible, the job market doesn't fix itself by magic. The only difference is that when the government fucks up, you get what's just happened. Over a long period, way after it should have been dealt with, Biden's government reformed education so that a lot of the worst excesses of college debt wouldn't keep happening. And then a lot of people got a small writeoff of the debt that the government had lent them. I'm not sure whether that's going to solve everything, but it's going to make a dent in the problem. If it was broken under the private sector, then it wouldn't be fixed, because the people that suffer are only people who signed a contract to a corporation. | 1 |
Human: CMV: The existence of state-sanctioned royalty and royal families has no place in the modern world, and all monarchies--even symbolic ones--should be abolished. My argument is mainly based on the arguments used for maintaining the status of the British royal family, but I think it applies to any country. I've heard many arguments for continuing the practice, from tourism money to engaging in charitable causes and diplomacy to preservation of cultural memory, but I just don't see any of those things as compelling arguments. Tourism will likely not be very affected since the things people come to see (palaces, crown jewels, etc) will still be around even if the royals have been stripped of their status. Their 'celebrity' influence can still remain without acknowledging that they are born with some kind of intrinsic merit that is greater than ordinary citizens. To me, royals traditionally taking on the role of a diplomat or cultural ambassador is not as worthwhile as someone attaining that role through merit and effort and ability. As far as keeping this tradition because it is part of a cultural legacy: that point makes the least sense to me. There are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities. Why preserve relics of a time in history when people were at the whim of powerful, autocratic rulers who believed they had a mandate from God? This has no place in the modern world. The status and state-sanctioned privilege of any royal family sends a message to the non-royals about how the government perceives its own people, namely that they are not all equal in the eyes of the state. I think that stripping royalty of their status, not their possessions, would be a very powerful, symbolic statement that affirms the belief that all citizens are all born equal in both status and potential. I don't think that would be a waste of the time or money it would cost to implement. However, I'd like to try and see the merit of having a state-sanctioned royal family since a ton of people seem to think it is beneficial, so please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:One thing to keep in mind about the British Royalty is that they are ambassadors trained from birth, not just from age 18. They also own all of the crown estates. They give management of the land and the money that they earn to the government in exchange for a stipend that is now 15% of the funds that they generate. Should they lose their seat on the throne they simply take back THEIR PROPERTY. This would increase British taxes. |
Human: CMV: The existence of state-sanctioned royalty and royal families has no place in the modern world, and all monarchies--even symbolic ones--should be abolished. My argument is mainly based on the arguments used for maintaining the status of the British royal family, but I think it applies to any country. I've heard many arguments for continuing the practice, from tourism money to engaging in charitable causes and diplomacy to preservation of cultural memory, but I just don't see any of those things as compelling arguments. Tourism will likely not be very affected since the things people come to see (palaces, crown jewels, etc) will still be around even if the royals have been stripped of their status. Their 'celebrity' influence can still remain without acknowledging that they are born with some kind of intrinsic merit that is greater than ordinary citizens. To me, royals traditionally taking on the role of a diplomat or cultural ambassador is not as worthwhile as someone attaining that role through merit and effort and ability. As far as keeping this tradition because it is part of a cultural legacy: that point makes the least sense to me. There are many cultural practices that are considered oppressive or at least unsavory to modern sensibilities. Why preserve relics of a time in history when people were at the whim of powerful, autocratic rulers who believed they had a mandate from God? This has no place in the modern world. The status and state-sanctioned privilege of any royal family sends a message to the non-royals about how the government perceives its own people, namely that they are not all equal in the eyes of the state. I think that stripping royalty of their status, not their possessions, would be a very powerful, symbolic statement that affirms the belief that all citizens are all born equal in both status and potential. I don't think that would be a waste of the time or money it would cost to implement. However, I'd like to try and see the merit of having a state-sanctioned royal family since a ton of people seem to think it is beneficial, so please CMV. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:As an American, I often find myself wishing that we had some form of leader who represented the whole of the public and not only wealthy donors, who was beholden to none but the public entirely, and who was outside the rancorous partisan political system. A sort of "ombudsman" over the system. Look at what inevitably happens to democracies that lack this populist force: they turn to dithering dysfunctional aristocracies and then, inevitably, into dictatorships. | 1 |
Human: Been chronically ill for 9 months, doctors at a loss had deemed in a medical mystery. Discovered mold all throughout our walls and HVAC after a water leak and the apartment complex has proceeded to threaten us, lie to us, gaslight us and try to force us into signing a NDA and a release. Texas We have been living in our apartment complex for just over a year. About 9 months ago I began to feel sick everyday. Constant nausea, headaches, lethargy, diarrhea, trouble breathing and random fever spikes. I have in the last few months had 5 covid-19 tests. I have seen multiple specialists that have thought it could be anything from Crohn's disease, MS, or even leukemia. All tests have came back negative and all I have ended up with instead of answers is medical debt. On top of that I have two cats who would get sick on and off throwing up, diarrhea, weezing and lethargy but it didn't even occur to me that it could be related at the time. Fast forward to about a week and a half ago we wake up in the middle of the night to a foul smelling water leak coming out of our wall. We call the complex manager and they send a maintenance crew in the next day to open the wall and address the leak. None of these individuals were wearing masks. When they opened up the wall we discovered it was caked with mold with 5' standing sludge water at the base. It appears it has been a gray water leak that has gone on for months. Immediately once we realize the mold was so bad we told them that once they stopped the leak they needed to stop cutting into the wall immediately until we could have a mold specialist address the potential dangers. They ignored us and proceeded to blow an industrial grade fan into the wall in an attempt to dry the water. The whole time we're saying this is dangerous and should not be done this way. We call a mold specialist and he's appalled how they had went about it from a procedural standpoint and said it was reckless and dangerous to all parties involved. The apartment complex then says that we should just continue to stay there for the night or go stay with a friend. I am asthmatic and have it compromised immune system and I can't believe they just told us to go stay with a friend in the middle of a pandemic. They refused to offer to put us in a hotel. My boyfriend who I share the apartment with went to the office to show the complex manager the photos he had taken of the men working and to express his concern and she proceeded to tell him that it was illegal filming them and to delete the photos immediately. We looked it up and because we live in Texas which is a one-party consent state to record so that was just a blatant lie on her part. She later asked that we shared the photos with her. After numerous phone call exchanges where management continued to contradict themselves we have requested from now on that we only communicate via email. We requested that they hire a mold specialist to analyze the potential toxicity of the mold and they refused. So we paid out of our own pocket to have a specialist come in there and he said it was some of the worst he had ever seen. Lo and behold we get the results back and the amount of mold is off the charts. The particular strain that they found can cause edema, bronchial spasms , pulmonary emphysema as well as nausea and diarrhea. It was only after we told the complex that they said that they were having their own mold specialist going later that day. They have refused to let us see their results. At this point we strongly urge that they do not allow any cosmetic repairs to undergo in the apartment until proper mold remediation can happen. They don't respond to that email for 3 days and then on the third day send us an email saying that they are within their rights to terminate our lease since we are blocking them from doing necessary maintenance, and that if we don't come to a decision to either move into another apartment or terminate our lease contingent on us signing an NDA and a full release that they would be terminating our lease by 2:00 p.m. the next day. Effectively giving us less than 24 hours notice. I also want to mention that in Texas the governor has ruled evictions illegal until September 30th. We immediately reply and say we are not hindering them from doing repairs that we were only concerned for the safety of their crew and ourselves. They never responded to that. And every email where they bring up our options they present it as option A or option b and it's always contingent on the NDA and the full release. At this point we get the city code inspection involved and when we go to the apartment to meet the inspector we find a biohazard truck parked in front of our apartment and when my boyfriend goes in there to see what's going on he finds individuals in hazmat suits vacuuming all of our personal belongings. In one email she said the due to their inspection that they saw no reason why the apartment wouldn't be inhabitable, and a phone call shortly after she says due to the water damage the floor is not structurally sound and it's not safe for us to be in there. My next email with her I ask if the apartment structurally sound for us to go in there to grab some personal belongings and she's in lies yet again and says that it was never an issue with its structural integrity even though that's precisely what she had said to a phone call that both my boyfriend and myself were on. She says that we cannot go into the apartment because they've had a cleaning crew in there that have used chemicals that would be unsafe for us to enter until Wednesday which she told us that on the previous Friday. If I had not emailed her we wouldn't have gotten any notification at all that this was happening and could have easily gone into that apartment unaware of the chemicals present. We have many emails of her consistently contradicting herself, and gaslighting us. The lack of professionalism and empathy they have treated us is shocking. We've tried reaching out to the tenant rights councils multiple times but due to covid-19 it's been incredibly difficult to get a hold of anyone. At this point we're ready to hire a lawyer. it's been suggested we find someone who specializes in personal injury as well as a familiarity with tenants rights and real estate. We have already spoken to a few that have said it's a clear-cut case of negligence and they wouldn't be surprised if our story ended up on the local news. It's been difficult for us since we both work full-time 9:00 to 5:00 jobs to get anything done and I'm so close to quitting my job so I can just focus on this. I have already gone to see my doctor and explain the situation to him and when he listened to my lungs he was concerned and immediately sent me in to get an x-ray. He believes this is why I have been ill. Any advice and recommendations on how to move forward would be greatly appreciated and if you have read your way through this post I am so very grateful Sincerely, weezy mold grrl
Assistant:If you have renters insurance you may also want to see if you can submit a claim with them. I know our policy covers up to 2 weeks in a hotel for fire or structural damage. It may not help with the mold but I can only imagine some of your stuff may not survive the transition as well. |
Human: Been chronically ill for 9 months, doctors at a loss had deemed in a medical mystery. Discovered mold all throughout our walls and HVAC after a water leak and the apartment complex has proceeded to threaten us, lie to us, gaslight us and try to force us into signing a NDA and a release. Texas We have been living in our apartment complex for just over a year. About 9 months ago I began to feel sick everyday. Constant nausea, headaches, lethargy, diarrhea, trouble breathing and random fever spikes. I have in the last few months had 5 covid-19 tests. I have seen multiple specialists that have thought it could be anything from Crohn's disease, MS, or even leukemia. All tests have came back negative and all I have ended up with instead of answers is medical debt. On top of that I have two cats who would get sick on and off throwing up, diarrhea, weezing and lethargy but it didn't even occur to me that it could be related at the time. Fast forward to about a week and a half ago we wake up in the middle of the night to a foul smelling water leak coming out of our wall. We call the complex manager and they send a maintenance crew in the next day to open the wall and address the leak. None of these individuals were wearing masks. When they opened up the wall we discovered it was caked with mold with 5' standing sludge water at the base. It appears it has been a gray water leak that has gone on for months. Immediately once we realize the mold was so bad we told them that once they stopped the leak they needed to stop cutting into the wall immediately until we could have a mold specialist address the potential dangers. They ignored us and proceeded to blow an industrial grade fan into the wall in an attempt to dry the water. The whole time we're saying this is dangerous and should not be done this way. We call a mold specialist and he's appalled how they had went about it from a procedural standpoint and said it was reckless and dangerous to all parties involved. The apartment complex then says that we should just continue to stay there for the night or go stay with a friend. I am asthmatic and have it compromised immune system and I can't believe they just told us to go stay with a friend in the middle of a pandemic. They refused to offer to put us in a hotel. My boyfriend who I share the apartment with went to the office to show the complex manager the photos he had taken of the men working and to express his concern and she proceeded to tell him that it was illegal filming them and to delete the photos immediately. We looked it up and because we live in Texas which is a one-party consent state to record so that was just a blatant lie on her part. She later asked that we shared the photos with her. After numerous phone call exchanges where management continued to contradict themselves we have requested from now on that we only communicate via email. We requested that they hire a mold specialist to analyze the potential toxicity of the mold and they refused. So we paid out of our own pocket to have a specialist come in there and he said it was some of the worst he had ever seen. Lo and behold we get the results back and the amount of mold is off the charts. The particular strain that they found can cause edema, bronchial spasms , pulmonary emphysema as well as nausea and diarrhea. It was only after we told the complex that they said that they were having their own mold specialist going later that day. They have refused to let us see their results. At this point we strongly urge that they do not allow any cosmetic repairs to undergo in the apartment until proper mold remediation can happen. They don't respond to that email for 3 days and then on the third day send us an email saying that they are within their rights to terminate our lease since we are blocking them from doing necessary maintenance, and that if we don't come to a decision to either move into another apartment or terminate our lease contingent on us signing an NDA and a full release that they would be terminating our lease by 2:00 p.m. the next day. Effectively giving us less than 24 hours notice. I also want to mention that in Texas the governor has ruled evictions illegal until September 30th. We immediately reply and say we are not hindering them from doing repairs that we were only concerned for the safety of their crew and ourselves. They never responded to that. And every email where they bring up our options they present it as option A or option b and it's always contingent on the NDA and the full release. At this point we get the city code inspection involved and when we go to the apartment to meet the inspector we find a biohazard truck parked in front of our apartment and when my boyfriend goes in there to see what's going on he finds individuals in hazmat suits vacuuming all of our personal belongings. In one email she said the due to their inspection that they saw no reason why the apartment wouldn't be inhabitable, and a phone call shortly after she says due to the water damage the floor is not structurally sound and it's not safe for us to be in there. My next email with her I ask if the apartment structurally sound for us to go in there to grab some personal belongings and she's in lies yet again and says that it was never an issue with its structural integrity even though that's precisely what she had said to a phone call that both my boyfriend and myself were on. She says that we cannot go into the apartment because they've had a cleaning crew in there that have used chemicals that would be unsafe for us to enter until Wednesday which she told us that on the previous Friday. If I had not emailed her we wouldn't have gotten any notification at all that this was happening and could have easily gone into that apartment unaware of the chemicals present. We have many emails of her consistently contradicting herself, and gaslighting us. The lack of professionalism and empathy they have treated us is shocking. We've tried reaching out to the tenant rights councils multiple times but due to covid-19 it's been incredibly difficult to get a hold of anyone. At this point we're ready to hire a lawyer. it's been suggested we find someone who specializes in personal injury as well as a familiarity with tenants rights and real estate. We have already spoken to a few that have said it's a clear-cut case of negligence and they wouldn't be surprised if our story ended up on the local news. It's been difficult for us since we both work full-time 9:00 to 5:00 jobs to get anything done and I'm so close to quitting my job so I can just focus on this. I have already gone to see my doctor and explain the situation to him and when he listened to my lungs he was concerned and immediately sent me in to get an x-ray. He believes this is why I have been ill. Any advice and recommendations on how to move forward would be greatly appreciated and if you have read your way through this post I am so very grateful Sincerely, weezy mold grrl
Assistant:This is a very complicated situation and I’m sorry you’re going through it. Definitely look for an attorney - people are saying landlord tenant but you may want to seek someone with knowledge of environmental law too. Good luck and hope your condition improves. | 1 |
Human: Today, Vox had a big article about the influence of "authoritarians" in voting for Trump, based new psychological research. Do political psychologists have an analogous personality category for people who are left of center? I only hear about research on "Right-Wing Authoritarianism". This Vox article, called "The Rise of American Authoritarianism", is about the psychology of Trump voters in particular. The article doesn't mention it specifically, but I know that this "authoritarianism" has since the 1980's often been called "Right-Wing Authoritarianism". The article does mention that the initial idea comes from a specific set of studies conducted during the 1940's that lead to Adorno's *The Authoritarian Personality* (which is mentioned in the article) and were concerned with trying to psychologically explain the rise of Fascism. So it's a study of the Right all the way down. Now, I'm a sociologist not a psychologist, but the scale has always struck me as odd because it seems to assume that authoritarian was the deviation from the norm. Yesterday, I voted in the Massachusetts Democratic primary primary, and now I wonder if there's an analogous psychological "deviation from the norm" in the other direction that is useful in explaining left-wing politics. Is there a similar psychological profile that explains, say, a Bernie Sanders, or an Obama in 2008 candidate? A hope and change meritocracy and egalitarianism candidate? Or perhaps just a specific "anti-authoritarianism" personality that could be find both in left wing and libertarian movements? The recent studies mentioned in the article think that there can be some "activation" of the authoritarian type/authoritarian personality only has an increased influence on political preference under certain conditions, namely during periods of increased social change and increased threats to security. From the Vox article: >But both schools of thought agree on the basic causality of authoritarianism. People do not support extreme policies and strongman leaders just out of an affirmative desire for authoritarianism, but rather as a response to experiencing certain kinds of threats [i.e. social change and physical threats]. If a left-wing analogue exists and has been studied, does evidence suggest political preferences for these personality types can be "activated"? If so, under what circumstances? As a side note, there seems to be far more research into right wing political psychology than left wing political psychology, or at least, more of it that has filtered into social science more broadly--it's an interesting contrast with, say, the social movement literature which is extensively focused on left wing social movements. I know there was an abortive attempt to look at support for "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stalinism and all that) that happened around when "right-wing authoritarianism" was coined, but that that line of research mostly fizzled. If anyone can explain that difference, I'd also be curious. (with citations, of course, not gut feelings or posts from Heterodox Academy, showing the dominance of liberals in the social sciences--since liberals are equally dominant in both fields, that doesn't solve the puzzle of why political psychology is studying the right more closely and political sociology is studying the left more closely). Before you go spouting off a jeremiad about "social justice warriors", **I'm a mod here so obviously don't post any answer that violates rule one (*All claims in top level comments must be supported by citations to relevant social science sources*),** or they'll be deleted right away. Since this is a political thread, low quality posts and soap boxing (including loaded questions) will be deleted very quickly so that things don't get out of control. Please, keep it civil and don't make me regret asking this question.
Assistant:In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt argues that American conservatives value authority, sanctity and tradition much more than American liberals. Liberals value care, fairness and liberty, while conservatives think all are important. Its not a perfect book, but it does address your question to a certain extent. He would argue that liberals do not value authority at nearly the levels conservatives do. |
Human: Today, Vox had a big article about the influence of "authoritarians" in voting for Trump, based new psychological research. Do political psychologists have an analogous personality category for people who are left of center? I only hear about research on "Right-Wing Authoritarianism". This Vox article, called "The Rise of American Authoritarianism", is about the psychology of Trump voters in particular. The article doesn't mention it specifically, but I know that this "authoritarianism" has since the 1980's often been called "Right-Wing Authoritarianism". The article does mention that the initial idea comes from a specific set of studies conducted during the 1940's that lead to Adorno's *The Authoritarian Personality* (which is mentioned in the article) and were concerned with trying to psychologically explain the rise of Fascism. So it's a study of the Right all the way down. Now, I'm a sociologist not a psychologist, but the scale has always struck me as odd because it seems to assume that authoritarian was the deviation from the norm. Yesterday, I voted in the Massachusetts Democratic primary primary, and now I wonder if there's an analogous psychological "deviation from the norm" in the other direction that is useful in explaining left-wing politics. Is there a similar psychological profile that explains, say, a Bernie Sanders, or an Obama in 2008 candidate? A hope and change meritocracy and egalitarianism candidate? Or perhaps just a specific "anti-authoritarianism" personality that could be find both in left wing and libertarian movements? The recent studies mentioned in the article think that there can be some "activation" of the authoritarian type/authoritarian personality only has an increased influence on political preference under certain conditions, namely during periods of increased social change and increased threats to security. From the Vox article: >But both schools of thought agree on the basic causality of authoritarianism. People do not support extreme policies and strongman leaders just out of an affirmative desire for authoritarianism, but rather as a response to experiencing certain kinds of threats [i.e. social change and physical threats]. If a left-wing analogue exists and has been studied, does evidence suggest political preferences for these personality types can be "activated"? If so, under what circumstances? As a side note, there seems to be far more research into right wing political psychology than left wing political psychology, or at least, more of it that has filtered into social science more broadly--it's an interesting contrast with, say, the social movement literature which is extensively focused on left wing social movements. I know there was an abortive attempt to look at support for "left-wing authoritarianism" (Stalinism and all that) that happened around when "right-wing authoritarianism" was coined, but that that line of research mostly fizzled. If anyone can explain that difference, I'd also be curious. (with citations, of course, not gut feelings or posts from Heterodox Academy, showing the dominance of liberals in the social sciences--since liberals are equally dominant in both fields, that doesn't solve the puzzle of why political psychology is studying the right more closely and political sociology is studying the left more closely). Before you go spouting off a jeremiad about "social justice warriors", **I'm a mod here so obviously don't post any answer that violates rule one (*All claims in top level comments must be supported by citations to relevant social science sources*),** or they'll be deleted right away. Since this is a political thread, low quality posts and soap boxing (including loaded questions) will be deleted very quickly so that things don't get out of control. Please, keep it civil and don't make me regret asking this question.
Assistant:No specifics, but i found it kind of odd that they would talk about "activation" of such tendencies. Im pretty sure these tendencies existed in a pretty big part of the population to begin with. Donald Trump as a narcissistic entertaining populist just promises easy answers. But he is even better at making fun of other candidates, while portaying himself as an outsider and selfmademan. And while I think it is interesting to note that he tries to present himself as a strong leader and picks up on peoples worries and fears - what kind of candidate in the united states republican presidential election, doesnt? What about Reagan for example. People just seem to think of him of a leadership kind of guy, which is interesting, considering the fact that he is a badmouthing narcissist. In my opinion its analytically fruitful to simply consider him a populist instead. To be more specific, he is the result of negative politics. People dont vote for him because he is Trump. They vote for him, because they despise the political establishment, maybe the current political system of the USA as a whole. And he presents himself as a free thinking 'unpolitical' Selfmademan. Pierre Rosanvallon, a french historian, wrote an interesting book about negative politics. Counter-Democracy - Politics in an age of distrust. In this regard, I think, Bernie might be considered a populist too. Which shows that negative politics isnt necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion. Pierre Rosanvallon distinguishes between counter-democracy and populism as "absolute" counter-democracy, for example. In the end, I guess, it always depends on what kind of politics and policy, one considers desirable. I guess my point is, Trump seems more like a populist to me, authoritarianism isnt a new thing, and most certainly already prevalent in every democratic states population. Coining him as a populist, though, wasnt enough anymore, so they now try to call him an authoritarian leader instead. Which would also explain, why they focus on left movements and right authoritarianism: Most research on politics is in itself - at least in part - political. And as you said, most social scientists are liberals. Especially in this branch of research you stated. Movements are positive, while authoritarianism seems like a pathology to these people, thus its a matter of psychologiy. Of fear and other unreasonable things. Rosanvallon seems like an interesting read if one wants to understand populism in my opinion, if that is of interest to you. | 1 |
Human: Response to Low Student Teaching Evaluations I have been a tenure-track civil engineering professor for two years now, and I just finished teaching for my 4th semester (5th and 6th classes). My university recently switched from in-class paper evals to online evals that can be filled out anytime in the last three weeks of the semester. This semester I taught a class of mostly seniors for the third time, and I got excellent reviews (4.5/5). I also taught a class with mostly sophomores, and got really low evals (2.6/5). The response rates were very low (14/51). I kind of think the respondents were mostly upset about their grades, which of course makes the statistics look bad. The senior-level class is a MUCH harder course (applied hydraulics, lots of very difficult, long calculations) than the sophomore class (intro to environmental engineering--mostly applications of high school chemistry and "solve for the unknown in this equation" math problems). The grades throughout in the lower-level class were very low--like 64, 67, 64 average with a bimodal distribution. Lots of 80s and 90s who "got it," but also lots of 40s and 50s that just didn't get it. I ended up giving 20% of the final students D/F grades. The negative feedback primarily said "he knows his stuff he just can't teach" and "this was too hard." It's kind of hard to know what to do about this--there is a mental block with chemistry for many of these students, and chemistry isn't important in many of the other subdisciplines. I am not sure how to respond or what to adjust. I felt like my lectures were pretty good, with interaction, etc., but quizzes/exams indicated the issues with many in the bottom half of the class just completely lost. Other things: in another sophomore/junior class in my department, the professor gave out 20 D/Fs (many of the same students perhaps). We have been seeing massive growth in enrollment due to the lucrative career options in my field, so there are more students in these classes now who perhaps aren't as well suited to the discipline. In the previous semester the grading was similar, with mean scores in the 60s and a bimodal distribution from a senior faculty member in the department. I don't know about his review scoring, however.
Assistant:This is how I approach student evaluations. I basically sort them into two categories: those that include details to give me insight into why somethings was/wasn't effective, and those that do not. I look at the evals that include these important details, and then use this to help write up common themes students are communicating through those details (e.g., X was useful because A--I keep doing X, Y made it hard for me to learn because of B--I talk about what I might do differently next semester to address Y). I honestly haven't heard of a satisfactory way to deal with student evals because they are conflated with biases (e.g., grades, student who doesn't like to be pushed to do better/wants path of least resistance). The evals I receive, both good and bad, often feel more like consumer reviews than thoughtful, reflective evaluations. I don't know how to use this data in any better way, despite the emphasis that everyone seems to place on it (e.g., it has to be talked about in annual reviews and for tenure/promotion stuff). If someone has figured out how to do this I would love to hear about it. |
Human: Response to Low Student Teaching Evaluations I have been a tenure-track civil engineering professor for two years now, and I just finished teaching for my 4th semester (5th and 6th classes). My university recently switched from in-class paper evals to online evals that can be filled out anytime in the last three weeks of the semester. This semester I taught a class of mostly seniors for the third time, and I got excellent reviews (4.5/5). I also taught a class with mostly sophomores, and got really low evals (2.6/5). The response rates were very low (14/51). I kind of think the respondents were mostly upset about their grades, which of course makes the statistics look bad. The senior-level class is a MUCH harder course (applied hydraulics, lots of very difficult, long calculations) than the sophomore class (intro to environmental engineering--mostly applications of high school chemistry and "solve for the unknown in this equation" math problems). The grades throughout in the lower-level class were very low--like 64, 67, 64 average with a bimodal distribution. Lots of 80s and 90s who "got it," but also lots of 40s and 50s that just didn't get it. I ended up giving 20% of the final students D/F grades. The negative feedback primarily said "he knows his stuff he just can't teach" and "this was too hard." It's kind of hard to know what to do about this--there is a mental block with chemistry for many of these students, and chemistry isn't important in many of the other subdisciplines. I am not sure how to respond or what to adjust. I felt like my lectures were pretty good, with interaction, etc., but quizzes/exams indicated the issues with many in the bottom half of the class just completely lost. Other things: in another sophomore/junior class in my department, the professor gave out 20 D/Fs (many of the same students perhaps). We have been seeing massive growth in enrollment due to the lucrative career options in my field, so there are more students in these classes now who perhaps aren't as well suited to the discipline. In the previous semester the grading was similar, with mean scores in the 60s and a bimodal distribution from a senior faculty member in the department. I don't know about his review scoring, however.
Assistant:honestly? Absolutely nothing. I can think of one or two things that are even more useless than student's evaluations but not too many. First student evaluation are correlating with grades and "expected" class complexity. Typically graduate students and upperclassmen rate classes higher. Second, your rating seems to be non- mandatory. As such it is statistically meaningless - you will be getting ratings from people who adored you and those hating your guts. If you want meanigfull evaluations read/talk to your mentoring professor review, and may be tape your lectures and watch them later. | 1 |
Human: [AL] Terms of contract changed during employment, can my employer really do this? Is it really legal in my at-will state for my employer to change both my pay and benefits shortly after hire? This seems like blatant bait and switch. I have worked at my small(but not super small) company since early December. This morning, about an hour ago, my boss(the owner of the company) called me into his office and asked me to close the door. I was like "oh man did I do something wrong?" in my head because I think I have been doing a good job and it was pretty scary. Anyway, he goes on to tell me that Neal who hired me "made some mistakes". Neal has either quit or been let go(IDK, he disappeared). He goes on to explain that my pay rate, PTO, AND benefits package were offered incorrectly and that my position is not eligible for the compensation I have been getting. He "realized this when looking over W2s for the year". "HR", who is one lady, was in the room but did not say a word. I looked at her like "are you guys serious" and she just looked back towards the boss and kind of nodded like "look at him not me dude". Neal was, I think, head of HR as he shared an office suite with the remaining lady in HR. I guess he was the one who knew how to make the contracts look professional. Boss gave me a new "contract", which was typed up in MS word and is pretty rough. It looks like a copy and paste of my previous contract but with some errors. It offers me $17.50/hr down from $26/hr. It offers me 5 days per year PTO with no definition past that -- before this I had 12 days including sick days and vacation days. This company has a "take them or lose them" policy with PTO so it's just from jan 1st to dec 31st you take X number of days and we pay you. No sick days, rollover, accrual, etc. just days off. Finally, the contract says I am no longer eligible for the amount I was paying for insurance and that it will cost me more per pay period to retain it. Is this really legal? I quit a $22/hr job for this opportunity. The insurance is now going to be more expensive than the Obamacare insurance I was paying for out of pocket at my last job. I will now have less paid days off than I had before. My smart job move for a raise is, if I sign this contract, a huge step backwards. I just told him "I will have to review this when I'm not on the clock" to which he said "Sure, I will need it signed before the next pay period starts". At this point should I just not sign it and let him fire me so I can get unemployment and look for a better job? TL;DR boss is significantly cutting my pay, benefits, and PTO a few months after hire and it feels like bait and switch at best...just long enough that I can't go back to my previous better paying job, so I am trapped here until I find better. Can I refuse to sign, get fired, and collect unemployment? IDK what to do!
Assistant:In Alabama, unless you have an actual contract of employment (which is very rare outside a few particular fields like education), your employer can generally change any or all of the terms of your employment going forward at any time. A few states require a certain amount of advance notice for wage reductions in particular, but Alabama isn't one of them. An offer letter is *not* a contract of employment, merely a statement of the terms of your employment at the time you started working; those terms can generally be changed unilaterally by your employer at any time. What your employer is doing is really shitty, but unfortunately not illegal. You can refuse to sign the agreement, but that doesn't mean your employer has to fire you; they can simply tell you what your new rate of pay and benefits are, and your only options would be to continue working under the new terms or to voluntarily resign. The agreement is just housekeeping; your signature or acceptance doesn't change anything, legally speaking. It is possible that if the changes to your employment are so intolerable that any reasonable person would have no choice but to resign under the circumstances, it might be considered good cause to resign for the purpose of eligibility for unemployment benefits. You would be taking a gamble, however, as there isn't a strictly defined line of what is considered "good cause"; it will be up to the DoL to decide whether you had good cause or not. (UI benefits in Alabama aren't exactly generous either; the maximum benefit is $275/week, so only about a quarter of what you were earning at $26/hr if you were working full-time. |
Human: [AL] Terms of contract changed during employment, can my employer really do this? Is it really legal in my at-will state for my employer to change both my pay and benefits shortly after hire? This seems like blatant bait and switch. I have worked at my small(but not super small) company since early December. This morning, about an hour ago, my boss(the owner of the company) called me into his office and asked me to close the door. I was like "oh man did I do something wrong?" in my head because I think I have been doing a good job and it was pretty scary. Anyway, he goes on to tell me that Neal who hired me "made some mistakes". Neal has either quit or been let go(IDK, he disappeared). He goes on to explain that my pay rate, PTO, AND benefits package were offered incorrectly and that my position is not eligible for the compensation I have been getting. He "realized this when looking over W2s for the year". "HR", who is one lady, was in the room but did not say a word. I looked at her like "are you guys serious" and she just looked back towards the boss and kind of nodded like "look at him not me dude". Neal was, I think, head of HR as he shared an office suite with the remaining lady in HR. I guess he was the one who knew how to make the contracts look professional. Boss gave me a new "contract", which was typed up in MS word and is pretty rough. It looks like a copy and paste of my previous contract but with some errors. It offers me $17.50/hr down from $26/hr. It offers me 5 days per year PTO with no definition past that -- before this I had 12 days including sick days and vacation days. This company has a "take them or lose them" policy with PTO so it's just from jan 1st to dec 31st you take X number of days and we pay you. No sick days, rollover, accrual, etc. just days off. Finally, the contract says I am no longer eligible for the amount I was paying for insurance and that it will cost me more per pay period to retain it. Is this really legal? I quit a $22/hr job for this opportunity. The insurance is now going to be more expensive than the Obamacare insurance I was paying for out of pocket at my last job. I will now have less paid days off than I had before. My smart job move for a raise is, if I sign this contract, a huge step backwards. I just told him "I will have to review this when I'm not on the clock" to which he said "Sure, I will need it signed before the next pay period starts". At this point should I just not sign it and let him fire me so I can get unemployment and look for a better job? TL;DR boss is significantly cutting my pay, benefits, and PTO a few months after hire and it feels like bait and switch at best...just long enough that I can't go back to my previous better paying job, so I am trapped here until I find better. Can I refuse to sign, get fired, and collect unemployment? IDK what to do!
Assistant:Your boss can change the terms of your job. I can’t believe he changed it so drastically! Unless you financially need a job v a little time on unemployment I would say no, the new terms are not acceptable. He’ll probably ask if you’re quitting; say no & make him terminate you. Or if you stay make getting another job your #1 priority. | 1 |
Human: CMV: In democracy, there is no effective substitute for the electorate making good voting choices, and when we vote poorly we get the government that we deserve. All of the US's political challenges are ultimately attributable to voters that have become less informed and more tribal. When considering the current state of the US and its politics, and how our government is constantly shutting down, how there is so much political polarization, how there seem to be way too many instances of politicians advocating policies that are obviously contrary to the interests of the majority of Americans, how increasing numbers of economists, investors, and entrepreneurs are warning that there's not enough competition in the marketplace, how we aren't acting with respect to the warnings of scientists on climate change and other pollution challenges, how we can't come to compromises on major issues like immigration or healthcare and instead choose to make millions of people live their lives with complete uncertainty as to their future, and many more complete failings of the US political system, I can't get past the idea that there is no substitute for voters holding politicians accountable to make the correct decisions on these issues. The primary reason that our government is failing is that our voters are failing. A responsible, informed, patriotic electorate would have been holding our elected politicians responsible for these failings and they would not have been allowed to continue on. Journalists, politicians, activists, and other purveyors of "conventional wisdom" are constantly inveighing against the influence of money in politics, or about the "culture war", or about "millennials not believing in institutions", or about the weakening of unions, or about Fox News rotting peoples' brains, but those excuses can only hold up to the extent that they are scapegoated for voters to make stupid voting choices. You can put unlimited special interest money into politics in support of, say, Trump, but an informed electorate would still acknowledge that a person who is explicitly against the freedom of the press and who instructs police officers to rough up arrestees is completely unsuitable for the job simply for failing to understand liberal democracy and anything that our founding fathers and their Enlightenment peers ever wrote about (to pick one example). In other words, if the voters had a proper grasp of civics and critical thinking, none of that stuff would matter, the voters would make decent choices regardless of however many advertisements they saw in the other direction. Not every voter can research deeply into every issue. Most people simply aren't interested and even when they are, there is way too much to know about a single issue to master in your free time, much less all the multitude of issues that politicians must decide upon. I read more about the issues than probably 99% of voters and it only makes me more clear on what I don't know and what may be unknowable, so I'm not expecting everyone to earn PhDs in economics and biology overnight so that they can be the experts on all policy issues. However at the very least I am able to identify which people are advocating in the interests of the public good and which people are corporate shills, and to tentatively accept the advice of the moral actors until I learn something that would suggest otherwise. Is it not as obvious to everyone else? When you have one person who is telling you that net neutrality is bad for the country, and his background is that he was a corporate attorney in the telecom industry, and you have another person telling you that net neutrality is good for the country, and his background is that he invented the internet, is an esteemed professor at MIT, and has spent his entire life advancing the cause of the internet and expanding its capabilities and reach, is it really so hard to pick which one to trust? If the voters can't even make a simple choice like that, is our democracy not guaranteed to produce a steaming pile of shit for results? It is similar for any given issue. Pick healthcare: we are and have for many years been spending 50% to over 200% more per person per year for healthcare services than other similarly wealthy countries, without producing demonstrably better results. You would have thought that 10 or 20 years ago, the voters would have resolved at the very least to force politicians resolve that issue of prices, if not any other aspect of the healthcare debate, and to vote against anyone who didn't contribute to an appropriate solution. But I guess US voters like getting fucked on their healthcare bills and like our economy being strangled by exaggerated healthcare costs. Pick criminal justice: you would have thought that voters would be against spending $50k+/yr/prisoner to lock up drug users. In polls, the vast majority of Americans say they agree with that sentiment. But show me all the politicians who lost their jobs for failing to deliver. Pick immigration: abstract the problem, separate potential immigrants into 2 columns: **Column 1** people who would immediately from day one contribute overall to the US economy and US tax balances (pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits). **Column 2** people who would not and whose admission to the US is more about charity. Democrats and Republicans, negotiate over how many of each column will be admitted each year, and how they will be selected. Problem solved. Voters are distracted by sideshows like abortion or gender pay disparity that themselves are fundamentally questionable or nonexistent issues. There is no evidence of gender pay gap when controlling on all the other factors that contribute to salary levels, and all those die hard pro-lifers aren't even willing to stand by their fake principles and advocate that all sexually active pre-menopausal women should be banned from consuming alcohol or going horseback riding because they could get pregnant at any time and killing the fetus through alcohol poisoning or physical trauma would be manslaughter at the very least, if not murder. And yet millions of Americans are *single issues voters* for these issues! If you are for abortion in any case at all, no matter how narrow, there are millions of Americans who will refuse to vote for you under any circumstances, even though the vast majority of them aren't even willing to follow their convictions to their crazy, absolutely insane, *Handmaids Tale*-dystopic logical conclusions. And I am not saying that one side is crazier than the other. There are also millions of people that won't vote for you right now unless you lie and indulge the fantasy that there is a massive pay gap for the same work between men and women that is completely attributable to sexism and discrimination. US voters have become too dumb. They will vote based on identity markers rather than based on willingness to resolve these incredibly important questions. They don't take politics seriously any more. When our voters are this incompetent, we have no hope. Our only hope of improving is if somehow *civics* and *critical thinking* come back in fashion. We need the Kardashians to start reading the *Federalist Papers* on their show. Other than that, it will be a slow slide into complete societal collapse. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:You underestimate the power of systems and structures to determine outcomes. The voters can play the game well or poorly, yes, but ultimately they are not the ones who write the rules of the game, and they cannot change those rules without a violent and bloody revolution. The rules are written by those who benefit from them, and who will not change them willingly. The current President got millions fewer votes than his opponent, yet sits in the White House today. This is a system where the will of the voters is not respected, and it is no surprise when they lose a rigged game of this type. And yet it goes further. Because of how the system is designed, because we use first-past-the-post voting, and restrict who can appear on ballots, and who may enter debates, the voters only had two options to choose from, both of whom many voters saw as great evils, and they themselves stuck futilely trying to determine the lesser. No surprise that they gave us such a bad outcome, when they were only given two choices, two poor choices, and no recourse to avoid them. It is often said by those who know the ways of power, that power is not held by those who choose, power is held by those who decide the choices available. And how did the current president end up as one of these two terrible choices? Because the GOP primary used first-past-the-post voting in a wide field with many similar candidates. The academic game theory literature is exceedingly clear on what happens in this case: complete chaos, and outcomes that are miles away from the will of the voters involved. When there are 5 very similar, responsible choices on the stage, and one lunatic with high name recognition and lavish promises, then the 5 responsible candidates will split the responsible vote5 ways between them, and the lunatics in the audience will unify to carry the lunatic onstage to victory. This pattern has repeated many times in many places where systems of this nature have been used; and no one ever learns, and no one ever changes, because the lunatics that the system puts in power are the ones with the least incentive to upset the system. So yes, perhaps if every voter were perfectly wise, perfectly informed, perfectly devoted and disciplined, we could overcome these structural deficiencies and rigged games and all spontaneously coordinate together, friends and foes alike, to break the cycle and fix the system and achieve great outcomes. But it should be understood that his is no easy task; it would take superhuman effort, and superhuman trust in your fellow citizens across the aisle, to coordinate such an effort. I do not believe that any electorate in the history of the world has ever achieved such a thing. Absent that, it must be understood that in a terrible system like this, even a reasonably well-informed, reasonably well-intentioned, reasonably intelligent electorate, can and will produce terrible outcomes. They simply do not have the power to see their actual will made manifest, the system constrains their choices and twists their will so much that it is barely visible in the final outcome. |
Human: CMV: In democracy, there is no effective substitute for the electorate making good voting choices, and when we vote poorly we get the government that we deserve. All of the US's political challenges are ultimately attributable to voters that have become less informed and more tribal. When considering the current state of the US and its politics, and how our government is constantly shutting down, how there is so much political polarization, how there seem to be way too many instances of politicians advocating policies that are obviously contrary to the interests of the majority of Americans, how increasing numbers of economists, investors, and entrepreneurs are warning that there's not enough competition in the marketplace, how we aren't acting with respect to the warnings of scientists on climate change and other pollution challenges, how we can't come to compromises on major issues like immigration or healthcare and instead choose to make millions of people live their lives with complete uncertainty as to their future, and many more complete failings of the US political system, I can't get past the idea that there is no substitute for voters holding politicians accountable to make the correct decisions on these issues. The primary reason that our government is failing is that our voters are failing. A responsible, informed, patriotic electorate would have been holding our elected politicians responsible for these failings and they would not have been allowed to continue on. Journalists, politicians, activists, and other purveyors of "conventional wisdom" are constantly inveighing against the influence of money in politics, or about the "culture war", or about "millennials not believing in institutions", or about the weakening of unions, or about Fox News rotting peoples' brains, but those excuses can only hold up to the extent that they are scapegoated for voters to make stupid voting choices. You can put unlimited special interest money into politics in support of, say, Trump, but an informed electorate would still acknowledge that a person who is explicitly against the freedom of the press and who instructs police officers to rough up arrestees is completely unsuitable for the job simply for failing to understand liberal democracy and anything that our founding fathers and their Enlightenment peers ever wrote about (to pick one example). In other words, if the voters had a proper grasp of civics and critical thinking, none of that stuff would matter, the voters would make decent choices regardless of however many advertisements they saw in the other direction. Not every voter can research deeply into every issue. Most people simply aren't interested and even when they are, there is way too much to know about a single issue to master in your free time, much less all the multitude of issues that politicians must decide upon. I read more about the issues than probably 99% of voters and it only makes me more clear on what I don't know and what may be unknowable, so I'm not expecting everyone to earn PhDs in economics and biology overnight so that they can be the experts on all policy issues. However at the very least I am able to identify which people are advocating in the interests of the public good and which people are corporate shills, and to tentatively accept the advice of the moral actors until I learn something that would suggest otherwise. Is it not as obvious to everyone else? When you have one person who is telling you that net neutrality is bad for the country, and his background is that he was a corporate attorney in the telecom industry, and you have another person telling you that net neutrality is good for the country, and his background is that he invented the internet, is an esteemed professor at MIT, and has spent his entire life advancing the cause of the internet and expanding its capabilities and reach, is it really so hard to pick which one to trust? If the voters can't even make a simple choice like that, is our democracy not guaranteed to produce a steaming pile of shit for results? It is similar for any given issue. Pick healthcare: we are and have for many years been spending 50% to over 200% more per person per year for healthcare services than other similarly wealthy countries, without producing demonstrably better results. You would have thought that 10 or 20 years ago, the voters would have resolved at the very least to force politicians resolve that issue of prices, if not any other aspect of the healthcare debate, and to vote against anyone who didn't contribute to an appropriate solution. But I guess US voters like getting fucked on their healthcare bills and like our economy being strangled by exaggerated healthcare costs. Pick criminal justice: you would have thought that voters would be against spending $50k+/yr/prisoner to lock up drug users. In polls, the vast majority of Americans say they agree with that sentiment. But show me all the politicians who lost their jobs for failing to deliver. Pick immigration: abstract the problem, separate potential immigrants into 2 columns: **Column 1** people who would immediately from day one contribute overall to the US economy and US tax balances (pay more in taxes than they consume in benefits). **Column 2** people who would not and whose admission to the US is more about charity. Democrats and Republicans, negotiate over how many of each column will be admitted each year, and how they will be selected. Problem solved. Voters are distracted by sideshows like abortion or gender pay disparity that themselves are fundamentally questionable or nonexistent issues. There is no evidence of gender pay gap when controlling on all the other factors that contribute to salary levels, and all those die hard pro-lifers aren't even willing to stand by their fake principles and advocate that all sexually active pre-menopausal women should be banned from consuming alcohol or going horseback riding because they could get pregnant at any time and killing the fetus through alcohol poisoning or physical trauma would be manslaughter at the very least, if not murder. And yet millions of Americans are *single issues voters* for these issues! If you are for abortion in any case at all, no matter how narrow, there are millions of Americans who will refuse to vote for you under any circumstances, even though the vast majority of them aren't even willing to follow their convictions to their crazy, absolutely insane, *Handmaids Tale*-dystopic logical conclusions. And I am not saying that one side is crazier than the other. There are also millions of people that won't vote for you right now unless you lie and indulge the fantasy that there is a massive pay gap for the same work between men and women that is completely attributable to sexism and discrimination. US voters have become too dumb. They will vote based on identity markers rather than based on willingness to resolve these incredibly important questions. They don't take politics seriously any more. When our voters are this incompetent, we have no hope. Our only hope of improving is if somehow *civics* and *critical thinking* come back in fashion. We need the Kardashians to start reading the *Federalist Papers* on their show. Other than that, it will be a slow slide into complete societal collapse. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:Could you talk through the psychology of these uneducated voters? You say things like "corporate shills" which are more confusing than helpful, you advocate the odd "the gender pay gap doesn't exist if you control for the variables that cause the gender pay gap" position, and you criticize the supposed hypocrisy of pro-lifers instead of the pro-life stance, which should, I think, be the point. I worry you've just set up a world where the only reason people could disagree with you is because they're ignorant. If that's your point, it's different from the title. I really need you to clarify. | 1 |
Human: CMV: the 'radical feminists' at Gender Critical are a hate group with more in common with MGTOW than Feminism. I've recently discovered the Gender Critical subreddit and I've noticed a number of areas where they seem to have particular gripes. I will go through these areas below. Trans people: Many of the posts seem to focus on trans women and from what I understand they dislike trans women because they still have experienced male privelege and don't have the experiences of biological females. Personally, I have no strong opinions on this as I feel I have no experience in this area but many of their comments seem to be more hateful than actual, constructive discussion. This seems to be a far cry from many other feminists (I believe they call them LibFems as a derogatory term) who are generally supportive of trans people and at the very least not hateful towards them. Sex Work: They have an issue with the sex industry which seems to revolve around an idea that if sex is bought or commodifed it is misogynistic (which doesn't seem to take into account that gay men and women could use them) and cannot be empowering to women under any circumstances. This also seems to contradict feminism in general which, as a rule, support a woman's choice to do sex work, willingly, as empowering. Porn: This is another big one which I think ties into the last point. They dislike pornography as they believe it encourages some sort of violence against women. Also, that it commodifies women's sexuality for straight men, ignoring the gay men and women who watch it. They also stoop low to insults on this issue calling men disgusting for watching porn. Men: This is actually the area that most reminded me of MGTOW and possibly things like The Red Pill and Incels due to their hatred of women. They seem to believe that hatred of men, saying things like "men have no souls" or "men are biologically inferior", are completely fine despite the fact that if the gender roles were reversed they would be angry. This isn't to say I believe that valid criticism isn't valid like toxic masculinity but other feminists talk constructively about it. Many of them say something along the lines of "I hate all men but my husband/brother/uncle/etc are alright". To me, this is no different than someone saying "all Muslims are terrorists except my Muslim friend here he's Okay." Those are all of my points. They are based off a few days of looking at their subreddit. My knowledge of feminism in general is limited to some degree due to not being one myself as I don't feel comfortable calling myself one with a lack of knowledge. Just for clarity's sake I'll give you some information about myself. I am a 17 year old, white, male, working class from the North of England.
Assistant:The main issue with your stated view is it lacks a universal definition of feminism. You have decided the sub is at odds with liberal and post-modern feminism that you have otherwise been exposed to - which it is. It is however almost entirely in line with the beliefs held in radical (second wave) feminism - that women are positioned as an inferior and oppressed class to men and the only way to liberate them is by dismantling the patriarchy (the "root" of the problem, which is the meaning of the word radical). Because radical feminism focuses on the social and cultural roots, it doesn't consider the sex industry in isolation from sexism and misogyny. It is therefore at odds with modern "choice" feminism which is more focused on individual empowerment than class liberation. Most radical feminists are gender abolitionists, meaning they think that gender (and gender roles, primarily) is socially constructed. This is where the term "gender critical" comes in. This is also important because radical feminism believes women are discriminated against due to their biology, focusing on issues such as reproductive rights, child marriage and rape and female genital mutilation. This is why trans women aren't included and trans activism is generally rejected. However hypothetically, through a radical feminist trans people are just as much victims of gender in society, as they are potentially pressured to have chances to their body and behaviour they otherwise wouldn't in order to "pass" and fit a gender role. The term more often used in gender critical or radical feminist circles would be "gender non-conforming". Whether you agree with the philosophy yourself or not, that does not make the views not feminism. Different feminisms, but still a type of feminism. I can't say every individual on the sub speaks and feels the same way but I can say your view is fundamentally flawed due to a lack of knowledge on the topics. Side note: "libfem" is shorthand for liberal feminism in the same way that "radfem" is short for radical feminism. Neither are a slur. The fact that you assumed this is further evidence you're not familiar with feminist history and terminology. |
Human: CMV: the 'radical feminists' at Gender Critical are a hate group with more in common with MGTOW than Feminism. I've recently discovered the Gender Critical subreddit and I've noticed a number of areas where they seem to have particular gripes. I will go through these areas below. Trans people: Many of the posts seem to focus on trans women and from what I understand they dislike trans women because they still have experienced male privelege and don't have the experiences of biological females. Personally, I have no strong opinions on this as I feel I have no experience in this area but many of their comments seem to be more hateful than actual, constructive discussion. This seems to be a far cry from many other feminists (I believe they call them LibFems as a derogatory term) who are generally supportive of trans people and at the very least not hateful towards them. Sex Work: They have an issue with the sex industry which seems to revolve around an idea that if sex is bought or commodifed it is misogynistic (which doesn't seem to take into account that gay men and women could use them) and cannot be empowering to women under any circumstances. This also seems to contradict feminism in general which, as a rule, support a woman's choice to do sex work, willingly, as empowering. Porn: This is another big one which I think ties into the last point. They dislike pornography as they believe it encourages some sort of violence against women. Also, that it commodifies women's sexuality for straight men, ignoring the gay men and women who watch it. They also stoop low to insults on this issue calling men disgusting for watching porn. Men: This is actually the area that most reminded me of MGTOW and possibly things like The Red Pill and Incels due to their hatred of women. They seem to believe that hatred of men, saying things like "men have no souls" or "men are biologically inferior", are completely fine despite the fact that if the gender roles were reversed they would be angry. This isn't to say I believe that valid criticism isn't valid like toxic masculinity but other feminists talk constructively about it. Many of them say something along the lines of "I hate all men but my husband/brother/uncle/etc are alright". To me, this is no different than someone saying "all Muslims are terrorists except my Muslim friend here he's Okay." Those are all of my points. They are based off a few days of looking at their subreddit. My knowledge of feminism in general is limited to some degree due to not being one myself as I don't feel comfortable calling myself one with a lack of knowledge. Just for clarity's sake I'll give you some information about myself. I am a 17 year old, white, male, working class from the North of England.
Assistant:(Caveat: I'm limiting this answer to just the way Gender Critical talks about men, because I just don't know enough about transgender issues or the other things brought up to talk about them.) I feel there is one big difference between groups like this and groups like MGTOW, and it's this: Men tend to be the ones in power. I like to use a teacher-student metaphor for this, even though it's not perfect. Imagine a student who is frustrated with their teacher saying things like "X teacher should go die" or "X teacher has no soul". Now imagine the teacher saying the same exact same things about the student: "X student should go die". If a student said those things, I would feel defensive on behalf of the teacher. If a teacher did, I would feel genuinely scared for the well-being of the student. There's a difference in power between teachers and students. There's also one between men and women in Western society. However, it's clearly WAY more complicated than the one between a teacher and a student. It depends on the specific people involved, the institutions they're in, and "cultural factors" that can be tough to quantify. Even so, men tend to hold power over a broad range of situations. If a student said in class that "X teacher should go die", the teacher would feel no issue interrupting the student to respond. Students "can't interrupt" teachers, though, so it's much harder for them to respond if a teacher says "X student should go die". There's a pretty direct parallel to men and women there: Studies have suggested that if a group of equal gender is gathered to talk, men will talk about 3 times more often than women and tend to interrupt more often when women are speaking. On top of that, everyone involved - both men and women - tends to percieve things as "unbalanced" if that behavior isn't met. (Here is a quick article I found on it, though there may be much better ones out there: http://time.com/money/4450406/men-interrupt-talk-more/). It's possible that groups like the Red Pill and Gender Critical say similar things, and both are absolutely in the wrong. Even so, they're far from "equal": For me, hearing groups like Gender Critical talk about men makes me feel defensive on behalf of men, while hearing groups like the Red Pill and MGTOW talk about women makes me feel genuinely scared for the well-being of women. That's the difference between the two. | 1 |
Human: Landlord entered my girlfriends house unannounced and then went to berate Her at work. So my gf rents from this guy and she also receives housing assistance. His rules are that she pay her portion in cash, and wait for him to come collect it. In my opinion this is is the first thing that is wrong. The second is that he doesn't answer his phone, never gives notice of when he's coming, and sometimes takes weeks after the rent is due to collect it, forcing her to sit at her house and wait for him with hundreds of dollars of cash on the table. He shows up at other times as well, pretty much whenever he wants. To get something from the shed, or to tell her he's food to clean it out, only to never do it. So the other day, she was at work, and I was over doing our dishes from the night before. I live about two towns over and we do these things for each other sometimes, since we're also planning on moving in together in a new place once her lease is up in February. So I'm listening to some tunes, finishing up, and I hear a knock at the door. Now I've never seen this man, so being that it's not my house, I chose not to answer, figuring it can wait, whatever it is. I hear him yell "hello, hello" really angrily. Then he yells her son's name. And knocks about 3 more separate times. By this point, I'm kind of worded out so I stay in the kitchen and wait for him to go away. But that didn't happen. I look up and he's right next to me, staring me down. "who are you", he asked. "I'm Schwillet, the boyfriend". "why didn't you answer the door?" "I don't know guess I got kinda worded out" "well isn't answering the door something a normal person would do?" Now I'm in shock. I don't know who this man is, what he wants, and he's not a small man by any means, he's very intimidating. "I don't know who you are, I'm still kind of creeped out". Without another word he turns and leaves, going to the back yard to get something, of what I'm not sure, gets in his truck and leaves. I text her, telling her to call me, 15 minutes later, she texts back and said he came to her work. He asked her if I lived there, told her he will kick her out if I do, asked who I am, what my name is, has she done a background check on me, does she leave me alone there with the kids, why don't I drive, and said I should have been cleaning instead of cooking. Again, I was actually doing dishes. On top of all this tells her that I'm lucky he wasn't carrying his gun that particular day because he would have shot me. Apparently he also told her that I opened the door for him, so I know he's not above lying at this point. This time, she got a money order like I told her to, and he came by today a week after rent is due, again unannounced, even after she tried to call and drop a hint that she would be in and out today and that she would prefer a call. But his voice mail is full so leaving one is out of the question. When she tried explaining that to him upon his arrival, he said "ill check my phone". Upon receiving the money order instead of cash he says "I thought we trusted each other". Lol. Anyway, needless to say, we feel pretty terrorized. She's there for another few months, but who do we complain to? Should we call the police? I suggested making a report about what happened when I was there but I let it go. We're quiet, respectful, non combative, and just wanna love our life without being threatened or harassed, and would like a notice about when he's coming. I'd like it if we could avoid all future contact with this psychopath completely but I know that probably isn't possible. I will say we do live in Ohio, and from I understand a landlord is required by law to give 24 hours notice. My landlord does this literally every single time, a lot of times days in advance. I transfer money to him through my bank as well. So that’s about it I think. She just texted me and said he called her so if anything comes up that looks like it might be relevant I’ll post that here as well. Any advice is really appreciated. Thanks for reading.
Assistant:This guy sounds 100% shady as heck. Does she have a written lease with this guy? |
Human: Landlord entered my girlfriends house unannounced and then went to berate Her at work. So my gf rents from this guy and she also receives housing assistance. His rules are that she pay her portion in cash, and wait for him to come collect it. In my opinion this is is the first thing that is wrong. The second is that he doesn't answer his phone, never gives notice of when he's coming, and sometimes takes weeks after the rent is due to collect it, forcing her to sit at her house and wait for him with hundreds of dollars of cash on the table. He shows up at other times as well, pretty much whenever he wants. To get something from the shed, or to tell her he's food to clean it out, only to never do it. So the other day, she was at work, and I was over doing our dishes from the night before. I live about two towns over and we do these things for each other sometimes, since we're also planning on moving in together in a new place once her lease is up in February. So I'm listening to some tunes, finishing up, and I hear a knock at the door. Now I've never seen this man, so being that it's not my house, I chose not to answer, figuring it can wait, whatever it is. I hear him yell "hello, hello" really angrily. Then he yells her son's name. And knocks about 3 more separate times. By this point, I'm kind of worded out so I stay in the kitchen and wait for him to go away. But that didn't happen. I look up and he's right next to me, staring me down. "who are you", he asked. "I'm Schwillet, the boyfriend". "why didn't you answer the door?" "I don't know guess I got kinda worded out" "well isn't answering the door something a normal person would do?" Now I'm in shock. I don't know who this man is, what he wants, and he's not a small man by any means, he's very intimidating. "I don't know who you are, I'm still kind of creeped out". Without another word he turns and leaves, going to the back yard to get something, of what I'm not sure, gets in his truck and leaves. I text her, telling her to call me, 15 minutes later, she texts back and said he came to her work. He asked her if I lived there, told her he will kick her out if I do, asked who I am, what my name is, has she done a background check on me, does she leave me alone there with the kids, why don't I drive, and said I should have been cleaning instead of cooking. Again, I was actually doing dishes. On top of all this tells her that I'm lucky he wasn't carrying his gun that particular day because he would have shot me. Apparently he also told her that I opened the door for him, so I know he's not above lying at this point. This time, she got a money order like I told her to, and he came by today a week after rent is due, again unannounced, even after she tried to call and drop a hint that she would be in and out today and that she would prefer a call. But his voice mail is full so leaving one is out of the question. When she tried explaining that to him upon his arrival, he said "ill check my phone". Upon receiving the money order instead of cash he says "I thought we trusted each other". Lol. Anyway, needless to say, we feel pretty terrorized. She's there for another few months, but who do we complain to? Should we call the police? I suggested making a report about what happened when I was there but I let it go. We're quiet, respectful, non combative, and just wanna love our life without being threatened or harassed, and would like a notice about when he's coming. I'd like it if we could avoid all future contact with this psychopath completely but I know that probably isn't possible. I will say we do live in Ohio, and from I understand a landlord is required by law to give 24 hours notice. My landlord does this literally every single time, a lot of times days in advance. I transfer money to him through my bank as well. So that’s about it I think. She just texted me and said he called her so if anything comes up that looks like it might be relevant I’ll post that here as well. Any advice is really appreciated. Thanks for reading.
Assistant:Please review the Landlord Tenant Questions section of the /r/LegalAdvice Wiki for common questions and answers regarding landlord tenant issues. If this does not apply to your question, please disregard *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/legaladvice) if you have any questions or concerns.* | 1 |
Human: When to know you should master out of a PhD I’m in my third year of graduate school (second year in my program, I switched from Medicinal chemistry/pharmacology to Biophysical and computational biology after my first year) and am seriously considering leaving with a masters at the end of this year. There are many factors I am trying to take into consideration, but these are the main ones: * Loss of enthusiasm and passion in the field. * I started out liking basically anything you could do with computational chemistry and biology and intended to get into computational drug design, but after my first potential advisor left the university I had to transfer departments and join a computational biology lab. * I didn’t like my initial project on “protein structure refinement”. My advisor isn’t super familiar with the topic and I was completely overwhelmed with the huge amount of messy data I was dealing with alone. I’ve finally got a grasp on how to deal with the data, and am almost done writing the paper. However the experience really killed my interest in the field as a whole. Projects that I would have been excited to work on a year ago have absolutely no appeal to me anymore. * I prefer a broadness in knowledge, not depth * It’s inherent to a PhD to know a great deal about an extremely narrow domain of science. However I prefer spreading my knowledge out across many domains. * I’m one of those “I want to be called Dr.” people * I never considered the opportunity cost (especially being in my 20’s) of a PhD when applying. I’ll probably be here for a minimum of 4 more years, based on previous PhD students in this lab. * As much as I want a doctoral degree, I don’t have a practical use for one. * I don’t plan on continuing academia (or any research) after graduation. * I really don’t like most aspects of the academic environment (isolation in research, people who pride themselves on overworking, etc). * I would never take a postdoc position, and would be strictly looking in industry for a job. Even in industry I would be weary of any research positions. * Jobs are mainly in academia, and there are easier paths to any industry job I would be interested in. * I’m pretty close with my family (in the upper midwest) and want to be geographically close to them (an hour or two drive at most) but PhD level jobs in computational biology are few and far between (mainly on the coasts), and would almost certainly need to move for that. * The main field I could get into without moving across the country in industry would be data science, which is fairly obtainable without a PhD. If I market a computational biology masters correct, I could probably a job with a masters alone. * I have an opportunity for a job if I leave. * I have a close friend from my chemical engineering undergraduate doing well at a wastewater systems engineering startup and has guaranteed me a job if I should want it. * I somewhat regret leaving engineering, and could see myself working there. My apologies for all the text. It’s hard to think clearly about these things through all the sunk cost in the form of time, and you can’t exactly discuss these things openly with lab members without word spreading. Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!
Assistant:One thing I'd be cautious from reading your post about is that almost everyone has a dip in enthusiasm in the PhD, phrased in various (the Valley of Shit is a common version). There is something to be said for (demonstrating) persistence and finishing the experience, and you're not in a traumatic situation you need to escape from. Not that it can't be a good choice to stop, but the more that choice is driven by a current relatively vague feeling, the more I'd wonder whether there might be something beyond that would be worth exploring. I'd also quibble about "depth" versus "breadth" - this may be field-specific but there's definitely a risk of superficiality in my field if someone hasn't dug down on something - the depth also gives you a kind of generalizable insight you don't get without that focus. Once you've been down there, when you know what real, deep knowledge looks like, even if you subsequently branch out you'll bring that awareness/levelness/benchmark with you. But absolutely nothing wrong with quitting either, and definitely not with refusing to do the post-doc minioning. Especially not if there are positive reasons to pick the alternative, which you seem to have. |
Human: When to know you should master out of a PhD I’m in my third year of graduate school (second year in my program, I switched from Medicinal chemistry/pharmacology to Biophysical and computational biology after my first year) and am seriously considering leaving with a masters at the end of this year. There are many factors I am trying to take into consideration, but these are the main ones: * Loss of enthusiasm and passion in the field. * I started out liking basically anything you could do with computational chemistry and biology and intended to get into computational drug design, but after my first potential advisor left the university I had to transfer departments and join a computational biology lab. * I didn’t like my initial project on “protein structure refinement”. My advisor isn’t super familiar with the topic and I was completely overwhelmed with the huge amount of messy data I was dealing with alone. I’ve finally got a grasp on how to deal with the data, and am almost done writing the paper. However the experience really killed my interest in the field as a whole. Projects that I would have been excited to work on a year ago have absolutely no appeal to me anymore. * I prefer a broadness in knowledge, not depth * It’s inherent to a PhD to know a great deal about an extremely narrow domain of science. However I prefer spreading my knowledge out across many domains. * I’m one of those “I want to be called Dr.” people * I never considered the opportunity cost (especially being in my 20’s) of a PhD when applying. I’ll probably be here for a minimum of 4 more years, based on previous PhD students in this lab. * As much as I want a doctoral degree, I don’t have a practical use for one. * I don’t plan on continuing academia (or any research) after graduation. * I really don’t like most aspects of the academic environment (isolation in research, people who pride themselves on overworking, etc). * I would never take a postdoc position, and would be strictly looking in industry for a job. Even in industry I would be weary of any research positions. * Jobs are mainly in academia, and there are easier paths to any industry job I would be interested in. * I’m pretty close with my family (in the upper midwest) and want to be geographically close to them (an hour or two drive at most) but PhD level jobs in computational biology are few and far between (mainly on the coasts), and would almost certainly need to move for that. * The main field I could get into without moving across the country in industry would be data science, which is fairly obtainable without a PhD. If I market a computational biology masters correct, I could probably a job with a masters alone. * I have an opportunity for a job if I leave. * I have a close friend from my chemical engineering undergraduate doing well at a wastewater systems engineering startup and has guaranteed me a job if I should want it. * I somewhat regret leaving engineering, and could see myself working there. My apologies for all the text. It’s hard to think clearly about these things through all the sunk cost in the form of time, and you can’t exactly discuss these things openly with lab members without word spreading. Any advice or insight would be greatly appreciated!
Assistant:I was worried about breath when I started but my first three years I took a few courses in different areas that my PI was happy to have me take. Probably too late for you personally but for others that’s a good idea if you are worried about that. | 1 |
Human: Men are using the Women's bathroom and the Women can't use it when they need to. [CT] The company that I work for has 25 people (employees and employers all together), we have 4 women and 21 men here. We have 3 bathrooms: * 1 "Unisex" bathroom with two stalls and a urinal (door sign only specifies "Bathroom", and only the men use this bathroom--women can use it, but they just don't), this bathroom is on the shop floor in an area where is it predominantly men. The entrance to this bathroom is open and inside are two stalls and the urinal--no one really thinks of this bathroom as a unisex bathroom. * 1 "Men's" room with one stall and a urinal (door signs specifies "Men's" bathroom, again, only the men use this bathroom), this bathroom is on the shop floor. * 1 "Women's" room with one single toilet (door sign specifies "Women's" bathroom, the women use this one when it's not occupied by a man), this bathroom is on the shop floor located in the area that the two women who work on the shop floor work in. * 1 "Unisex" bathroom with one single toilet (door sign specifies "Bathroom", this one is used by both men and women), this bathroom is located in the office. In total, we have 5 toilets and two urinals for 21 men and 4 women, which more than meets OSHA's requirements. A few of the men use the "Women's" bathroom on a daily basis--I know this because the two women that work out on the shop floor come into the office to complain about not being able to use the bathroom because there is a man in there. Another thing that the women are complaining about is that the bathroom is always left a mess--not just water on the sink and paper towels on the floor around the trash can...I mean stuff left in the toilet and on the seat! We have a cleaning company come in twice a week, but the other woman in the office or I usually end up cleaning up the mess because we can't go the whole day with that mess in the bathroom. I am part of management and I don't know how to handle this. I've put up new signs on the bathroom doors differentiating the "Men's" room and the "Women's" room, but it hasn't helped. I have worked with these people for 20 years, I know who is doing it and I am very frustrated about it My office manager stood outside of the Women's room one day to confront the man who walked out, she should have done it in private but she was angry and called the guy out in front of two other people, and since then it has gotten worse. I wish that she didn't do it like that and I want to handle this in the appropriate way. Straight up--this place is a little dysfunctional. We are owned by two brothers whose grandfather started the company and ran it like a typical 1930s/1940s factory and in a lot of ways this company is still stuck in the past. Every single person that works here has been here for at least 15 years, so we all have close relationships with each other but I want this to be handled in a professional way and want to bring this place into "the now". What can I do here?
Assistant:>I have worked with these people for 20 years, I know who is doing it and I am very frustrated about it >I am part of management and I don't know how to handle this. Why don't you just tell the guys that they're not allowed to use the women's restroom and the next time they do they will be disciplined or fired? I don't understand how this is any different from any other workplace misbehavior or insubordination. "If you do that again, you're gone." |
Human: Men are using the Women's bathroom and the Women can't use it when they need to. [CT] The company that I work for has 25 people (employees and employers all together), we have 4 women and 21 men here. We have 3 bathrooms: * 1 "Unisex" bathroom with two stalls and a urinal (door sign only specifies "Bathroom", and only the men use this bathroom--women can use it, but they just don't), this bathroom is on the shop floor in an area where is it predominantly men. The entrance to this bathroom is open and inside are two stalls and the urinal--no one really thinks of this bathroom as a unisex bathroom. * 1 "Men's" room with one stall and a urinal (door signs specifies "Men's" bathroom, again, only the men use this bathroom), this bathroom is on the shop floor. * 1 "Women's" room with one single toilet (door sign specifies "Women's" bathroom, the women use this one when it's not occupied by a man), this bathroom is on the shop floor located in the area that the two women who work on the shop floor work in. * 1 "Unisex" bathroom with one single toilet (door sign specifies "Bathroom", this one is used by both men and women), this bathroom is located in the office. In total, we have 5 toilets and two urinals for 21 men and 4 women, which more than meets OSHA's requirements. A few of the men use the "Women's" bathroom on a daily basis--I know this because the two women that work out on the shop floor come into the office to complain about not being able to use the bathroom because there is a man in there. Another thing that the women are complaining about is that the bathroom is always left a mess--not just water on the sink and paper towels on the floor around the trash can...I mean stuff left in the toilet and on the seat! We have a cleaning company come in twice a week, but the other woman in the office or I usually end up cleaning up the mess because we can't go the whole day with that mess in the bathroom. I am part of management and I don't know how to handle this. I've put up new signs on the bathroom doors differentiating the "Men's" room and the "Women's" room, but it hasn't helped. I have worked with these people for 20 years, I know who is doing it and I am very frustrated about it My office manager stood outside of the Women's room one day to confront the man who walked out, she should have done it in private but she was angry and called the guy out in front of two other people, and since then it has gotten worse. I wish that she didn't do it like that and I want to handle this in the appropriate way. Straight up--this place is a little dysfunctional. We are owned by two brothers whose grandfather started the company and ran it like a typical 1930s/1940s factory and in a lot of ways this company is still stuck in the past. Every single person that works here has been here for at least 15 years, so we all have close relationships with each other but I want this to be handled in a professional way and want to bring this place into "the now". What can I do here?
Assistant:Agreed with the key access recommendation - only the women on your team and management get copies of the keys | 1 |
Human: I can't eat at restaurants due to food allergies. How can I learn to cook restaurant-quality food at home with no point of reference? I have severe food allergies, so I need to prepare all my own food. I can't eat at restaurants, buy processed food, or eat food that friends prepare. My story: After college, I moved to a "foodie" neighborhood and had disposable income for the first time in my life. For a few months, I enjoyed eating out at restaurants several nights a week. However, I would get very sick afterwards. I soon found out that the problem was caused by severe food allergies, and that restaurants commonly used many of the foods that triggered my allergies. I stopped eating at restaurants and cut all of the allergens out of my diet, and now my health is better. My problem: I think I am a pretty good home cook. Certainly, I have a lot of practice. I have a small collection of "perfected" recipes that could absolutely be served at restaurants. However, there is a lot of room for improvement. Sometimes I will go out to restaurants with my husband (I will just order a drink) and watch his reaction as he tastes something completely new and amazing. He will close his eyes and savor the flavor. He has this blissful expression on his face; he is so fundamentally happy on a deep, primordial level. He enjoys most of the food that I cook too, but his reaction is different. He will taste what I cook say, "Wow, your food is really good." He is a very honest critic, so it's not like he is just saying that to make me happy. However, my cooking doesn't seem to blow his mind the way that some restaurant cooking can. It breaks my heart a little bit that I can't make him so happy in that way, and also that I will never be able to taste something so delicious myself. Part of the problem is that I am a vegetarian, and my husband is not. I have to make various substitutions, and my set of ingredients is somewhat limited due to my allergies. Another part of the problem is that I have no point of reference, in the sense that I am not sure how some foods are supposed to taste. The only time I really ate at restaurants was for that few months right after college (a few years ago), and I was doing it as a vegetarian. I grew up in a small town in the midwest where there were no high quality grocery stores or restaurant options. My question: I want to learn to cook mind-blowingly good food from many different cuisines, to essentially replicate the restaurant experience at home. I am looking for specific suggestions, such as: * Book recommendations that deal with the theory side of cooking: techniques, and balancing flavors, etc. Due to the allergies, I can't follow most recipes found in cookbooks to the letter. However, I feel like if I understood the theory better, that would be less of a problem. * Suggestions for YouTube channels, blogs, etc. on cooking. There are already a few that I like. * I can't take group cooking lessons in person, but I have thought about hiring a personal chef or a culinary student to give me private lessons in my own kitchen. What do you think of this idea? Has anyone done this before? How would I go about finding the right person? * Exercises/suggestions for developing my palette
Assistant:With no information on your allergies it's hard to recommend things for you to try to cook, and being vegetarian with tons of unknown food allergies makes it near impossible. Give us some details |
Human: I can't eat at restaurants due to food allergies. How can I learn to cook restaurant-quality food at home with no point of reference? I have severe food allergies, so I need to prepare all my own food. I can't eat at restaurants, buy processed food, or eat food that friends prepare. My story: After college, I moved to a "foodie" neighborhood and had disposable income for the first time in my life. For a few months, I enjoyed eating out at restaurants several nights a week. However, I would get very sick afterwards. I soon found out that the problem was caused by severe food allergies, and that restaurants commonly used many of the foods that triggered my allergies. I stopped eating at restaurants and cut all of the allergens out of my diet, and now my health is better. My problem: I think I am a pretty good home cook. Certainly, I have a lot of practice. I have a small collection of "perfected" recipes that could absolutely be served at restaurants. However, there is a lot of room for improvement. Sometimes I will go out to restaurants with my husband (I will just order a drink) and watch his reaction as he tastes something completely new and amazing. He will close his eyes and savor the flavor. He has this blissful expression on his face; he is so fundamentally happy on a deep, primordial level. He enjoys most of the food that I cook too, but his reaction is different. He will taste what I cook say, "Wow, your food is really good." He is a very honest critic, so it's not like he is just saying that to make me happy. However, my cooking doesn't seem to blow his mind the way that some restaurant cooking can. It breaks my heart a little bit that I can't make him so happy in that way, and also that I will never be able to taste something so delicious myself. Part of the problem is that I am a vegetarian, and my husband is not. I have to make various substitutions, and my set of ingredients is somewhat limited due to my allergies. Another part of the problem is that I have no point of reference, in the sense that I am not sure how some foods are supposed to taste. The only time I really ate at restaurants was for that few months right after college (a few years ago), and I was doing it as a vegetarian. I grew up in a small town in the midwest where there were no high quality grocery stores or restaurant options. My question: I want to learn to cook mind-blowingly good food from many different cuisines, to essentially replicate the restaurant experience at home. I am looking for specific suggestions, such as: * Book recommendations that deal with the theory side of cooking: techniques, and balancing flavors, etc. Due to the allergies, I can't follow most recipes found in cookbooks to the letter. However, I feel like if I understood the theory better, that would be less of a problem. * Suggestions for YouTube channels, blogs, etc. on cooking. There are already a few that I like. * I can't take group cooking lessons in person, but I have thought about hiring a personal chef or a culinary student to give me private lessons in my own kitchen. What do you think of this idea? Has anyone done this before? How would I go about finding the right person? * Exercises/suggestions for developing my palette
Assistant:You are really trying to invent a new cooking vocabulary when you eliminate your allergens and mix vegetarian/non vegetarian meals. It should be a lot of fun, given that you obviously care about good food! As far as knowing how things "should" taste, they should taste delicious; "correct" is not a flavor. With my biases fully revealed, I can make some recommendations. First, read cookbooks like novels - lots and lots of cookbooks; check them out from the library in paper or electronic form and begin to develop an intellectual understanding of food building. Food blogs and such are great; most of my new recipes now come from them, but reading a cookbook lets you understand how that particular author approaches food over all. The more cookbooks you read, the more general approaches you have in your head to draw on. You will find some cook books that you want to own. Although I have over 15 linear feet of cookbooks and would not part with a one (I have parted with hundreds over the years), I think you are most likely to benefit from Ruhlman's *Ratio*, which is all about the basic structure of dishes so that you can readily make substitutions and McGhee's *On Food and Cooking* which is more an ingredient reference work than a cookbook. Bittman's *How to Cook Everything* is the 21st century replacement for the Betty Crocker of the 1950's and just as indispensable an overview. I refer to it pretty often for context, even though I do not like most of the actual recipes. *The Flavor Bible* is getting pretty dated, but it is worth having for the classic matches it highlights in a one volume reference way. YouTubes and podcasts are great. I really suspect "How to create the universe" is out there somewhere, if I could just get the search terms precise enough. The technique thing that really moved me up though is working with trained chefs, doing their scut work in exchange for watching and listening to them. For the past 20 years, whenever a charity is doing an event for which a professional chef is running the food, I have looked at volunteering in the kitchen for a few days. Some of the chefs now call me when they have that kind of task; they have even been know to pay me, LOL! Nothing beats what you learn in a kitchen classroom; your tuition is largely dish washing skills, at least a first. With your basics covered in terms of cooking book knowledge and cooking technique, you have to make a meal - or 21/week. Restaurant quality means 2 separate things to me. First it means perfect execution of the intended dish. Second it means extraordinary elevation of the eating experience. The first, "execution" is as simple as getting scrambled eggs to the state you want them, which takes a maximum of 20 minutes, even if you are a double boiler and cream/butter fanatic. ...I think the double boiler method using cream and butter took 20 minutes...it took me about that long to read it. In any event, when you know your target, it is easy to practice execution until you know how to reach it. On ethnic food, you may have to enlist DH to side by side sample stuff to give you feedback if it is not stuff you can eat, but that is a pretty loving and committed activity. For the "extraordinary elevation" aspect of restaurant quality, you are putting yourself out there, just like every other artist. Do not expect to engage in that activity every day, even though every meal will be a drawing in your sketchbook. "Extraordinary experience" cooking is just that. If you ate it everyday, you would be broke and probably fat. However, if you keep your eye on maintaining book knowledge and expanding technique, you can do an extraordinary experience meal every month on average. Most of mine are inspired by a trip to the Mennonites or the Farmers Market - a choice ingredient that directs the whole expedition. You need to build your plating library to fully get the restaurant experience to work and that is going to depend on your artistic taste. What I have found works for me is to use white dishes primarily, with lots of shape and size ramekins/bowls/saucers. Clear glass rounds me out. Red and black are good accents for me. Silly stuff, like chopstick holders that amuse me makes it easier for me to make that ne plus ultra feel at home. Also cloth napkins. I am a crunchy conservative, politically, so started using them for environmental reasons, but have found that they denote "significant experience coming" to my guests. | 1 |
Human: The Physics of Double Jumping (Attempt #2) So, I was trying to figure out the exact physics behind the video game mechanic known as "Double Jumping," which, for those who don't know, consists of the character jumping into the air and then, somehow, jumping again, apparently jumping off the air itself. Now, while this is physically impossible to do for a normal human, we're not talking about normal people. We're talking about superhuman fictional characters. ​ Now, last time I attempted this, in my previous post on here, I suggested the possibility that maybe one could pull of a Double Jump by pressing one's feat down on the air with such Force and Pressure that it became solid Nitrogen, which they could then leap off of. Thanks to the replies I received, I realized a variety of issues with that idea, but the most notable was that even if such a platform could be made, it would not be braced against anything, and thus wouldn't be something one could leap off of regardless. Thankfully, there were alternative methods of lift that were suggested by those who made comments on my last post, some of which I considered. I looked at the physics of Rockets, but unfortunately, without you throwing a sizable amount of matter downwards, you could not Double Jump with that method. Similarly, next I looked at the physics of how birds fly, but once again it couldn't really be applied in this circumstance, as it seems birds achieve lift through a specific method of abusing the laws of physics, specifically through using a specific wing shape called an "air foil," or something like that, which doesn't seem applicable in our theoretical situation of a human jumping off of the air. ​ So, following that up, I came up with a second attempt at approaching this, and I would love to hear some feedback on it. In our theoretical Double Jump, suppose that the human in question kicked downwards with such force that it created a shockwave, and this shockwave then moved towards the ground, bounced off it, and then the returning shockwave pressed up against the person's feat and carried them upwards. From what I understand of shockwaves, they just require one to put a large amount of energy into the air in a short period of time, and in addition those waves can be more than strong enough to lift a person. ​ I actually ran the numbers already, and given a person weighing 62 kg, gravity would be pressing them downwards with a Force of 608.22 Newtons. Assuming the soles of their feet, together, have an area of about 0.044 m², that would mean the shockwave would have to be exerting pressure of about 13823.182 Pascals in order to match the Force of Gravity. Supposing that, after the first jump, they are 4.572 meters in the air, that would mean the shockwave would have to travel 4.572 meters to the ground and then 4.572 meters back up to the person. For the purposes of this, assuming the energy was completely conserved after reflecting off of the ground, that would mean the shockwave will have traveled a total distance of 9.144 meters. Using the inverse square law (which I'm assuming is still applicable in this circumstance), combined with the handy Alex Wellerstein NUKEMAP calculator, I found that, in order to create such a shockwave, the person would have to be kicking out with 8368000 Joules of Energy, which is approximately equivalent to 8.4 Dynamite Sticks exploding simultaneously. ​ Now, aside from the idea that the shockwave would reflect off the ground without any loss of energy, which I would adjust for provided that this method is reasonable, does this sound like a solid explanation for this "Double Jump" in terms of the physics? And yes, I understand that no human could ever produce this sort of Energy with a jump. I just want to know, if they WERE to pull off a Double Jump, if this explanation seems like the most likely and/or the most feasible. So if you see any flaws in my explanation/regarding the physics involved with this, or if there's some major oversight I missed, or if you've got your own ideas or explanations for how the physics of a Double Jump could work, please let me know! This makes sense to me, and it seems to be more physically sound than turning the Nitrogen into a platform, but I still want to hear what you smart people think. Thank you for your assistance in this thought experiment!
Assistant:This is the quality content we need. |
Human: The Physics of Double Jumping (Attempt #2) So, I was trying to figure out the exact physics behind the video game mechanic known as "Double Jumping," which, for those who don't know, consists of the character jumping into the air and then, somehow, jumping again, apparently jumping off the air itself. Now, while this is physically impossible to do for a normal human, we're not talking about normal people. We're talking about superhuman fictional characters. ​ Now, last time I attempted this, in my previous post on here, I suggested the possibility that maybe one could pull of a Double Jump by pressing one's feat down on the air with such Force and Pressure that it became solid Nitrogen, which they could then leap off of. Thanks to the replies I received, I realized a variety of issues with that idea, but the most notable was that even if such a platform could be made, it would not be braced against anything, and thus wouldn't be something one could leap off of regardless. Thankfully, there were alternative methods of lift that were suggested by those who made comments on my last post, some of which I considered. I looked at the physics of Rockets, but unfortunately, without you throwing a sizable amount of matter downwards, you could not Double Jump with that method. Similarly, next I looked at the physics of how birds fly, but once again it couldn't really be applied in this circumstance, as it seems birds achieve lift through a specific method of abusing the laws of physics, specifically through using a specific wing shape called an "air foil," or something like that, which doesn't seem applicable in our theoretical situation of a human jumping off of the air. ​ So, following that up, I came up with a second attempt at approaching this, and I would love to hear some feedback on it. In our theoretical Double Jump, suppose that the human in question kicked downwards with such force that it created a shockwave, and this shockwave then moved towards the ground, bounced off it, and then the returning shockwave pressed up against the person's feat and carried them upwards. From what I understand of shockwaves, they just require one to put a large amount of energy into the air in a short period of time, and in addition those waves can be more than strong enough to lift a person. ​ I actually ran the numbers already, and given a person weighing 62 kg, gravity would be pressing them downwards with a Force of 608.22 Newtons. Assuming the soles of their feet, together, have an area of about 0.044 m², that would mean the shockwave would have to be exerting pressure of about 13823.182 Pascals in order to match the Force of Gravity. Supposing that, after the first jump, they are 4.572 meters in the air, that would mean the shockwave would have to travel 4.572 meters to the ground and then 4.572 meters back up to the person. For the purposes of this, assuming the energy was completely conserved after reflecting off of the ground, that would mean the shockwave will have traveled a total distance of 9.144 meters. Using the inverse square law (which I'm assuming is still applicable in this circumstance), combined with the handy Alex Wellerstein NUKEMAP calculator, I found that, in order to create such a shockwave, the person would have to be kicking out with 8368000 Joules of Energy, which is approximately equivalent to 8.4 Dynamite Sticks exploding simultaneously. ​ Now, aside from the idea that the shockwave would reflect off the ground without any loss of energy, which I would adjust for provided that this method is reasonable, does this sound like a solid explanation for this "Double Jump" in terms of the physics? And yes, I understand that no human could ever produce this sort of Energy with a jump. I just want to know, if they WERE to pull off a Double Jump, if this explanation seems like the most likely and/or the most feasible. So if you see any flaws in my explanation/regarding the physics involved with this, or if there's some major oversight I missed, or if you've got your own ideas or explanations for how the physics of a Double Jump could work, please let me know! This makes sense to me, and it seems to be more physically sound than turning the Nitrogen into a platform, but I still want to hear what you smart people think. Thank you for your assistance in this thought experiment!
Assistant:Awesome work dude, it sounds like you learned a lot! And I enjoyed the thought experiment. | 1 |
Human: Traumatized Kitty This is probably a little bit different than some posts here. My cat is pretty healthy physically. But I think she needs mental help and I don't know how to help her. My cat's name is Bean. I adopted her from a local animal shelter 6 years ago. When I walked into the cat room, she immediately started purring, loud enough that I could hear her from across the room. When I walked over, I discovered she only has 2 inches of tail. It was freshly shaven as if it was from surgery (so no she's not a minx). When I asked the center, they said she came like that, and they didn't know what happened. I fell in love with her instantly When I brought her home, she refused to leave her carrying case for almost 3 days. We had to tip her out eventually. But she got used to my room and feels at home there now. She did NOT get used to our other cat, and they have now become the upstairs cat and the downstairs cat. Bean was very skiddish when we got her. She still is. She won't let you pick her up, but if she comes to you she's more than happy to sit next to you. If you move near her, she gets scared. My parents and I think that someone abused her by cutting off her tail, and that she has kitty PTSD. It's been 6 years since I adopted her, and we've made a lot of progress. I can pull her onto my lap sometimes (not that she stays there), and she understands that I'm not going to hurt her. But she still will not let us carry her (or if she does it's not with her cooperating). She is terrified to go to the vet. The last time we had to bring her she released the scent glands cats have, which I had never seen a cat do before. She won't let me carry her to find out how heavy she is, but she looks like she needs to lose weight. We've tried the pheromone sprayers, and it helped her be less aggressive with our other cat, but she's still super scared. How can I help my traumatized cat? TLDR: My cat is scared of being picked up, people moving near her, and is aggressive towards our other cat, even after 6 years. We think she has trauma and was abused. How can I help her? ​ ​ ​ Species: Cat Age: \* 6 Sex/Neuter status: \* Neutered Breed: \* American Shorthair Cat (maybe? The adoption center wasn't sure) Body weight: \* Not sure. A little pudgy but not extremely round. We can't weigh her. History: \* Adopted from local center. Clinical signs: \* Doesn't like being held. Fearful of people moving. Duration: \* all her life Your general location: \* NE US
Assistant:Kittens, like puppies, have a period of time while growing up where they benefit most from socialization and handling. Many stray or feral kittens still retain some of their "wild" nature if they live outside during that time. There's also likely some naturally shy and anxious elements in her personality that's contributing to her behavior. While we know that their memories are quite good, PTSD is only a diagnosable condition in humans and it's far more likely that this is just who she is. And accidents happen to animals that live outside at a much greater rate than humans abuse them. It's way more likely she had a close encounter with a car and had to have her tail amputated and that story just didn't get communicated. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that there's nothing you can do for her. Feliway is a great first step. It's great that you've already seen a positive change! Also ask your vet about prescribing gabapentin for vet visits. It's a great medication for just taking the edge off their anxiety without being overly sedating. At home, I would just make sure that she has lots of places to hide where she feels comfortable, like boxes and a blanket in a dark closet corner, etc. And that's the most that most cats of those nature will need. If you really wanted to go above and beyond, you could do some behavioral work, like finding a game that she likes to play and trying to get her to play some every day, using a clicker and teaching tricks and useful behavior (like sitting on a scale, for example), and perhaps even talking with your vet about anti anxiety medication to see if it makes a positive difference for her. |
Human: Traumatized Kitty This is probably a little bit different than some posts here. My cat is pretty healthy physically. But I think she needs mental help and I don't know how to help her. My cat's name is Bean. I adopted her from a local animal shelter 6 years ago. When I walked into the cat room, she immediately started purring, loud enough that I could hear her from across the room. When I walked over, I discovered she only has 2 inches of tail. It was freshly shaven as if it was from surgery (so no she's not a minx). When I asked the center, they said she came like that, and they didn't know what happened. I fell in love with her instantly When I brought her home, she refused to leave her carrying case for almost 3 days. We had to tip her out eventually. But she got used to my room and feels at home there now. She did NOT get used to our other cat, and they have now become the upstairs cat and the downstairs cat. Bean was very skiddish when we got her. She still is. She won't let you pick her up, but if she comes to you she's more than happy to sit next to you. If you move near her, she gets scared. My parents and I think that someone abused her by cutting off her tail, and that she has kitty PTSD. It's been 6 years since I adopted her, and we've made a lot of progress. I can pull her onto my lap sometimes (not that she stays there), and she understands that I'm not going to hurt her. But she still will not let us carry her (or if she does it's not with her cooperating). She is terrified to go to the vet. The last time we had to bring her she released the scent glands cats have, which I had never seen a cat do before. She won't let me carry her to find out how heavy she is, but she looks like she needs to lose weight. We've tried the pheromone sprayers, and it helped her be less aggressive with our other cat, but she's still super scared. How can I help my traumatized cat? TLDR: My cat is scared of being picked up, people moving near her, and is aggressive towards our other cat, even after 6 years. We think she has trauma and was abused. How can I help her? ​ ​ ​ Species: Cat Age: \* 6 Sex/Neuter status: \* Neutered Breed: \* American Shorthair Cat (maybe? The adoption center wasn't sure) Body weight: \* Not sure. A little pudgy but not extremely round. We can't weigh her. History: \* Adopted from local center. Clinical signs: \* Doesn't like being held. Fearful of people moving. Duration: \* all her life Your general location: \* NE US
Assistant:This sounds like an ideal case for a licensed veterinary behaviorist. Check the sidebar and ask your vet for their local recommendation. They’re not magicians, but if anything can help your kitty (other than what you’ve already been doing), that’s who I’d look to. Best of luck, and great job so far! | 1 |
Human: How do I calmly approach having my defense downgraded 48 hrs before? [x-post from r/gradschool] So I was to defend this Friday afternoon- dissertation had been sent off to committee two weeks before, everyone except PI had okayed the time, I had slides ready and everything, many people were invited (managed to snag an online defense) and etc. Then yesterday afternoon, I got an email I didn't see till the evening cause I was busy practicing from my PI that read- ​ >After consulting with your committee, I am writing to let you know that we are treating this Friday strictly as a committee (annual) meeting. You are well aware of my concerns with the state of Chapter 3 and the associated studies. I propose to use Friday as an opportunity to focus on Chapter 3 only and to allow the committee to help you with the scientific steps needed for inclusion in an acceptable dissertation. The committee is in agreement with this plan and copied in this email. ​ So afaik, this happened relatively recently- at least as of Monday, two committee said they were looking forward to the defense, etc. What is the best approach to having a 48 hr notification that the defense is being downgraded with no prior notification to me? I assume the typical solution is to go for the committee, but PI seems to have sidestepped me on that regard, so I've hit up the next highest people I can think of (associate dean of college, chair of department) to get their input. Also trying to approach this as calmly and diplomatically as possible, but it's been a struggle :) Some additional context * Chapter in question is one we have fundamental disagreements on, since the crux of it is based on the reproduction (or lack thereof) of calculated numbers from the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. I maintain there's no way to reproduce them (can get close, but never exact) and can't know why, cause 1) don't have inputs, 2) the program versions from back then are probably different, and 3) there's papers published talking about how they can't reproduce them * This is not the first time someone from the lab has had a messy graduation. In fact, everyone (4 PhDs, two MS) all had to fight to get a defense date, and the case of one PhD, they were forced to pay out of pocket after their funding ran out and PI refused to pay from grant. There's general knowledge that having difficult graduations is a pattern in the lab, but this might be the worst so far.
Assistant:1. Neither the side-stepping of the committee or the 'downgrade' of your defense is the real problem. Quit focusing on this and all the procedural logistics. YOU are not ready to defend, it is clear. 2. **You have a much bigger problem**, your committee disagrees with your methods. This is a show stopper. My advice (20+ years of post my defense) is for you to humbly go to that meeting on Friday, take notes like your life depended on it and do exactly whatever the heck they want you to do, exactly the way they want you to do it. First, because when a committee comprised of faculty agrees you have a problem (faculty rarely agrees on anything), then most likely you do have a very serious problem, and you need to come to terms that you do not know better. Second, by fighting them on this, expect being scrutinized in every other chapter -- when you don't listen, or not following their advice, they do not trust you. **Your goal is to defend and graduate.** It is not the time to argue with your committee or try to prove them wrong. It is time to listen to their advice and get help solving your problem. 3. If you are so sure you are right or know better, you are welcome to devise or use whatever you think are the right methods in future peer review articles. Then you can have your disagreements with the unknown reviewers. Not now. 4. Having to fight to get a defense date of having difficulty getting the committee to be available on a specific date and place is a notorious issue since the beginning of time. Eventually, it will happen, it always does, nobody failed to get their PhD because they could not schedule the committee. 5. What has happened to others in the program or with the advisor is not your problem. Focus on your work. History and academic politics are a distraction. |
Human: How do I calmly approach having my defense downgraded 48 hrs before? [x-post from r/gradschool] So I was to defend this Friday afternoon- dissertation had been sent off to committee two weeks before, everyone except PI had okayed the time, I had slides ready and everything, many people were invited (managed to snag an online defense) and etc. Then yesterday afternoon, I got an email I didn't see till the evening cause I was busy practicing from my PI that read- ​ >After consulting with your committee, I am writing to let you know that we are treating this Friday strictly as a committee (annual) meeting. You are well aware of my concerns with the state of Chapter 3 and the associated studies. I propose to use Friday as an opportunity to focus on Chapter 3 only and to allow the committee to help you with the scientific steps needed for inclusion in an acceptable dissertation. The committee is in agreement with this plan and copied in this email. ​ So afaik, this happened relatively recently- at least as of Monday, two committee said they were looking forward to the defense, etc. What is the best approach to having a 48 hr notification that the defense is being downgraded with no prior notification to me? I assume the typical solution is to go for the committee, but PI seems to have sidestepped me on that regard, so I've hit up the next highest people I can think of (associate dean of college, chair of department) to get their input. Also trying to approach this as calmly and diplomatically as possible, but it's been a struggle :) Some additional context * Chapter in question is one we have fundamental disagreements on, since the crux of it is based on the reproduction (or lack thereof) of calculated numbers from the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. I maintain there's no way to reproduce them (can get close, but never exact) and can't know why, cause 1) don't have inputs, 2) the program versions from back then are probably different, and 3) there's papers published talking about how they can't reproduce them * This is not the first time someone from the lab has had a messy graduation. In fact, everyone (4 PhDs, two MS) all had to fight to get a defense date, and the case of one PhD, they were forced to pay out of pocket after their funding ran out and PI refused to pay from grant. There's general knowledge that having difficult graduations is a pattern in the lab, but this might be the worst so far.
Assistant:You know nobody (including most committee members) actually ever reads your dissertation? Just change Chapter 3 to whatever your PI wants, defend, get the fuck out and move on with your life. All this drama over something that nobody ever will do anything with isn't worth it. | 1 |
Human: New to HR - employee behavior and how to handle in HR In the Mid-Atlantic! I am new to the HR role in my organization and do not have training in HR, so I am learning as I go along. I am taking on this role because my position is being eliminated due to COVID19. Logistical HR questions: A supervisor has asked me to speak with them Monday about a problem they are having with a subordinate. My instinct is to have the supervisor speak with the subordinate first and leave HR out of it as a primary step. However, I am not sure, if the supervisor takes that advice, if this conversation I am having with the supervisor constitutes documentation or not at this stage. The supervisor may want to file a formal complaint, in which case I of course would document. I am just not sure the next steps. Would it be to the speak with the subordinate to gather the documentation from their POV? Do I mediate a conversation between them or speak to them each separately? Description of employee behavior: I think I understand why the supervisor would want to come to HR for advice or to file a formal complaint. I will know for certain on Monday! But here are my thoughts: The subordinate behaves in a very emotionally manipulative way. They often act as a victim and claim they've been attacked and abused by people. Other staff members, including the supervisor and myself to be honest, do listen and attempt to console or reason that things may not have been intended as they are being taken. The employee typically refuses these suggestions. I am guessing the supervisor feels like they will become the next bad guy in the employee's string of abusers if they bring any concerns to the employee's attention. I am actually having a conversation with this employee next week as they want discuss the abuse they've been put through at this organization since they started (their tenure pre dates mine by several years). This was at their suggestion and I plan to listen and document. The catch here is that the victim behavior actually probably IS the problem the supervisor needs to address as it is making our small org very unproductive right now. We will see what she says Monday. I have personally struggled with how to interact with this person in my previous role, so I can see why the supervisor would be hesitant about how to raise concerns with them. However, I do not know what role HR can or should play to that end. I admit I do not have a great suggestion of how to approach them. I will say on a personal note, the employee was very kind to put me in touch with their parent who is an HR exec at a large company, but I haven't had much of a reason yet to reach out to said parent. This particular situation is the first one I feel I need real advice from someone but am uncomfortable going to the most knowledgeable person I am acquainted with. I think the reasons for my uncomfortability may be obvious! Beyond not wanting to ask a parent how to handle their child's behavior in a professional setting, I am not sure how appropriate I think it is for me to be receiving advice from another employee's parent. What happens in the HR area needs to stay confidential and I am not sure how well that can be accomplished if I am asking specific questions of another employee's family member. Another small aside to this is that I have noticed the employee telling me what to do or how to do my job since I was asked to take on HR responsibilities. They act as the resident expert in HR since their parent is an HR exec. It has gotten to the point that it feels a bit passive aggressive. Not really sure what to do about that. Maybe nothing! Anyway, I am searching the SHRM site and looking for what info I can, but I appreciate your input!
Assistant:\> I will say on a personal note, the employee was very kind to put me in touch with their parent who is an HR exec at a large company, but I haven't had much of a reason yet to reach out to said parent. ​ ​ You will never have a reason to reach out to their parent. The employees suggestion that you do so says quite a bit about how they perceive your capability to handle their special situation. ​ You problem is that you have an employee who thinks that everyone else is in the wrong. Coach and set goals. |
Human: New to HR - employee behavior and how to handle in HR In the Mid-Atlantic! I am new to the HR role in my organization and do not have training in HR, so I am learning as I go along. I am taking on this role because my position is being eliminated due to COVID19. Logistical HR questions: A supervisor has asked me to speak with them Monday about a problem they are having with a subordinate. My instinct is to have the supervisor speak with the subordinate first and leave HR out of it as a primary step. However, I am not sure, if the supervisor takes that advice, if this conversation I am having with the supervisor constitutes documentation or not at this stage. The supervisor may want to file a formal complaint, in which case I of course would document. I am just not sure the next steps. Would it be to the speak with the subordinate to gather the documentation from their POV? Do I mediate a conversation between them or speak to them each separately? Description of employee behavior: I think I understand why the supervisor would want to come to HR for advice or to file a formal complaint. I will know for certain on Monday! But here are my thoughts: The subordinate behaves in a very emotionally manipulative way. They often act as a victim and claim they've been attacked and abused by people. Other staff members, including the supervisor and myself to be honest, do listen and attempt to console or reason that things may not have been intended as they are being taken. The employee typically refuses these suggestions. I am guessing the supervisor feels like they will become the next bad guy in the employee's string of abusers if they bring any concerns to the employee's attention. I am actually having a conversation with this employee next week as they want discuss the abuse they've been put through at this organization since they started (their tenure pre dates mine by several years). This was at their suggestion and I plan to listen and document. The catch here is that the victim behavior actually probably IS the problem the supervisor needs to address as it is making our small org very unproductive right now. We will see what she says Monday. I have personally struggled with how to interact with this person in my previous role, so I can see why the supervisor would be hesitant about how to raise concerns with them. However, I do not know what role HR can or should play to that end. I admit I do not have a great suggestion of how to approach them. I will say on a personal note, the employee was very kind to put me in touch with their parent who is an HR exec at a large company, but I haven't had much of a reason yet to reach out to said parent. This particular situation is the first one I feel I need real advice from someone but am uncomfortable going to the most knowledgeable person I am acquainted with. I think the reasons for my uncomfortability may be obvious! Beyond not wanting to ask a parent how to handle their child's behavior in a professional setting, I am not sure how appropriate I think it is for me to be receiving advice from another employee's parent. What happens in the HR area needs to stay confidential and I am not sure how well that can be accomplished if I am asking specific questions of another employee's family member. Another small aside to this is that I have noticed the employee telling me what to do or how to do my job since I was asked to take on HR responsibilities. They act as the resident expert in HR since their parent is an HR exec. It has gotten to the point that it feels a bit passive aggressive. Not really sure what to do about that. Maybe nothing! Anyway, I am searching the SHRM site and looking for what info I can, but I appreciate your input!
Assistant:They had to eliminate a position, and it ended up being yours, not this crazy employee? This business definitely needs some consulting help. | 1 |
Human: CMV: Uniforms Should Be Required for Lower, Middle, and High School Students There is plenty of controversy regarding uniforms and whether or not they should be enforced for lower, middle, and high school students. Although many individuals do not support the idea of uniforms within schools, I believe that requiring uniforms will lead to many positive outcomes and an improved school atmosphere overall. Firstly, I believe that enforcing a uniform policy within schools will allow students to focus more on their academics rather than their appearance. According to the National Association of Secondary School Principals, “when all students are wearing the same outfit, they are less concerned about how they look and how they fit in with their peers; thus, they can concentrate on their schoolwork, and parents and teachers can stop worrying about that distraction.” There are often cases of bullying throughout the lower, middle, and high school years and some of that bullying can be centered around what kids wear or how they choose to dress. Including a uniform policy will help to decrease some of this bullying that transpires, as all students will be wearing the same outfits and won’t feel peer pressure to “fit in” or fear being harassed over what they wear. Therefore, students are able to focus more on their education rather than social pressures. Aside from relieving social pressures, the inclusion of uniforms in schools can also be cost effective for parents. According to an article written by Mary Yarber through the Los Angeles Times, “For about $60, you can buy one pair of popular jeans, or a complete school uniform. And for what you would spend on a pair of trendy sneakers ($100-$120), you could buy two uniforms, enough for a school year.” Rather than parents having to constantly pay for a new wardrobe for their kids to keep up with the latest trends each season of the year, they are able to pay a set fee to purchase a school uniform for the year. Uniforms are certainly cost-effective for parents and can save them a fortune. It is evident that the requirement of school uniforms can significantly relieve social pressures amongst students, help reduce instances of bullying, and can save parents money while school shopping for their kids. Some critics may fear that requiring school uniforms can take away from students’ individuality. While I understand that uniforms certainly limit the ability for students to express themselves through their clothing styles, they are still able to express themselves through any accessories they decide to wear with their uniform. That way, each student feels as though they "fit in" and can add any kind of accessories to demonstrate their individuality. I certainly believe that requiring uniforms within schools for all students before they reach college will overall help them to perform to the best of their abilities in all aspects through a critical period of growth in their lives. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:>Firstly, I believe that enforcing a uniform policy within schools will allow students to focus more on their academics rather than their appearance. Perhaps. But the point of school is to prepare you for the real world (especially the professional world), and in the real/professional world you need to be able to handle focusing on both your performance *and* appearance. Unless your aspiration is to work at some place like McDonalds or AMC where there is some kind of standardized uniform, part of the skillset you need to thrive in a professional setting is to select items from your wardrobe every morning that look good and presentable. And, at least anecdotally speaking, looking back at some of my high school pictures that's a skillset that takes a very long time to hone. It took me a while to get to the presentable standard I'm at today, and struggling through that in high school was part of the learning process. I get that "looking cool" in the workplace might be less of a factor compared to school, but part of looking cool is being able to coordinate clothing types/colors, which is a skill that definitely transfers to professional life. This is more or less the same argument I make against sex-segregated schools; they're not reflective of the real world they're supposed to be preparing you for. As another poster said, Billy might be able to concentrate on his math lessons better if bubble-butt Becky wasn't rocking yoga pants today, and indeed he might be able to concentrate even better if Becky and all the other girls weren't there at all, but all that means is Billy is going to have to figure out how to both get work done and be around members of the opposite sex *after* he's done in school, instead of during. And I rather think the stakes are higher in the real world vs school; you're looking at getting fired and not having the money to feed/clothe/house yourself vs having a low GPA and having mandatory study sessions with tutors. So it's better to let kids figure out how preform around distractions like clothing and members of the opposite sex *before* they're trying to do so in a setting where failure is more detrimental. |
Human: CMV: Uniforms Should Be Required for Lower, Middle, and High School Students There is plenty of controversy regarding uniforms and whether or not they should be enforced for lower, middle, and high school students. Although many individuals do not support the idea of uniforms within schools, I believe that requiring uniforms will lead to many positive outcomes and an improved school atmosphere overall. Firstly, I believe that enforcing a uniform policy within schools will allow students to focus more on their academics rather than their appearance. According to the National Association of Secondary School Principals, “when all students are wearing the same outfit, they are less concerned about how they look and how they fit in with their peers; thus, they can concentrate on their schoolwork, and parents and teachers can stop worrying about that distraction.” There are often cases of bullying throughout the lower, middle, and high school years and some of that bullying can be centered around what kids wear or how they choose to dress. Including a uniform policy will help to decrease some of this bullying that transpires, as all students will be wearing the same outfits and won’t feel peer pressure to “fit in” or fear being harassed over what they wear. Therefore, students are able to focus more on their education rather than social pressures. Aside from relieving social pressures, the inclusion of uniforms in schools can also be cost effective for parents. According to an article written by Mary Yarber through the Los Angeles Times, “For about $60, you can buy one pair of popular jeans, or a complete school uniform. And for what you would spend on a pair of trendy sneakers ($100-$120), you could buy two uniforms, enough for a school year.” Rather than parents having to constantly pay for a new wardrobe for their kids to keep up with the latest trends each season of the year, they are able to pay a set fee to purchase a school uniform for the year. Uniforms are certainly cost-effective for parents and can save them a fortune. It is evident that the requirement of school uniforms can significantly relieve social pressures amongst students, help reduce instances of bullying, and can save parents money while school shopping for their kids. Some critics may fear that requiring school uniforms can take away from students’ individuality. While I understand that uniforms certainly limit the ability for students to express themselves through their clothing styles, they are still able to express themselves through any accessories they decide to wear with their uniform. That way, each student feels as though they "fit in" and can add any kind of accessories to demonstrate their individuality. I certainly believe that requiring uniforms within schools for all students before they reach college will overall help them to perform to the best of their abilities in all aspects through a critical period of growth in their lives. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*
Assistant:So is this going to be a *uni*form or a *duo*form. Because it seems like 99% of the time when people talk about school uniforms they talk about a duoform; as in a different one for each sex. Also, the problem with uniforms is that you favour those who would've dressed like that or similar to that anyway. You allow those to dress how they but not the others. I mean let's say you required a uniform hair length as a more extreme example; the ones that like their hair that long are fine obviously but the others wil have to grow or cut it which isn't fair to them. If the uniform is say black with white the people who like that colour are benefited over those that like something more colourful. How far will it extend otherwise, does it also cover jewelry and makeup in a uniform way? | 1 |
Human: [GA] Got a VERY bad haircut at a well known salon. As my hair is directly tied to my income is it worth it to contact a lawyer? Right off the bat, I understand that other people have much bigger problems then this, and I know that hair grows back. Sorry if this post is all over the place. I know no one one Reddit can give me all the answers but I’m wondering if this is something worth pursuing or not. I also know that there are a ton of points where I should I should have said stop and asked for another stylist but I’ve never had a bad experience with these people and I’m kind of shy about speaking up. I had very long, healthy hair (down to my ass) that I’ve been growing out for 3+ years. My hair is directly tied to my income, I’m a (hair) model and I’d say I’m probably looking at losing about $5-10,000 depending on what gigs I can still do with extensions (these are jobs booked specifically because of my hair up until the end of this year as well as paid social media advertisements). This isn’t including income I would have made booking other gigs for the rest of the year (I made $30,000 last year in mostly jobs tied directly to my hair). A week ago, I went into a well known and reputable salon for a 2-3 inch TRIM. This isn’t a Great Clips or Sports Clips type situation, this is a well known, expensive salon. The amount I wanted off was specified both when I made the appointment, in the notes at the front desk, and when the stylist was cutting my hair. I have a normal go-to stylist there but on the day of my appointment she was out sick. I was assigned a new stylist instead (I wasn’t notified at the time that they were brand new to the salon and this was their first job out of school). Everything went well with the cut, but after they finished blow drying I noticed it was uneven (like a two or three inch difference). I pointed it out and they immediately apologized and went to fix it (first red flag, should have asked for someone else). At this point I was angled away from the mirror. Halfway through they went to ask the manager a question which I now realize was related to the cut and not just a general question (second red flag). I looked in the mirror and my hair was at least 5 inches off (probably more) at this point. This was probably when I really should have stopped them, but once again I had faith in the salon and five inches wasn’t a huge deal because my hair was so long. When they came back I specifically asked NO shorter and just keeping it as long as possible at that point. I was facing the mirror and they were working on the back and I just hear her mutter “crap” under her breath. I immediately told her to stop and show me the back. I have NO clue for the life of me how but a large chunk of my hair was chopped to the base of my NECK. I asked to speak to a a manager and I was in tears at this point. The manager was really kind and explained she was new. But when I started crying she was rather rude saying “it’s JUST hair it will grow back, you don’t need to be making a scene” things along that line. I was really panicked at this point. She offered to have their senior master stylist come in to fix it the next day but I wanted nothing to do with her at that point, asked for a hair tie and left. The next day I went to my moms hairstylist who cut my hair when I was younger and he was shocked. He said that in his experience a salon of that caliber shouldn’t have someone who would eff up that bad and he’d ask around. He also mentioned the possibility of me trying to sue that salon. I just wanted him to fix it and he did a fairly good jo by cutting my hair into a v-shape, but it would be considered a long bob and in no way the style I have bookings for or the style that gets me jobs generally. Then today my moms stylist called me back (he’s been doing my families hair for years and is a good friend) and said he had heard from a pretty reputable source that the stylist was the child of either the general manager or owner of that salon and wasn’t qualified to work there. He said I should most definitely pursue legal action and that if this had happened in his salon the owner would already be making me offers. The original salon has not called me back at all, but I was fairly rude leaving. Question is, is this worth pursuing? I feel like any lawyer will laugh at me because it’s just hair. I’m also really young and still working on my undergrad so this isn’t a full time career. I just don’t know what to do at this point.
Assistant:I work in the industry and I can tell you right now that if you don’t sue, you’re making a HUGE mistake. Not only is it illegal to have someone unlicensed to work in a salon, the salon could be shut down for this. It’s a violation in most states to have someone unlicensed (cosmetology) cutting hair. If they are licensed, then that person just isn’t qualified to be working on their own yet. That’s why we have assistants in the salons. I hope you at least take it to small claims court and let the GA cosmetology board know. |
Human: [GA] Got a VERY bad haircut at a well known salon. As my hair is directly tied to my income is it worth it to contact a lawyer? Right off the bat, I understand that other people have much bigger problems then this, and I know that hair grows back. Sorry if this post is all over the place. I know no one one Reddit can give me all the answers but I’m wondering if this is something worth pursuing or not. I also know that there are a ton of points where I should I should have said stop and asked for another stylist but I’ve never had a bad experience with these people and I’m kind of shy about speaking up. I had very long, healthy hair (down to my ass) that I’ve been growing out for 3+ years. My hair is directly tied to my income, I’m a (hair) model and I’d say I’m probably looking at losing about $5-10,000 depending on what gigs I can still do with extensions (these are jobs booked specifically because of my hair up until the end of this year as well as paid social media advertisements). This isn’t including income I would have made booking other gigs for the rest of the year (I made $30,000 last year in mostly jobs tied directly to my hair). A week ago, I went into a well known and reputable salon for a 2-3 inch TRIM. This isn’t a Great Clips or Sports Clips type situation, this is a well known, expensive salon. The amount I wanted off was specified both when I made the appointment, in the notes at the front desk, and when the stylist was cutting my hair. I have a normal go-to stylist there but on the day of my appointment she was out sick. I was assigned a new stylist instead (I wasn’t notified at the time that they were brand new to the salon and this was their first job out of school). Everything went well with the cut, but after they finished blow drying I noticed it was uneven (like a two or three inch difference). I pointed it out and they immediately apologized and went to fix it (first red flag, should have asked for someone else). At this point I was angled away from the mirror. Halfway through they went to ask the manager a question which I now realize was related to the cut and not just a general question (second red flag). I looked in the mirror and my hair was at least 5 inches off (probably more) at this point. This was probably when I really should have stopped them, but once again I had faith in the salon and five inches wasn’t a huge deal because my hair was so long. When they came back I specifically asked NO shorter and just keeping it as long as possible at that point. I was facing the mirror and they were working on the back and I just hear her mutter “crap” under her breath. I immediately told her to stop and show me the back. I have NO clue for the life of me how but a large chunk of my hair was chopped to the base of my NECK. I asked to speak to a a manager and I was in tears at this point. The manager was really kind and explained she was new. But when I started crying she was rather rude saying “it’s JUST hair it will grow back, you don’t need to be making a scene” things along that line. I was really panicked at this point. She offered to have their senior master stylist come in to fix it the next day but I wanted nothing to do with her at that point, asked for a hair tie and left. The next day I went to my moms hairstylist who cut my hair when I was younger and he was shocked. He said that in his experience a salon of that caliber shouldn’t have someone who would eff up that bad and he’d ask around. He also mentioned the possibility of me trying to sue that salon. I just wanted him to fix it and he did a fairly good jo by cutting my hair into a v-shape, but it would be considered a long bob and in no way the style I have bookings for or the style that gets me jobs generally. Then today my moms stylist called me back (he’s been doing my families hair for years and is a good friend) and said he had heard from a pretty reputable source that the stylist was the child of either the general manager or owner of that salon and wasn’t qualified to work there. He said I should most definitely pursue legal action and that if this had happened in his salon the owner would already be making me offers. The original salon has not called me back at all, but I was fairly rude leaving. Question is, is this worth pursuing? I feel like any lawyer will laugh at me because it’s just hair. I’m also really young and still working on my undergrad so this isn’t a full time career. I just don’t know what to do at this point.
Assistant:Cosemrology is a state regulated industry. There is probably a cosmetology board in Georgia. If she wasnt suppose to be working and didnt have a license to cut hair, you should report her and the salon to the cosmetology board. | 1 |
Human: CMV: Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up. To preface: I went to an extremely leftist school and am surrounded by queer, radical PoC and activists all the time in my career. I myself am a queer PoC. I agree 100% with almost everything my peers stand for. There's just one thing that is constantly stuck in my craw and is such a huge point of contention between leftists and others. I understand how making insulting comments against someone with structural privilege (white/male/cis/hetero/able-bodied/etc) is totally different than making such comments against a person who is not similarly privileged (non-white/female/queer/disabled/etc). The protection certain privileges give means that the repercussions of getting insulted or verbally attacked are minimal compared to a lesser privileged person. But those repercussions are still there, at least mentally and emotionally, right? My question revolves around this: why is saying "fuck cis-hets" or "white men are terrorists" fine and accepted in leftist communities? Why say "fuck all white people" when you mean "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that." Why say the former when there's a white person, maybe your friend or ally, standing right next to you, struggling to do mental gymnastics to justify what you said despite the hurt that it might cause? Sure, sure, being upset that someone told you to "go fuck yourself" is not the same as living under systematic oppression. But it's still not great, is it? I get that people without certain kinds of privilege are fed up and angry and exhausted. But why does that excuse being a mean, cruel person to people who have personally done you no wrong? We're not talking ideologies here; its not like saying "fuck Republicans" or something. People who follow shitty ideologies can expect to hear about it. But people are not white or straight because they choose to be, they're that way because that's how they were born. There are plenty of people who have privilege but are doing the work to undo oppressive systems and support people who are oppressed. Why should they constantly have to hear a stream of angry, hateful words towards their unchangeable identity? Why is it okay to say "well, oppressed people suffer more than you, so we have the right to be awful to you in return." I just fail to understand it, day after day after day. But it's something that all my peers engage in, and I want to figure out if there's something I'm not seeing here. So, CMV!
Assistant:Let me give you a different, arguably radical perspective here. According to feminist ideology, we live in a *patriarchy*. However, according to men's rights activists, we live in a society that is *gynocentric*. One view point paints the male as powerful and the female oppressed. Another view point paints the male as disposable and the female as powerful. Under the feminist paradigm, it is women who "punch up" to men by calling them pigs. Under the MRA paradigm, it is in fact women punching down. It's socially acceptable today like mocking a retard was acceptable 100 years ago, or how a fat person was a circus act. Under the leftist paradigm, you are by definition a POC if you're non-white. Inclusive racial cultures are open to any race that's a POC, i.e. non-white. Equivalently, it's an *exclusionary* culture that specifically targets the white race as non-deservig of inclusivity. It necessarily paints whites as a "them" versus an "us". Whites become the paradigmatically ostracized race, and this is present under affirmative action protocols. Whites who outperform POCs on the MCAT have *worse* chances to get into colleges than the lower scoring POCs. In this way, it is not "punching up" to berate the ostracized race. It's punching down. What you're beginning to realize, and is something the "straight white male" experiences every day of their life, is that they are, in modern times, specifically targeted and berated for this race or gender or sex, and often a combination of all of them. From what you've been exposed to as a person who feels like you're marginalized for your race and sexuality, you recognize that as ridiculously wrong. They don't know you, yet they assume things about you and judge you by punching down. The very fact you even view it as "punching up" to berate this specific racial demographic (white) or sexual demographic (male) is indicative of this exclusionary principle where the white male is "them". Sometimes, you can be bigoted by proscribing positive traits to a group. E.g. women are caretakers; blacks are strong and virile; white males are privileged. So these insults aren't wrong in spite of "punching up". They're wrong for the same reasons punching down to blacks or females are. You're making unfounded assumptions on a group of people. You aren't punching up. You're creating an out-group and punching down. I know dozens of white males who don't feel privileged. The standard response is to tell them they're simply delusionally misinformed. How insultingly belittling is that? It's a bit dehumanizing, really. Why is it okay to "punch up"? Because it's not punching up at all, and this is the modern incarnation of the "science" around races or women to give an excuse to discriminate against them. Here the "scientific" excuse is the Advent of privilege. |
Human: CMV: Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up. To preface: I went to an extremely leftist school and am surrounded by queer, radical PoC and activists all the time in my career. I myself am a queer PoC. I agree 100% with almost everything my peers stand for. There's just one thing that is constantly stuck in my craw and is such a huge point of contention between leftists and others. I understand how making insulting comments against someone with structural privilege (white/male/cis/hetero/able-bodied/etc) is totally different than making such comments against a person who is not similarly privileged (non-white/female/queer/disabled/etc). The protection certain privileges give means that the repercussions of getting insulted or verbally attacked are minimal compared to a lesser privileged person. But those repercussions are still there, at least mentally and emotionally, right? My question revolves around this: why is saying "fuck cis-hets" or "white men are terrorists" fine and accepted in leftist communities? Why say "fuck all white people" when you mean "fuck the system that privileges whiteness, and the people that support that." Why say the former when there's a white person, maybe your friend or ally, standing right next to you, struggling to do mental gymnastics to justify what you said despite the hurt that it might cause? Sure, sure, being upset that someone told you to "go fuck yourself" is not the same as living under systematic oppression. But it's still not great, is it? I get that people without certain kinds of privilege are fed up and angry and exhausted. But why does that excuse being a mean, cruel person to people who have personally done you no wrong? We're not talking ideologies here; its not like saying "fuck Republicans" or something. People who follow shitty ideologies can expect to hear about it. But people are not white or straight because they choose to be, they're that way because that's how they were born. There are plenty of people who have privilege but are doing the work to undo oppressive systems and support people who are oppressed. Why should they constantly have to hear a stream of angry, hateful words towards their unchangeable identity? Why is it okay to say "well, oppressed people suffer more than you, so we have the right to be awful to you in return." I just fail to understand it, day after day after day. But it's something that all my peers engage in, and I want to figure out if there's something I'm not seeing here. So, CMV!
Assistant:> Generalized insults like "fuck white people" or "all men are awful" are not okay just because they're punching up. Those aren't insults. Those are things that people say because they're unwilling or unable to be better. People say that kind of stuff when they're two wrapped up in being hurt or wronged to think straight. On some level it's hard to tell whether these things are sincere expressions of pain and rage, or they're what virtue signalling is like when people have decided that being a victim is something to aspire to. | 1 |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
The data is orginally from Standford SHP dataset. I build two dataset: hard and soft based on the BERT-Large embedding of CLS. Hard is the most similiar pairs and soft is the most dis-similiar pairs. To make the two dataset different, I also filter out the overlaped pairs (since some prompt only has one pair). The prompt distribution is not uniform, so I only selected one pair for each prompt for hard and soft dataset.
- Downloads last month
- 0