Datasets:

honggen

/

shp_all_BERT

like 0

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.*

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Human: CMV: The U.S. should significantly cut back on welfare programs and replace them with workfare programs (where people get guaranteed jobs at a guaranteed wage) To begin, I'm not saying that people on welfare are shitty employees or somehow worth less as human beings, oftentimes people have difficulty finding gainful employment due to a variety of factors like: lack of experience, the area where they live being economically depressed, or things like a criminal record/drug addiction/other stuff that is basically symptomatic of living in a poorer area. Also, I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of *all* welfare programs and replacing them with workfare. There are lots of people who can't work for a variety of reasons but still need to be able to support their basic needs (so keep but heavily reform stuff like SSDI, Medicaid, etc.), but when this isn't the case, I believe workfare is better in almost every circumstance. Implementing workfare programs would help alleviate many of these issues and take a lot of strain off of the welfare system. Providing useful work experience would provide people with a stepping stone to later employment outside of the system, lowering unemployment and the amount of people who require welfare. Recidivism would decrease as continuing to commit crimes becomes less desirable (in terms of opportunity cost) and less of a necessity (there are now other options available). Drug addictions might decrease as people have something productive and gainful to do with their time. Less unemployment and more disposable income would stimulate the local economy, creating more jobs (and less stigmatization of the poor as 'welfare queens'). Less people could exploit the welfare system (more efficiency). And because these programs/institutions would be actually productive (ex. public works projects, departments focused on helping the local community, etc.), the social value they'd bring to the community would probably make these programs less expensive overall than welfare programs. I'd consider myself pretty libertarian economically, and I'm typically adverse to government intervention in the economy, but I'd be a fool not to look at the success these programs have had in other countries (ex. Mexico's Progresa and Opportunidades programs) and wonder why neither the left nor the right in the US is really pushing hard to implement these programs in a more widespread manner in the US, especially when the current welfare programs we have are not particularly successful at getting people out of poverty. Assistant:Your plan will probably end up destroying the lower class. To employers, workfare will be cheaper than normal wage labor (if it isn't, then they wouldn't hire workfare people, and the project would fail due to lack of jobs). So a lot of people now doing minimum wage, would see their jobs be replaced by workfare, and then be forced to go onto workfare themselves. This furthers the cycle, throwing more people onto workfare and causing more trouble for everyone. This happens because people don't have any power in this system. They're legally required to work, so they can't quit or strike. The employer can freely make them do anything they want.

Human: CMV: The U.S. should significantly cut back on welfare programs and replace them with workfare programs (where people get guaranteed jobs at a guaranteed wage) To begin, I'm not saying that people on welfare are shitty employees or somehow worth less as human beings, oftentimes people have difficulty finding gainful employment due to a variety of factors like: lack of experience, the area where they live being economically depressed, or things like a criminal record/drug addiction/other stuff that is basically symptomatic of living in a poorer area. Also, I wouldn't advocate for getting rid of *all* welfare programs and replacing them with workfare. There are lots of people who can't work for a variety of reasons but still need to be able to support their basic needs (so keep but heavily reform stuff like SSDI, Medicaid, etc.), but when this isn't the case, I believe workfare is better in almost every circumstance. Implementing workfare programs would help alleviate many of these issues and take a lot of strain off of the welfare system. Providing useful work experience would provide people with a stepping stone to later employment outside of the system, lowering unemployment and the amount of people who require welfare. Recidivism would decrease as continuing to commit crimes becomes less desirable (in terms of opportunity cost) and less of a necessity (there are now other options available). Drug addictions might decrease as people have something productive and gainful to do with their time. Less unemployment and more disposable income would stimulate the local economy, creating more jobs (and less stigmatization of the poor as 'welfare queens'). Less people could exploit the welfare system (more efficiency). And because these programs/institutions would be actually productive (ex. public works projects, departments focused on helping the local community, etc.), the social value they'd bring to the community would probably make these programs less expensive overall than welfare programs. I'd consider myself pretty libertarian economically, and I'm typically adverse to government intervention in the economy, but I'd be a fool not to look at the success these programs have had in other countries (ex. Mexico's Progresa and Opportunidades programs) and wonder why neither the left nor the right in the US is really pushing hard to implement these programs in a more widespread manner in the US, especially when the current welfare programs we have are not particularly successful at getting people out of poverty. Assistant:To clarify: what about those already employed who qualify for welfare? Programs like SNAP for example generally go towards either those working or those too young/disabled to work rather than people who simply aren't working. This isn't to say there aren't some that aren't but they're actually the minority

Human: CMV: Even as a pro-choice person, most common pro-choice arguments (i.e. “No uterus, no opinion”) don’t really hold. Let me start off by saying that I am a cis woman and I am very much pro choice. That said, when I thought about confronting a family member who’s a pro-life activist and influencer about her beliefs, I realized how weak pro-choice rhetoric is when you really break it down. I actually don’t think my reasoning would resonate with her, or any pro-life people, at all. Some examples: 1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” I understand that the message here is that when the majority of lawmakers are cis men, why should they be regulating women’s (and other people who can give birth) bodies? Fair, but that rhetoric is essentially arguing that we need more female (and trans/cis people who can give birth) representation in our legislature. The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues. If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies. Moreover, though I understand that men aren’t the ones giving birth and I would never want a male partner to be able to dictate my choice, I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child. 2. Keep your Bible out of my body. Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are). 3. It’s all about control over women’s bodies. This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth. 4. Life starts at birth, not conception. Okay, I’m sure we all can find plenty of studies and scientific evidence that point in either direction; because this is ultimately more of a philosophical “what even is ‘life’” type of debate. So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby). I think that’s a good thing, for the record. But doesn’t that then — in legal terms — acknowledge that unborn baby as a life? I understand the difference here is consent/choice of the mother, does it change that legal classification of unborn life? 5. A fetus is just a clump of cells. There’s certainly widespread misinformation about fetuses and unborn babies in the pro-life community. However, even if they do have all the science right, if they truly believe that “clump of cells” is just as valuable as a fully grown human child or adult, then emphasizing biology won’t change that core belief that potential life = life. ~~~ I’m starting to feel like my pro-choice beliefs aren’t rooted in anything logically sound but rather the mere fact that I personally wouldn’t want a child anytime soon. Please CMV so I can feel more confident in the reasoning of my pro-choice beliefs! Assistant:Legally personhood starts when you take your first breath. That’s why legally stillborns don’t get death certificates (there are fake ones just for the comfort of the family) because a stillborn was legally never alive. The legal line has to be drawn somewhere and that is first breath. The legal terminology is “born alive”. Now as for killing a pregnant woman and getting charged for both beings varies by state and if the fetus is viable or not. Here is an example: https://www.wlwt.com/article/man-charged-in-slain-pregnant-teachers-death-wont-face-charges-in-childs-death/13020932 There are some states that don’t care about viability and as you can guess those are super religious states where the churches run the state government like Utah or Deep South states.

Human: CMV: Even as a pro-choice person, most common pro-choice arguments (i.e. “No uterus, no opinion”) don’t really hold. Let me start off by saying that I am a cis woman and I am very much pro choice. That said, when I thought about confronting a family member who’s a pro-life activist and influencer about her beliefs, I realized how weak pro-choice rhetoric is when you really break it down. I actually don’t think my reasoning would resonate with her, or any pro-life people, at all. Some examples: 1. “No uterus, no opinion” / “Abortions are a women’s (or birthing person’s) issue.” I understand that the message here is that when the majority of lawmakers are cis men, why should they be regulating women’s (and other people who can give birth) bodies? Fair, but that rhetoric is essentially arguing that we need more female (and trans/cis people who can give birth) representation in our legislature. The argument that men can’t have an opinion on abortion is like saying that white people can’t have an opinion on Black Lives Matter or other racial issues. If men really truly believe that abortion is murder (as much as I disagree), then telling them they can’t be advocates in that conversation would be analogous to telling straight people they can’t advocate for LGBTQ+ rights as allies. Moreover, though I understand that men aren’t the ones giving birth and I would never want a male partner to be able to dictate my choice, I think it’s unfair to completely invalidate potential fathers’ feelings and thoughts on the abortion of their would-be child. 2. Keep your Bible out of my body. Though it would be interesting to see numbers on this, I’m sure that a good number of pro-life people are not religious (though I’ll agree they’re not as visible in the pro-life movement as those who are). 3. It’s all about control over women’s bodies. This is a tougher one for me. In many ways, I do think that it’s true that if we proposed regulating men’s bodies (i.e. via vasectomies or birth control) instead of women, then reproductive rights would look completely different. I understand that that’s what this common argument is getting at. However, I do think there are plenty of pro-life people who honestly believe that a fetus is a life. If they honestly and whole-heartedly believe that, then (I would hope) they would hold that same belief if it were men who gave birth. 4. Life starts at birth, not conception. Okay, I’m sure we all can find plenty of studies and scientific evidence that point in either direction; because this is ultimately more of a philosophical “what even is ‘life’” type of debate. So, science aside, let’s approach this through a legal lens. If a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer could be charged with a double homicide (for the mother and the baby). I think that’s a good thing, for the record. But doesn’t that then — in legal terms — acknowledge that unborn baby as a life? I understand the difference here is consent/choice of the mother, does it change that legal classification of unborn life? 5. A fetus is just a clump of cells. There’s certainly widespread misinformation about fetuses and unborn babies in the pro-life community. However, even if they do have all the science right, if they truly believe that “clump of cells” is just as valuable as a fully grown human child or adult, then emphasizing biology won’t change that core belief that potential life = life. ~~~ I’m starting to feel like my pro-choice beliefs aren’t rooted in anything logically sound but rather the mere fact that I personally wouldn’t want a child anytime soon. Please CMV so I can feel more confident in the reasoning of my pro-choice beliefs! Assistant:I think you're equating 'would convince a pro-life person' and 'logically sound' even though those two things are entirely unrelated. Many perfectly logically sound arguments wouldn't convince a pro-life person. Many things that might convince a pro-life person aren't logically sound. I don't see why you need more of a reason to support legal abortion than 'I would prefer to have it available if I need it because I don't want a child anytime soon'.

Human: Am I Obligated To Honor Previous “Verbal Agreements” Made From A Business I Inherited? I’ll try to keep this as black and white as possible... I unexpectedly inherited a Marina in NY 3 years ago after the sudden and out of the blue death of a family member. Over the past 3 years I’ve pretty much been trying to decipher the whole business and put together everything in a way that’s more manageable for me to run. The biggest issue I’ve had has been; it seems everyone “had a deal” with my family member for a discounted slip (boat parking space) and at first I was honoring those deals as to keep good relations with all the customers. I found out that a few people have taken advantage of this and stretched the truth and even completely fabricate deals. Taking advantage of my goodwill and naivety. With the new season about to begin, after being burned a few times, I have decided to put my foot down and say any deals that were made under previous ownership will only be honored with a written agreement. This has made one customer of mine livid and he’s been constantly and inappropriately bothering me about how the deal he made has already been agreed upon. *Not by me but from my dead family member*. I don’t have any written evidence but a long-time employee, who I trust very much, told me recently that the deal the customer made with my family member was only for one year. He’s now received the same deal (more than half off on a slip in exchange from some old equipment that I don’t even use) for the 4 years (one when my family member was alive, 3 since I took over). My family member took a ton of notes and seemingly wrote everything on his mind down, either on his phone or in notepads/random pieces of paper. I haven’t found ANYTHING about this deal. Trying to take my anger and emotion of being lied to and taken advantage of; I told him for me to continue honoring the deal I need something in writing between the two of them that gives details and dates of the “deal”. Is this legal? Do I have to honor deals that I never verbally agreed to? Are there any ramifications that I’m not thinking of by terminating verbal agreements that I had nothing to do with? What about written ones? Can I tell him he’s no longer welcome at the marina (contractually I have that right)? Where should I go from here? He’s essentially dooped me for 5-6 thousand dollars. I’m just trying to do the right thing, but I don’t want to be taken advantage of or get in any legal trouble. Assistant:If you're the only marina in the area, OP, you may have a lot more bargaining power here than you realize. Don't engage with the jerkwads trying to berate you, they think if they yell loud enough they'll get their way.

Human: Am I Obligated To Honor Previous “Verbal Agreements” Made From A Business I Inherited? I’ll try to keep this as black and white as possible... I unexpectedly inherited a Marina in NY 3 years ago after the sudden and out of the blue death of a family member. Over the past 3 years I’ve pretty much been trying to decipher the whole business and put together everything in a way that’s more manageable for me to run. The biggest issue I’ve had has been; it seems everyone “had a deal” with my family member for a discounted slip (boat parking space) and at first I was honoring those deals as to keep good relations with all the customers. I found out that a few people have taken advantage of this and stretched the truth and even completely fabricate deals. Taking advantage of my goodwill and naivety. With the new season about to begin, after being burned a few times, I have decided to put my foot down and say any deals that were made under previous ownership will only be honored with a written agreement. This has made one customer of mine livid and he’s been constantly and inappropriately bothering me about how the deal he made has already been agreed upon. *Not by me but from my dead family member*. I don’t have any written evidence but a long-time employee, who I trust very much, told me recently that the deal the customer made with my family member was only for one year. He’s now received the same deal (more than half off on a slip in exchange from some old equipment that I don’t even use) for the 4 years (one when my family member was alive, 3 since I took over). My family member took a ton of notes and seemingly wrote everything on his mind down, either on his phone or in notepads/random pieces of paper. I haven’t found ANYTHING about this deal. Trying to take my anger and emotion of being lied to and taken advantage of; I told him for me to continue honoring the deal I need something in writing between the two of them that gives details and dates of the “deal”. Is this legal? Do I have to honor deals that I never verbally agreed to? Are there any ramifications that I’m not thinking of by terminating verbal agreements that I had nothing to do with? What about written ones? Can I tell him he’s no longer welcome at the marina (contractually I have that right)? Where should I go from here? He’s essentially dooped me for 5-6 thousand dollars. I’m just trying to do the right thing, but I don’t want to be taken advantage of or get in any legal trouble. Assistant:It’s ok to fire clients if they are taking advantage.

Human: Neighbor put in a six foot drop less than five inches from fenceline Hello all, I am just looking for any advice. I live in OR, and bought my new construction home just about a year ago. The very nice couple next door sold their home about 5 months ago to a what seemed to be nice person. There was some talk about the property line because the new person wanted to know where it was, and we only had a general idea. After they measured over a dozen times and had a couple people out to measure (I wasn't home because I had prior obligations), they left the line where we had originally marked it when we had first talked about it. This was a couple months ago. We put up a fence that they made clear they didn't want any part of, since we have a dog. We do not have much contact with the neighbor because they are not very friendly, and frankly we are busy. We do not see them often, even though we live very close to them due to small properties in this development. The last conversation we had with them before this was in January, when we were attempting to figure out the property line. Some other background, this is new construction on a hillside that has been here for just about a year. The property line was not cut out well, and some of our front yard is on their lower level, and some of their backyard was at our level. The builder told them that the hill in between was left for proper drainage, since so much water comes off of the hill. The issue started last week when a contractor showed up and started removing dirt. They hauled out over a dozen large dumptrucks full, and cut a six foot drop less than six inches away from the fence, which is two inches in on our property since they didn't want/need the fence. I tried calling the city last week and they did not call me back. When I called this week to check if there was a permit on this project, as is required in my county for large grading projects, they said they would look into it. I got a phone call a couple hours later saying that the neighbor did not have a permit and to call back if they resumed work, as a stop work order had been placed. I took a couple of pictures of the property line, since it had already been dug over, and the neighbor came out and onto my property to ask me what I was going to do about it. I called back a couple of days later when they started work again. The city came back out, and I got a call about an hour later saying that the project is still not permitted, and that the neighbor has no intention of filing a permit, and that the neighbor told the city that since it was private property, that the city is to stay off of their private property. I am very concerned about this as I have a feeling this is an unlicensed contractor doing unpermitted work. They have cut over our property line in some areas, and have basically ensured that some of our property will sink in the next 5 years. The city has told us at this point all we can do is gather evidence to submit to our homeowners insurance when something does happen. Do I have any more rights than this? What is the purpose of a city code if it cannot be upheld by the city? This is the first home we have owned and have never had a neighbor like this. Any advice would be appreciated. As of now, we are taking lots of pictures and have alerted our homeowner's that this could be a future problem. I am also concerned about how this will affect our property value. Any advice is welcome! Assistant:Some things you need to do. 1) Record, photograph and document everything that's happening. Take a lot of pictures and video. Keep a written record of what's happening, when it happened and as many details as you can remember. Be sure to photograph all contractors and their vehicles and equipment for future reference. 2) Keep calling the city. Call them every day. Let them know what's going on and insist they stop the illegal work. Contact you local elected officials and ask them to do something. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. 3) Hire a good real estate attorney. There's a good chance you're going to have to sue your neighbor to make things right. Best to be prepared. The whole "the city has to stay off my private property" business does not bode well for you. There are certain types of people who do not the believe the state has any legitimate authority over them and they won't obey the law until they are forced to. This will probably get worse before it gets better. Good luck.

Human: Neighbor put in a six foot drop less than five inches from fenceline Hello all, I am just looking for any advice. I live in OR, and bought my new construction home just about a year ago. The very nice couple next door sold their home about 5 months ago to a what seemed to be nice person. There was some talk about the property line because the new person wanted to know where it was, and we only had a general idea. After they measured over a dozen times and had a couple people out to measure (I wasn't home because I had prior obligations), they left the line where we had originally marked it when we had first talked about it. This was a couple months ago. We put up a fence that they made clear they didn't want any part of, since we have a dog. We do not have much contact with the neighbor because they are not very friendly, and frankly we are busy. We do not see them often, even though we live very close to them due to small properties in this development. The last conversation we had with them before this was in January, when we were attempting to figure out the property line. Some other background, this is new construction on a hillside that has been here for just about a year. The property line was not cut out well, and some of our front yard is on their lower level, and some of their backyard was at our level. The builder told them that the hill in between was left for proper drainage, since so much water comes off of the hill. The issue started last week when a contractor showed up and started removing dirt. They hauled out over a dozen large dumptrucks full, and cut a six foot drop less than six inches away from the fence, which is two inches in on our property since they didn't want/need the fence. I tried calling the city last week and they did not call me back. When I called this week to check if there was a permit on this project, as is required in my county for large grading projects, they said they would look into it. I got a phone call a couple hours later saying that the neighbor did not have a permit and to call back if they resumed work, as a stop work order had been placed. I took a couple of pictures of the property line, since it had already been dug over, and the neighbor came out and onto my property to ask me what I was going to do about it. I called back a couple of days later when they started work again. The city came back out, and I got a call about an hour later saying that the project is still not permitted, and that the neighbor has no intention of filing a permit, and that the neighbor told the city that since it was private property, that the city is to stay off of their private property. I am very concerned about this as I have a feeling this is an unlicensed contractor doing unpermitted work. They have cut over our property line in some areas, and have basically ensured that some of our property will sink in the next 5 years. The city has told us at this point all we can do is gather evidence to submit to our homeowners insurance when something does happen. Do I have any more rights than this? What is the purpose of a city code if it cannot be upheld by the city? This is the first home we have owned and have never had a neighbor like this. Any advice would be appreciated. As of now, we are taking lots of pictures and have alerted our homeowner's that this could be a future problem. I am also concerned about how this will affect our property value. Any advice is welcome! Assistant:Perhaps you could get a consultation with an engineering firm, with a report on the risks of the neighbor's project, and an estimate of the cost to finish the project in a safe way - how much to build a proper retaining wall, regrade, or etc. as needed. Then use that to negotiate with your neighbor. And potentially sue if the neighbor will not act.

Human: I keep getting in trouble for what I wear to work despite changing into scrubs once I get to my unit [OH] Hi all! So my issue is last week I was pulled aside by my boss for him to tell me he received complaints about what I wear to work and that my clothing choices go against dress code policies. What I was wearing was a starwars hoodie that came off the shoulders a bit with a red thick strapped tank underneath, because I knew that without wearing something under the hoodie it might be a little risky. I was also wearing black leggings and combat style boots. After he informed me of this I asked him what the complaints said and also how it goes against dress code. He couldn't tell me what was inappropriate about my outfit. The thing that bothers me is that I wear scrubs while working that are supplied by the hospital I work for because they must be sterile. They can not be worn off the floor and definitely not outside for that will contaminate the scrubs. I am one of 2 of our employees that come in and have to change into sterile scrubs (I am an evs Attendant for the maternity unit and often clean the OR, and other environments of my unit that must be sterile). So it's not like I can come in to work wearing my scrubs. I don't work in the clothing that I come to work in. No patients or visitors see me in my street clothes. The biggest thing about this whole situation that has really started to bother me is that I'm the youngest in my department (20F) and I know who is making the complaints to my boss because many people have told me she makes comments about what I'm wearing everyday as soon as I leave the room to go to my unit. She is probably one of the oldest in our department. She is also in charge when my boss isn't there as well as the weekends While I get pulled aside for showing a little bit of my shoulders I have seen other employees wear booty shorts and spaghetti straps when they come in during the summer and male coworkers wearing muscle shirts. They change into their scrubs they brought from home so just like me, they are not wearing those articles of clothing while working. Is there any advice I could get for this situation? This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time I get introuble for what I wear. Today I received dirty looks after being looked up and down by 3 coworkers and was told when I left the room to make coffee, they began talking about me. (I wore a flannel, leggings, and my boots so no skin was showing) Interactions like this are starting to ruin my days while working and making me feel singled out against everyone else I'm sorry if this is a little confusing I just got off work and I'm super tired. I can answer any questions but I highly appreciate any advice. Assistant:Some good advice and some bad advice in these comments. Here's mine: Hack their own game. Wear your own set of different colored/patterned scrubs into work, then change into your actual work scrubs after the huddle.

Human: I keep getting in trouble for what I wear to work despite changing into scrubs once I get to my unit [OH] Hi all! So my issue is last week I was pulled aside by my boss for him to tell me he received complaints about what I wear to work and that my clothing choices go against dress code policies. What I was wearing was a starwars hoodie that came off the shoulders a bit with a red thick strapped tank underneath, because I knew that without wearing something under the hoodie it might be a little risky. I was also wearing black leggings and combat style boots. After he informed me of this I asked him what the complaints said and also how it goes against dress code. He couldn't tell me what was inappropriate about my outfit. The thing that bothers me is that I wear scrubs while working that are supplied by the hospital I work for because they must be sterile. They can not be worn off the floor and definitely not outside for that will contaminate the scrubs. I am one of 2 of our employees that come in and have to change into sterile scrubs (I am an evs Attendant for the maternity unit and often clean the OR, and other environments of my unit that must be sterile). So it's not like I can come in to work wearing my scrubs. I don't work in the clothing that I come to work in. No patients or visitors see me in my street clothes. The biggest thing about this whole situation that has really started to bother me is that I'm the youngest in my department (20F) and I know who is making the complaints to my boss because many people have told me she makes comments about what I'm wearing everyday as soon as I leave the room to go to my unit. She is probably one of the oldest in our department. She is also in charge when my boss isn't there as well as the weekends While I get pulled aside for showing a little bit of my shoulders I have seen other employees wear booty shorts and spaghetti straps when they come in during the summer and male coworkers wearing muscle shirts. They change into their scrubs they brought from home so just like me, they are not wearing those articles of clothing while working. Is there any advice I could get for this situation? This isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time I get introuble for what I wear. Today I received dirty looks after being looked up and down by 3 coworkers and was told when I left the room to make coffee, they began talking about me. (I wore a flannel, leggings, and my boots so no skin was showing) Interactions like this are starting to ruin my days while working and making me feel singled out against everyone else I'm sorry if this is a little confusing I just got off work and I'm super tired. I can answer any questions but I highly appreciate any advice. Assistant:I'd guess it's the leggings that are causing the issue.. i personally don't care if people wear them, and I'm not the dress code police, but I have had COUNTLESS complaints over the last few years when someone wears leggings. We had to write in our dress code that leggings could only be worn if someone's shirt fell below their fingertips when their hands were at their sides. Again, I think it's silly, but for some reason, people get weird about leggings.

Human: I have to have "coaching" session with HR: Do I admit to not respecting authority? I work for a larger non-profit on a very small team. I am based in CO but our HQ and my coworkers are in NY. Last week, I received a written warning for insubordination. There are a lot of factors at play, but I think I could have avoided this write-up by politicking a bit more and being more open with my communication. I have more context below. As a result of the write-up, I now have to meet with our HR person every week for the next month for coaching sessions. I had my first follow-up call with her already and she essentially told me, "If you tell me you have an issue with authority, we can work together on it." She pretty much was offering this to me on a silver platter so that she could start "coaching" me. She told me all of my responses to her were too "politically correct" and that it would be a waste of time for her and me if I didn't start becoming more "authentic." My fear is that I am already in trouble and I really don't want to say something that would get me in more trouble. I do think my boss can be a really poor leader in many ways, but I am not readily jumping at the bit to admit to HR that I have a problem with her or authority. I was able to buy myself some time to think about it and I punted that topic to our next conversation. I am really hesitant to open up to the HR person. I really do not trust her at all. I think her tone is really aggressive when she just speaking in regular conversations, but my very first interaction with her was my first warning and she was just awful. Her tone was really mean and harsh and she yelled at me for 45 minutes straight about how I am entitled and have an attitude and I offend people, and most importantly she told me about 10 times that I am replaceable and just because I am a good worker doesn't mean that I am needed. So, I would like to know: is there anything detrimental in admitting to not respecting authority? If I can just give this HR person what she wants to hear and get through these coaching sessions, that would be ideal, but I really do not want to admit to something that will make it easier to be fired. Should I say anything else to deflect a little bit? **Additional context & background:** Prior to the write-up, I had been verbally warned about my behavior. The prompting event was an ethical (and potentially legal) issue with a project that I had voiced concerns over. In the past, I have been able to provide professional input for strategy, execution, etc, but this go-around, it was very clear that voicing any sort of disagreement with the proposed project was unacceptable. I was taken aback by the very strong response I received, especially since I have been able to share my opinion in the past. I did share my thoughts respectfully, but it really seemed that the act of disagreeing at all (even in a professional manner) was the issue. Following the warning, I joined the project team and have been committed to its success. The prompting event for receiving the written warning was needing to re-schedule 2 meetings and not being 100% available at all times for my superiors. Both meetings were scheduled less than 30 minutes ahead of time and my calendar was up-to-date with my prior commitments. The first of the meetings was a block for my lunch break, which I was reserving for a telehealth appointment with my therapist, which I hadn't disclosed until the write-up notification meeting because I assumed that I would be allowed to use my lunch hour however I needed. On the day of the meeting, I was very vague as to why I needed to reschedule and I just said that I had a prior commitment (nothing about a doctor's appointment or a penalty fee) which is part of write-up as me being disrespectful. HR is saying that me asking to reschedule meetings is unacceptable, and that my lack of respect and courtesy for my superiors is a continuation of my unwillingness to participate in the project. I think I am a more private person and my superiors have assumed that my poor communication about my therapist appointments or any other aspect of my behavior means mal-intent when it really is a lapse in judgement for handling the situation. Also, I probably did close off from my co-workers and bosses after the initial warning and they probably felt that distance and are reading into it as aloofness and being checked out. I think I could have avoided the write-up if I was better at reassuring my superiors about my motives and my willingness to stay employed, and I would have fared a lot better if I had communicated what I had going on more effectively. Assistant:They’re rightfully trying to figure out if you are worth their time or not. Coming out and saying “I don’t respect authority, and I never will” will be the end of your job there. There’s not much they can do to change someone like that. Staying quiet and not offering a reason for your behavior will also get you fired at the end of this “coaching” period. Your only hope here is to play dumb. Tell them about the appointments you had, and say you had no idea that asking to reschedule would be a problem. They might be able to chalk that up as something they can fix about you. Right now they just think you told your boss to F off with his meeting request, because you like to take your lunch at a specific time every day. That wouldn’t be acceptable anywhere. Lastly, you need to decide if you want to work there with the current boss, expectations, culture, etc. it’s a package deal. All or nothing. It’s pretty obvious they aren’t open to critical feedback from you, so you’re either willing to play by their rules to stay employed, or you’re not. It’s up to you.

Human: I have to have "coaching" session with HR: Do I admit to not respecting authority? I work for a larger non-profit on a very small team. I am based in CO but our HQ and my coworkers are in NY. Last week, I received a written warning for insubordination. There are a lot of factors at play, but I think I could have avoided this write-up by politicking a bit more and being more open with my communication. I have more context below. As a result of the write-up, I now have to meet with our HR person every week for the next month for coaching sessions. I had my first follow-up call with her already and she essentially told me, "If you tell me you have an issue with authority, we can work together on it." She pretty much was offering this to me on a silver platter so that she could start "coaching" me. She told me all of my responses to her were too "politically correct" and that it would be a waste of time for her and me if I didn't start becoming more "authentic." My fear is that I am already in trouble and I really don't want to say something that would get me in more trouble. I do think my boss can be a really poor leader in many ways, but I am not readily jumping at the bit to admit to HR that I have a problem with her or authority. I was able to buy myself some time to think about it and I punted that topic to our next conversation. I am really hesitant to open up to the HR person. I really do not trust her at all. I think her tone is really aggressive when she just speaking in regular conversations, but my very first interaction with her was my first warning and she was just awful. Her tone was really mean and harsh and she yelled at me for 45 minutes straight about how I am entitled and have an attitude and I offend people, and most importantly she told me about 10 times that I am replaceable and just because I am a good worker doesn't mean that I am needed. So, I would like to know: is there anything detrimental in admitting to not respecting authority? If I can just give this HR person what she wants to hear and get through these coaching sessions, that would be ideal, but I really do not want to admit to something that will make it easier to be fired. Should I say anything else to deflect a little bit? **Additional context & background:** Prior to the write-up, I had been verbally warned about my behavior. The prompting event was an ethical (and potentially legal) issue with a project that I had voiced concerns over. In the past, I have been able to provide professional input for strategy, execution, etc, but this go-around, it was very clear that voicing any sort of disagreement with the proposed project was unacceptable. I was taken aback by the very strong response I received, especially since I have been able to share my opinion in the past. I did share my thoughts respectfully, but it really seemed that the act of disagreeing at all (even in a professional manner) was the issue. Following the warning, I joined the project team and have been committed to its success. The prompting event for receiving the written warning was needing to re-schedule 2 meetings and not being 100% available at all times for my superiors. Both meetings were scheduled less than 30 minutes ahead of time and my calendar was up-to-date with my prior commitments. The first of the meetings was a block for my lunch break, which I was reserving for a telehealth appointment with my therapist, which I hadn't disclosed until the write-up notification meeting because I assumed that I would be allowed to use my lunch hour however I needed. On the day of the meeting, I was very vague as to why I needed to reschedule and I just said that I had a prior commitment (nothing about a doctor's appointment or a penalty fee) which is part of write-up as me being disrespectful. HR is saying that me asking to reschedule meetings is unacceptable, and that my lack of respect and courtesy for my superiors is a continuation of my unwillingness to participate in the project. I think I am a more private person and my superiors have assumed that my poor communication about my therapist appointments or any other aspect of my behavior means mal-intent when it really is a lapse in judgement for handling the situation. Also, I probably did close off from my co-workers and bosses after the initial warning and they probably felt that distance and are reading into it as aloofness and being checked out. I think I could have avoided the write-up if I was better at reassuring my superiors about my motives and my willingness to stay employed, and I would have fared a lot better if I had communicated what I had going on more effectively. Assistant:Never be honest like that with HR. They work for management and will relay that msg to management and you will be unsuitable for work.

Human: Apt towed my car from its (payed) spot and is now at auction, help :( Hope this is the right place to post, but thats the long story short. I would appreciate suggestions or advice anyone has to offer. The longer version is I live in Denver Colorado in an apartment I’ve been in for over a year. Starting since may I’ve been remote working from home because of the pandemic. In July my mother had a bad fall suffering a compound fracture of her fibula/tibia. She lives in another state. I was able to support her recovery and just generally help her navigate the struggles of being old, temporarily handicapped, and in a pandemic by traveling back and forth working from there. Which was fine because of my remote work situation. I was at her home for two main blocks. The first was right after the emergency from a couple days after when I was able to pick her up after surgeries/three day hospital stay. I stayed for about three weeks, came back to Denver to check on things for another couple weeks and then went back to her place for another 5-6 weeks. I wanted to stay at least until she could be weight bearing, start pt, and drive. This second block is when I was towed. When I got back home I went to my numbered spot in the apts 100$/month private parking garage to find my car not there. After a good amount of confusion I found an email notice about cleaning and repainting the garage and failure to have cars moved during this time would result in them towing the vehicle. Fast forward to when I figure this all out I call the towing company and they tell me that after thirty days they go to auction. When I asked if I could do anything about this and telling her what happened she said that there wasn’t anything I could do. I understand that this is technically on me, I should have been paying attention to my personal email (it’s mostly spam and I have everything set up to auto pay). I’m wondering if anyone had any thoughts/suggestions on my predicament and how I might get my car back or anything? I would really appreciate any feedback. This is too long already but I thought I’d add the details that in my mind at least offer some mitigating factors The car is mine no loans The initial email notice was very vague they notified us Thursday it would be starting Monday and to not park from 9 to 6 there Then the work didn’t start till Tuesday and they just did one floor, that morning they sent out a schedule with each day going on a different lvl each day for power washing 9-6 then around again to painting 9-11pm. However at the end of the next day they postponed the whole project tbd because of poor contracting, and wanted another crew. So at that point I would have already had to move my car for three full days with very little prior irregular warning. They eventually rescheduled it for a week later. my car must have been towed on the first day they said they would be working (even though they didn’t do anything) because the rescheduled dates doesn’t leave 30 days for the tow yard to send it to auction. All of that confusion and not once do I get a call, sms or email that I had been towed or the 30 day period, and yes they have the info we have numbered spots, but of course I owe them 5$ utility fee that wasn’t calculated correctly in to my bill auto pay and they are on me like bounty hunters. It’s been a pretty shitty couple of days and I know I can’t go to these management ppl with hope for compassion to help me out so I’m posting here if anyone has a better strategy. Assistant:To start, i would to see the tow company and demand proof of notification > (c) (I) (A) An operator or its agent shall, no less than two days, but no more than ten days after a motor vehicle has been towed or abandoned, determine who the owner is and if there is a lienholder and ***send a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,*** to the address of the owner and any lienholder as determined from records of the department or from the national search performed by the department So if you were away, how exactly did certified mail delivery occur? This is important because: > (V) Consequences of failure to notify. A towing carrier holding a motor vehicle in storage who cannot demonstrate that it has made a good faith effort, as set forth in §§ 42-4-1804(6)(b) and 42-4-2103(3)(c)(II), C.R.S., to comply with the notification requirements of Parts 18 and 21 of Article 4 of Title 42, C.R.S., and § 42-5-109, C.R.S., shall release the motor vehicle immediately to the owner, lien holder, or their agents without charging, collecting, or retaining storage fees Essentially, if they didnt notify you, its considered an illegal tow and they must return the vehicle immediately at no cost to you. Should they not have proof of notification (refuse to leave until you have a solid answer), ask for a copy of the tow report with tow report number. This number is assigned by your local law enforcement agency and is also a legal requirement. Should they not have this or refuse to provide it, call your local police station yourself and report your vehicle stolen. Above quoted info is reiterated again with > II) The operator shall not be entitled to recover any daily storage fees from the day the vehicle is towed until the day the owner and lienholder are notified, unless the operator reasonably attempts to notify the owner and lienholder by the date specified in subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c). Sending a notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner and the lienholder as represented in department records shall be deemed a reasonable attempt to notify the owner and the lienholder. Failure to notify the owner and the lienholder due to the receipt of erroneous information from the department shall not cause the loss of such storage fees accrued from the date the vehicle is towed until the owner and the lienholder receive such notice. TLDR/ Tow company has to prove they notified you via certified mail reciept. If they can't, they have to give your car back at no cost to you

Human: Apt towed my car from its (payed) spot and is now at auction, help :( Hope this is the right place to post, but thats the long story short. I would appreciate suggestions or advice anyone has to offer. The longer version is I live in Denver Colorado in an apartment I’ve been in for over a year. Starting since may I’ve been remote working from home because of the pandemic. In July my mother had a bad fall suffering a compound fracture of her fibula/tibia. She lives in another state. I was able to support her recovery and just generally help her navigate the struggles of being old, temporarily handicapped, and in a pandemic by traveling back and forth working from there. Which was fine because of my remote work situation. I was at her home for two main blocks. The first was right after the emergency from a couple days after when I was able to pick her up after surgeries/three day hospital stay. I stayed for about three weeks, came back to Denver to check on things for another couple weeks and then went back to her place for another 5-6 weeks. I wanted to stay at least until she could be weight bearing, start pt, and drive. This second block is when I was towed. When I got back home I went to my numbered spot in the apts 100$/month private parking garage to find my car not there. After a good amount of confusion I found an email notice about cleaning and repainting the garage and failure to have cars moved during this time would result in them towing the vehicle. Fast forward to when I figure this all out I call the towing company and they tell me that after thirty days they go to auction. When I asked if I could do anything about this and telling her what happened she said that there wasn’t anything I could do. I understand that this is technically on me, I should have been paying attention to my personal email (it’s mostly spam and I have everything set up to auto pay). I’m wondering if anyone had any thoughts/suggestions on my predicament and how I might get my car back or anything? I would really appreciate any feedback. This is too long already but I thought I’d add the details that in my mind at least offer some mitigating factors The car is mine no loans The initial email notice was very vague they notified us Thursday it would be starting Monday and to not park from 9 to 6 there Then the work didn’t start till Tuesday and they just did one floor, that morning they sent out a schedule with each day going on a different lvl each day for power washing 9-6 then around again to painting 9-11pm. However at the end of the next day they postponed the whole project tbd because of poor contracting, and wanted another crew. So at that point I would have already had to move my car for three full days with very little prior irregular warning. They eventually rescheduled it for a week later. my car must have been towed on the first day they said they would be working (even though they didn’t do anything) because the rescheduled dates doesn’t leave 30 days for the tow yard to send it to auction. All of that confusion and not once do I get a call, sms or email that I had been towed or the 30 day period, and yes they have the info we have numbered spots, but of course I owe them 5$ utility fee that wasn’t calculated correctly in to my bill auto pay and they are on me like bounty hunters. It’s been a pretty shitty couple of days and I know I can’t go to these management ppl with hope for compassion to help me out so I’m posting here if anyone has a better strategy. Assistant:Step number one is to stop the auction. Don’t listen to your adversary’s (towing company)’s advise that “nothing can be done to stop it”. Get your attourney and have them work with the towing company to stop the auction before it’s too late (if it is even real). Then pay them to stop accumulating damages and get the car back. Then explore if you are able to collect damages from the apartment complex or not - possibly via a small claims court. I’d argue (as a layman) that with no violation on your end, the fair thing to do for apartment complex was to reduce damages by getting your car towed out and then back for the duration of the work (and charging you for the one-time costs), not leaving you up and dry accruing daily fees at the towing lot.

Human: I am an investigative journalist. A well-informed source alerted me of some funny business at the local prosecutor’s office, so I filed a FOIA request. Instead of just denying or approving the request, the prosecutor’s office contacted local LE claiming I had filed an “illegal FOIA request.” The police (who I have learned are apparently bosom-buddies with the prosecuting attorney and his employees) tracked down a close relative of mine, and attempted to interrogate them about my reason for filing the "illegal" FOIA. This was obviously an intimidation tactic, but is it something I should consider contacting a civil rights attorney over? Most government officials know not to even ask a journalist why they are making a FOIA request, and this is by far the most extreme response to a FOIA I've ever experienced. Even most corrupt officials will just deny your FOIA request. This happened a few months ago, and in that timeframe the prosecutor apparently also destroyed the records I was seeking. A few additional facts that may be pertinent: * I am a freelance journalist now, but put in four years at a large newspaper. I maintain current credentials with a press association. * The incident happened in Missouri. Yes, I know FOIAs are called Sunshine Law requests here. Just using "FOIA" as a metonym. * Sunshine Law and FOIA requests can be "invalid," but are never "illegal." * This was my first contact with the prosecutor's office, so there was no "history" to explain their reaction. * I wasn't just "fishing." The FOIA request was very targeted at records that should have confirmed what my source was saying. * My family was absolutely terrified by the incident. They assumed, based on the demeanor of the investigating police officer, that I had gotten myself into real trouble. They are very afraid of what could happen if re-open my work on the story. * My ability to act as a journalist in the community (at least in regards to LE and the prosecutor's office) has been crippled by this matter. After doing some research, I found that Missouri has two statutes that may be applicable - one against harassment (RSMo 565.090) and another that prohibits false reports to law enforcement (RSMo 575.080). There is also a Federal statute called Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S. Code § 241) that I think may be applicable (since the prosecutor involved an assistant in contacting LE). Thoughts/advice much appreciated! Assistant:I would contact the ACLU or perhaps FIRE, which are both free speech organizations that have legal teams available to help.

Human: I am an investigative journalist. A well-informed source alerted me of some funny business at the local prosecutor’s office, so I filed a FOIA request. Instead of just denying or approving the request, the prosecutor’s office contacted local LE claiming I had filed an “illegal FOIA request.” The police (who I have learned are apparently bosom-buddies with the prosecuting attorney and his employees) tracked down a close relative of mine, and attempted to interrogate them about my reason for filing the "illegal" FOIA. This was obviously an intimidation tactic, but is it something I should consider contacting a civil rights attorney over? Most government officials know not to even ask a journalist why they are making a FOIA request, and this is by far the most extreme response to a FOIA I've ever experienced. Even most corrupt officials will just deny your FOIA request. This happened a few months ago, and in that timeframe the prosecutor apparently also destroyed the records I was seeking. A few additional facts that may be pertinent: * I am a freelance journalist now, but put in four years at a large newspaper. I maintain current credentials with a press association. * The incident happened in Missouri. Yes, I know FOIAs are called Sunshine Law requests here. Just using "FOIA" as a metonym. * Sunshine Law and FOIA requests can be "invalid," but are never "illegal." * This was my first contact with the prosecutor's office, so there was no "history" to explain their reaction. * I wasn't just "fishing." The FOIA request was very targeted at records that should have confirmed what my source was saying. * My family was absolutely terrified by the incident. They assumed, based on the demeanor of the investigating police officer, that I had gotten myself into real trouble. They are very afraid of what could happen if re-open my work on the story. * My ability to act as a journalist in the community (at least in regards to LE and the prosecutor's office) has been crippled by this matter. After doing some research, I found that Missouri has two statutes that may be applicable - one against harassment (RSMo 565.090) and another that prohibits false reports to law enforcement (RSMo 575.080). There is also a Federal statute called Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S. Code § 241) that I think may be applicable (since the prosecutor involved an assistant in contacting LE). Thoughts/advice much appreciated! Assistant:ACLU?

Human: CMV: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is a dangerous phrase that allowed American society get to the disappointing state that it is currently in. My argument may come of as pretentious, but I will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way. "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". It is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days. It is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree. There are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless. One such case an argument is based SOLELY on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue. Another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information(feel taste smell etc.). Unfortunately, the use of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner. That is when the phrase becomes dangerous. The thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures (speaking mostly of the US because that is where I am from) to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter. My evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 1. People use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with. They use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs. They will argue in circles for hours about something they don't know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an "opinion difference" in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs. 2. The idea of being an "expert" on a topic is no longer valid. It is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic. The invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields(10,000 hours according to the fantastic book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell) is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate. 3. Factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative "truth" within the context of the argument are no longer explored. Opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news(propaganda) organizations. The "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs. No suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an OPINION is something that doesn't need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one. There are many more examples that I will go into if needed. Essentially what I am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year(with many of them getting worse). The idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous. As a personal conclusion, many of the points I made in the write-up, and many of the points I will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical. I am not innocent in the claims that I am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy. CMV! PS: If any of my points are not clear enough, or are not expanded enough feel free to ask and I will try to better explain them. _____ > *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:In my opinion, the problem is that people take "everyone is entitled to his opinion" to mean "everyone (especially me!) is immune from criticism regarding any matter that can reasonably be construed to be an opinion." Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. You will not be denied employment for holding it (so long as said opinion is not relevant to your job duties). You will not be thrown in jail for expressing it (so long as it does not cross the understood limits of free speech). It does not mean others cannot find fault with your opinion. After all, if they think you're ignorant, or a racist, or a creep, or a jerk, that's *their* opinion. And they're entitled to it. Right?

Human: CMV: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" is a dangerous phrase that allowed American society get to the disappointing state that it is currently in. My argument may come of as pretentious, but I will do my best to present my view in a valid and logical way. "Everyone is entitled to their opinion". It is a phrase all of us have used or heard, most likely within the past few days. It is a phrase built to end arguments, prevent yelling, and provide a middle ground for those who simply can not agree. There are many cases that the phrase can be used for its intended purpose and remain harmless. One such case an argument is based SOLELY on opinion, such as preference to chocolate or vanilla, hot or cold, red or blue. Another case is when an argument has continued through all other types of context and discourse that it has simply boiled down to a difference of opinion, often dealing with some sort of sensory information(feel taste smell etc.). Unfortunately, the use of "everyone is entitled to their opinion" has shifted over time, and is more often than not used in a visceral and spiteful manner. That is when the phrase becomes dangerous. The thought process behind the spiteful and lazy use of that phrase is what allowed cultures (speaking mostly of the US because that is where I am from) to slide away from a collective and productive entity, and into a state of cyclical banter. My evidence of the danger of the phrase and the effect it has had on the culture is as follows: 1. People use the phrase to lazily get out of arguments that are difficult, or are in a field that they are not familiar with. They use the phrase to cover up their ignorance, in order to protect their misconstrued beliefs. They will argue in circles for hours about something they don't know, and justify the entire waste of brainpower as an "opinion difference" in order to move on with their lives without fracturing their beliefs. 2. The idea of being an "expert" on a topic is no longer valid. It is no longer valid because bits and pieces of info are so readily available, individuals will allow themselves to feel they have enough information to form a strong belief without being an expert on the topic. The invaluable amount of time true experts spend in their fields(10,000 hours according to the fantastic book "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell) is nullified by the amount of perceived expertise that is part of our current cultural climate. 3. Factual arguments that can be argued down to a relative "truth" within the context of the argument are no longer explored. Opinions are seen as facts that are carelessly spewed from various news(propaganda) organizations. The "Everyone is entitled to their opinion" mindset is the engine that drives the divide in cultural beliefs. No suitable and rational arguments are being made anymore because an OPINION is something that doesn't need to be changed as everyone is entitled to have one. There are many more examples that I will go into if needed. Essentially what I am saying is that the idea behind the phrase, and the misuse of the phrase is an underlying cause of many of the political, cultural, and social issues that continue to exist year after year(with many of them getting worse). The idea that everyone has an entitlement when it comes to opinions that affect beliefs is preposterous and dangerous. As a personal conclusion, many of the points I made in the write-up, and many of the points I will make in the comments are in fact hypocritical. I am not innocent in the claims that I am making, so please help me not be as cynical and free me from my hypocrisy. CMV! PS: If any of my points are not clear enough, or are not expanded enough feel free to ask and I will try to better explain them. _____ > *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:I usually just say "everybody is entitled to their opinion, and i respect that right, but i dont respect your opinion.

Human: We are scientists from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology coming to you from our annual meeting — which is virtual this year! We study fossils. Ask Us Anything! Hi /r/AskScience! We are members of the **Society of Vertebrate Paleontology**, here for our 8th annual AMA. We study fossil fish, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles — anything with a backbone! Our research includes how these organisms lived, how they were affected by environmental change like a changing climate, how they're related, and much more. You can **follow us on Twitter @SVP_vertpaleo**. --- Joining us today are: **Matt Borths, Ph.D.** (/u/Chapalmalania) is the Curator of Fossils at the Duke Lemur Center at Duke University in Durham, NC. His research focuses on the evolution of carnivorous mammals and primates, especially in Africa and North America. He is also part of several teams working to network natural history collections. Dr. Borths co-produced the paleontology podcast series Past Time (www.pasttime.org). **Clint Boyd, Ph.D.** (/u/PalaeoBoyd) is the Curator of the North Dakota State Fossil Collection and the Paleontology Program Manager for the North Dakota Geological Survey. His research focuses on the evolutionary history of ornithischian dinosaurs and studying Eocene and Oligocene faunae from the Great Plains region of North America. Find him on twitter @boydpaleo. **Stephanie Drumheller, Ph.D.** (/u/UglyFossils) is a paleontologist at the University of Tennessee whose research focuses on the processes of fossilization, evolution, and biology, of crocodiles and their relatives, including identifying bite marks on fossils. Find her on Twitter @UglyFossils. **Mindy Householder** (/u/mindles1308) is a fossil preparator with the State Historical Society of North Dakota. She has cleaned and repaired many fossil specimens for public museums and institutions over the past 18 years. Some well known specimens she worked on include “Jane” the juvenile *Tyrannosaurus rex* and “Dakota” the *Edmontosaurus* sp. fossilized natural mummy. **Josh Miller, Ph.D.** (/u/PaleoJosh) is a paleoecologist and Assistant Professor at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on Pleistocene paleoecology, taphonomy, and using fossil and subfossil records to help conserve and manage modern ecosystems (Conservation Paleobiology). Find out more at JoshuaHMiller.com. **Jennifer Nestler, M.S.** (/u/jnestler) is an ecologist who works on landscape-level modeling of coastal and wetland ecosystems. She also studies the morphology and ecology of fossil and modern crocodylians, and uses quantitative methods to inform conservation decisions. **Adam Pritchard, Ph.D.** (/u/vertpaleoama) is the Assistant Curator of Paleontology at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, VA. His research focuses on the evolution of reptiles during the Permian and Triassic periods, a time of great change that saw the rise of the dinosaurs. Please check out the Virginia Museum of Natural History at vmnh.net. Dr. Pritchard has also co-produced the paleontology podcast series Past Time, available at www.pasttime.org. **Gabriel-Philip Santos, M.S.** (/u/PaleoParadoX) is a paleontologist and educator at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology in Los Angeles, California. His previous work focused on the paleontology of Southern California, particularly the evolution of marine mammals. Today, his research has shifted to education and DEI in STEM as a National Geographic certified educator and cofounder of the Cosplay for Science Initiative. He was recently named a Grosvenor Teacher Fellow with National Geographic and Lindblad Expeditions. You can find him online as @paleoparadox. --- **We will be back to answer questions starting around noon (Eastern Time/4 PM UTC) to answer your questions. See you soon!** Assistant:were pterodactyls really as huge as pop culture depicts? were their nests ground based? follow ups, if they are that big and did not have ground nests: how could they generate the forces necessary to fly?

Human: We are scientists from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology coming to you from our annual meeting — which is virtual this year! We study fossils. Ask Us Anything! Hi /r/AskScience! We are members of the **Society of Vertebrate Paleontology**, here for our 8th annual AMA. We study fossil fish, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles — anything with a backbone! Our research includes how these organisms lived, how they were affected by environmental change like a changing climate, how they're related, and much more. You can **follow us on Twitter @SVP_vertpaleo**. --- Joining us today are: **Matt Borths, Ph.D.** (/u/Chapalmalania) is the Curator of Fossils at the Duke Lemur Center at Duke University in Durham, NC. His research focuses on the evolution of carnivorous mammals and primates, especially in Africa and North America. He is also part of several teams working to network natural history collections. Dr. Borths co-produced the paleontology podcast series Past Time (www.pasttime.org). **Clint Boyd, Ph.D.** (/u/PalaeoBoyd) is the Curator of the North Dakota State Fossil Collection and the Paleontology Program Manager for the North Dakota Geological Survey. His research focuses on the evolutionary history of ornithischian dinosaurs and studying Eocene and Oligocene faunae from the Great Plains region of North America. Find him on twitter @boydpaleo. **Stephanie Drumheller, Ph.D.** (/u/UglyFossils) is a paleontologist at the University of Tennessee whose research focuses on the processes of fossilization, evolution, and biology, of crocodiles and their relatives, including identifying bite marks on fossils. Find her on Twitter @UglyFossils. **Mindy Householder** (/u/mindles1308) is a fossil preparator with the State Historical Society of North Dakota. She has cleaned and repaired many fossil specimens for public museums and institutions over the past 18 years. Some well known specimens she worked on include “Jane” the juvenile *Tyrannosaurus rex* and “Dakota” the *Edmontosaurus* sp. fossilized natural mummy. **Josh Miller, Ph.D.** (/u/PaleoJosh) is a paleoecologist and Assistant Professor at the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on Pleistocene paleoecology, taphonomy, and using fossil and subfossil records to help conserve and manage modern ecosystems (Conservation Paleobiology). Find out more at JoshuaHMiller.com. **Jennifer Nestler, M.S.** (/u/jnestler) is an ecologist who works on landscape-level modeling of coastal and wetland ecosystems. She also studies the morphology and ecology of fossil and modern crocodylians, and uses quantitative methods to inform conservation decisions. **Adam Pritchard, Ph.D.** (/u/vertpaleoama) is the Assistant Curator of Paleontology at the Virginia Museum of Natural History in Martinsville, VA. His research focuses on the evolution of reptiles during the Permian and Triassic periods, a time of great change that saw the rise of the dinosaurs. Please check out the Virginia Museum of Natural History at vmnh.net. Dr. Pritchard has also co-produced the paleontology podcast series Past Time, available at www.pasttime.org. **Gabriel-Philip Santos, M.S.** (/u/PaleoParadoX) is a paleontologist and educator at the Raymond M. Alf Museum of Paleontology in Los Angeles, California. His previous work focused on the paleontology of Southern California, particularly the evolution of marine mammals. Today, his research has shifted to education and DEI in STEM as a National Geographic certified educator and cofounder of the Cosplay for Science Initiative. He was recently named a Grosvenor Teacher Fellow with National Geographic and Lindblad Expeditions. You can find him online as @paleoparadox. --- **We will be back to answer questions starting around noon (Eastern Time/4 PM UTC) to answer your questions. See you soon!** Assistant:What conditions lead to remains becoming a fossil rather than simply decomposing, and how common were these conditions?

Human: CMV: The West does not understand Russia and its efforts to make it capitulate won't come into fruition Russia and Russian politics in general is vastly different from the long-standing democratic societies of Western countries. The perception of western countries that Russia will ultimately capitulate due to economic pressures is presumptuous, primarily because it assumes that Russia operates on the same status quo that western countries do. If and when a democratic country enters a war, public pressure and change in leadership ensures a war's end so long as the public deems it unworthy of continuation. Russia is a non-democratic society, to which the constraints of public opinion do not bind the Russian state to the opinions of its people due to it not caring about what the people think and its irrelevance to the decision-making process. In some parts of Europe, parliaments have existed since the medieval ages, which eventually became our models for modern parliamentarianism and republican democracy. Russia never experienced these developments and hence from Tsardom to Soviet to the modern era, the public opinion of your average Russian is irrelevant. The only parliament that Russia ever had was the Zemsky Sobor, which only approved the line of succession for Tsars whose sole and only purpose and power was taken away by Tsar Peter I. This is important because Russian society did not experience the same thing that western democracies did, and hence assuming that they function in a similar way is flawed. One important thing to note is that because of this, every time the Russian state and country underwent hardship they willingly outsourced their hardships on their people. Knowing full well that the people are incapable of rebellion and the nobility being so weak, as a result of their deprivation of rights and strengths to even affect anything. When Soviet Russia was undergoing economic hardship during the 20s Stalin blamed the kulaks. When Peter the Great went to war against Sweden, he incentivized nobles with tax breaks if they taxed their peasants effectively. I am willing to bet that Putin does not care about the average Russian pensioner and if shit hits the fan he will outsource the consequences of his war, to his people. Additionally, when Stalin purged the kulaks, he also purged the Soviet military and politicians, replacing his power base anew. When Ivan the Terrible's power was being questioned by the nobility and boyars, he engaged in a political purge that executed most of the Russian aristocracy. Putin's support when he rose to power were former KGB agents and when he consolidated his power, he was backed by the oligarchs. There are now rumours that Putin has surrounded himself with right-wing ideologues like Alexandre Dugin and the military elite. The Russian nobility is interchangeable and they aren't cemented within the political system. Hence if the oligarchs feel that their profits are going dry due to sanctions, all Putin has to do is arrest them, shoot them or sack them to fall in line. If history tells us anything Russia is going to crackdown hard on its own people and engage in another political purge. Assistant:I mean you say that like the West has another option. I agree it's unlikely that the Wests efforts will come to fruition but it's not like there's an option on the table that will work either. It's either try to crush Russia economically, send forces to defend Ukraine, send forces to invade Russia or do nothing. Which of these options is going to come to fruition? The answer of course is none. So just because the efforts to make it capitulate won't come to fruiition doesn't mean the west doesn't understand Russia, they do it just doesn't matter.

Human: CMV: The West does not understand Russia and its efforts to make it capitulate won't come into fruition Russia and Russian politics in general is vastly different from the long-standing democratic societies of Western countries. The perception of western countries that Russia will ultimately capitulate due to economic pressures is presumptuous, primarily because it assumes that Russia operates on the same status quo that western countries do. If and when a democratic country enters a war, public pressure and change in leadership ensures a war's end so long as the public deems it unworthy of continuation. Russia is a non-democratic society, to which the constraints of public opinion do not bind the Russian state to the opinions of its people due to it not caring about what the people think and its irrelevance to the decision-making process. In some parts of Europe, parliaments have existed since the medieval ages, which eventually became our models for modern parliamentarianism and republican democracy. Russia never experienced these developments and hence from Tsardom to Soviet to the modern era, the public opinion of your average Russian is irrelevant. The only parliament that Russia ever had was the Zemsky Sobor, which only approved the line of succession for Tsars whose sole and only purpose and power was taken away by Tsar Peter I. This is important because Russian society did not experience the same thing that western democracies did, and hence assuming that they function in a similar way is flawed. One important thing to note is that because of this, every time the Russian state and country underwent hardship they willingly outsourced their hardships on their people. Knowing full well that the people are incapable of rebellion and the nobility being so weak, as a result of their deprivation of rights and strengths to even affect anything. When Soviet Russia was undergoing economic hardship during the 20s Stalin blamed the kulaks. When Peter the Great went to war against Sweden, he incentivized nobles with tax breaks if they taxed their peasants effectively. I am willing to bet that Putin does not care about the average Russian pensioner and if shit hits the fan he will outsource the consequences of his war, to his people. Additionally, when Stalin purged the kulaks, he also purged the Soviet military and politicians, replacing his power base anew. When Ivan the Terrible's power was being questioned by the nobility and boyars, he engaged in a political purge that executed most of the Russian aristocracy. Putin's support when he rose to power were former KGB agents and when he consolidated his power, he was backed by the oligarchs. There are now rumours that Putin has surrounded himself with right-wing ideologues like Alexandre Dugin and the military elite. The Russian nobility is interchangeable and they aren't cemented within the political system. Hence if the oligarchs feel that their profits are going dry due to sanctions, all Putin has to do is arrest them, shoot them or sack them to fall in line. If history tells us anything Russia is going to crackdown hard on its own people and engage in another political purge. Assistant:We already have rich Russians placing bounties on Putin's head. They are rich and powerful people and they won't simple bend over and take it. Sanctions will make life hell for them and this will affect Putin. And The Russian people will protest in mass if there are mass killings of mass jailings of Russians citizens. At that point, what do they have to lose.

Human: [CA] Are my coworkers creating a hostile environment? Details within. (Long) I work as a PM, which is somewhat new but I came into it with quite a few transferable skills. I also learn as I do, rather than from training sessions. That being said, I’m on a slew of priority projects at my company, with coworkers that have been in the business much longer. I’ve made some mistakes, but nothing that can’t be learned from, and nothing that warrants some of the events that have followed. Here’s my predicament. None of these coworkers have expressed their frustrations to me, ever. Despite me kindly expressing that I wish they would talk directly to me about improvements that can be made. If I didn’t improve, then escalating to my boss and my boss’s boss would be understandable. But as I said, they haven’t. Instead, they are quick to nitpick any minor mistake and have escalated to my boss 3 times now. My boss and her boss both feel that this particular team have unnecessary expectations about what my role should be, but have felt like they ‘have to respond to these escalations’. So I am now having to do a daily stand up with my boss just for one specific project said team is on with me. Furthermore, I’ve found out this team is also talking to other people within our organization about me. Some of the things they’ve escalated are outright false. One example being that I am frequently unreachable after 3pm - I have emails and slacks to prove that wrong, but my boss has asked me to loop her into a few emails that I send after 3pm just so she has ammunition. This team is nice to my face, condescending over slack, and one particular person gets frustrated and is quick to escalate when I push back on specific duties she thinks I’m responsible for. At this point, for the first time in my career, I have a strong desire to quit without a 2-weeks notice. And it’s specifically because I no longer feel comfortable working with this team, and feel that the inability to talk to me directly, the condescension, the talking about me behind my back to other coworkers, and the false accusations that bring my work ethic into question have made going to work dreadful. However if I switch ‘pods’ I would still have to work with them if I want to grow professionally, As they are on most all of the priority projects. So, is this technically a hostile environment and should I bring this to HR? Assistant:Let's get this part out of the way. "Hostile Work Environment" means that you're being unlawfully harassed. And that requires you to be targeted for a protected characteristic and includes being sexually harassed. Regarding unlawful harassment, the EEOC includes this: "Petty slights, annoyances, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not rise to the level of illegality. To be unlawful, the conduct must create a work environment that would be intimidating, hostile, or offensive to reasonable people." *Offensive conduct may include, but is not limited to, offensive jokes, slurs, epithets or name calling, physical assaults or threats, intimidation, ridicule or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive objects or pictures, and interference with work performance.* https://www.eeoc.gov/harassment What is happening here is that you are being complained about and scrutinized by team members. Your bosses are blowing smoke up all your collective asses by handcuffing you with their complaints and yet telling you that they don't take the complaints seriously. They do need to respond and responding with "You need to manage your expectations of the PMs role differently, that's not her job and not your concern, etc." when they bring them complaints. They are allowing this behavior to continue by their reactions, they are letting people stand on their toes and dictate what they do. Find another job, this place won't get better. Don't not give two weeks, take the high road for your own good. It's a courtesy to give 2 weeks but it's still your benefit to not just light bridges up in flames when you can help it. These pests are just pests, not reasons to scorch earth.

Human: [CA] Are my coworkers creating a hostile environment? Details within. (Long) I work as a PM, which is somewhat new but I came into it with quite a few transferable skills. I also learn as I do, rather than from training sessions. That being said, I’m on a slew of priority projects at my company, with coworkers that have been in the business much longer. I’ve made some mistakes, but nothing that can’t be learned from, and nothing that warrants some of the events that have followed. Here’s my predicament. None of these coworkers have expressed their frustrations to me, ever. Despite me kindly expressing that I wish they would talk directly to me about improvements that can be made. If I didn’t improve, then escalating to my boss and my boss’s boss would be understandable. But as I said, they haven’t. Instead, they are quick to nitpick any minor mistake and have escalated to my boss 3 times now. My boss and her boss both feel that this particular team have unnecessary expectations about what my role should be, but have felt like they ‘have to respond to these escalations’. So I am now having to do a daily stand up with my boss just for one specific project said team is on with me. Furthermore, I’ve found out this team is also talking to other people within our organization about me. Some of the things they’ve escalated are outright false. One example being that I am frequently unreachable after 3pm - I have emails and slacks to prove that wrong, but my boss has asked me to loop her into a few emails that I send after 3pm just so she has ammunition. This team is nice to my face, condescending over slack, and one particular person gets frustrated and is quick to escalate when I push back on specific duties she thinks I’m responsible for. At this point, for the first time in my career, I have a strong desire to quit without a 2-weeks notice. And it’s specifically because I no longer feel comfortable working with this team, and feel that the inability to talk to me directly, the condescension, the talking about me behind my back to other coworkers, and the false accusations that bring my work ethic into question have made going to work dreadful. However if I switch ‘pods’ I would still have to work with them if I want to grow professionally, As they are on most all of the priority projects. So, is this technically a hostile environment and should I bring this to HR? Assistant:>Instead, they are quick to nitpick any minor mistake and have escalated to my boss 3 times now. Calling attention to a coworkers mistakes may not be a nice thing to do, but it certainly isn't hostile. For those issues your time would be better spent addressing the mistakes, which are the root of this other team's frustrations, and which you've already conceded you are responsible for. ​ >I have emails and slacks to prove that wrong, but my boss has asked me to loop her into a few emails that I send after 3pm just so she has ammunition. That's just childish. If your boss doesn't believe the accusations to be true she should have the conviction to shut them down as meritless, not to orchestrate a response as some form of appeasement. ​ If your boss truly has no issue with you than sometimes you need to just brush these comments off. You don't have to like/get along with everyone you work with. Over 20 years people have on occasion made comments about me that weren't very nice. But I just ignore them because I know I'm awesome so clearly they're wrong. Even my Mom says so.

Human: CMV: I have no moral obligation to pay for things that I can download for free, whether or not it is legal. I don't often pirate stuff, I have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that I have no convenient way to see (i.e. are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price). I rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when I cannot find a legal streaming source, so I can't try the artist or tracks before buying them. However I only do these things because I feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation. I actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything. I choose not to because I feel like paying for them. I believe that I do not have any moral obligation to pay for things I can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $60 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it. Both "sellers" have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices. That is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio's employees starve because many people didn't pay for the game, that's really not anyone else's issue because I'm not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not I inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me. If more games won't be made like this due to piracy, that's irrelevant because I'm not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games. Ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either I don't play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or I play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars. In either case, I have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them. I have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders. The only exception is if I *did* have some hand in "commissioning" the project; for example, if I took part in a kickstarter. That means I'm essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that I'm responsible for them getting payment from me. But Unless I asked them to make the game, I have no responsiility to pay for it. _____ > *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:Let's start where any conversation about moral obligations should start. Where you do you believe moral obligations come from in the first place?

Human: CMV: I have no moral obligation to pay for things that I can download for free, whether or not it is legal. I don't often pirate stuff, I have not pirated any games in the past eight years or so and only pirate movies that I have no convenient way to see (i.e. are not available anywhere for digital purchase or rental for a reasonable price). I rarely pirate music, and only pirate music when I cannot find a legal streaming source, so I can't try the artist or tracks before buying them. However I only do these things because I feel compelled to by the quality of the product, not because of any moral obligation. I actually feel zero moral obligation to not jusst pirate anything. I choose not to because I feel like paying for them. I believe that I do not have any moral obligation to pay for things I can digitally pirate because, in short, there is no difference between me paying $60 for a game to an online store or paying $0 to a seeder to torrent it. Both "sellers" have the game and are offering to give it to me for different prices. That is my transaction and that is my involvement with the product; if a studio's employees starve because many people didn't pay for the game, that's really not anyone else's issue because I'm not the one who commissioned this game, the game was made whether or not I inteded to purchase it, and the onus of figuring out how to pay their employees falls upon the people responsible for the creation of the game, not me. If more games won't be made like this due to piracy, that's irrelevant because I'm not morally obligated to enable the developer to continue making games. Ultimately, the result for the developer is the same; either I don't play the game at all and they get zero dollars, or I play the game without their permission and they get zero dollars. In either case, I have not removed anything from them or taken anything physical away from them. I have merely gained something, and the costs have been generously footed by the seeders. The only exception is if I *did* have some hand in "commissioning" the project; for example, if I took part in a kickstarter. That means I'm essentially asking them to make the game for me and then it means that I'm responsible for them getting payment from me. But Unless I asked them to make the game, I have no responsiility to pay for it. _____ > *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:Don't you like entertainment? If no one can make money making entertainment, no one will do it. If not anything else, you're morally obligated to support the industry you like, even if you think you shouldn't logically pay for it because there's a better product (piracy), otherwise the products you like simply won't be

Human: Being prosecuted/sued for not reporting a crime I was a victim of? I (34 M) ran away from home when I was 16, to escape serious abuse from my parents, mostly my father. My father isn't a good person. He was very abusive to me and my mom. He is also a crook, the kind that cheats, steals from vulnerable people, doesn't pay his taxes and so on. I haven't had any contact with my father from the day I left home. I never reported the abuse to the police, I only told a few people at the time and I'm not sure they believed my anyway. My mother died shortly after I left, and my father married twice more, he has kids with both his second and third wives. I don't know the wives or their kids at all, not even their names. I heard through a relative that my father was arrested two or so weeks ago, I didn't know the charges against him. This was to be expected one day or another so I didn't give it any further thought. Three days ago though I was called by a very aggressive woman who claims to be his current wife. She was (understandably) upset that he was arrested. She accuses him of abusing their kids. The woman also told me that he stole from her, talked some relatives into investing in shady schemes of his then kept the money and a variety of other accusations. I don't know which of these crimes he's been arrested for. The woman who called was very angry. She says that I enabled my father by not reporting the abuse I went through. I have no idea who told her my father abused me. She said I knew how he was and didn't tell anyone and because of that he was free to marry her, abuse her and their kids and steal from her family. She said that she reported me to the police for knowingly enabling a criminal. She also said that she would take me to court for the money she lost, her and her kids suffering, everything. She said all I had to do was denounce him and not doing so is a serious crime and I'm going to pay for it because I knew. I didn't think she was serious but yesterday I had a missed call from the police department of the city where my father lives. They say I need to call them back and it's about him. It seems she made good on her threat and told the police about me so now I'm very worried. I didn't know one could get in trouble for not reporting abuse. Should I call them back or is there a risk for me? And what can this woman sue me for exactly? Is there anything I should do about it? Assistant:This is plainly emotional lashing out and looking for someone to blame, rather than a set of claims based in law. What country, state, or province did you live in ? There are a small handful of places and circumstances where people can be criminally punished for not reporting felony crimes, or not reporting child abuse, or civilly sued for failing a professional obligation to warn about imminent serious violence. None of those apply to a sixteen-year-old runaway, or to crimes that occurred 18 years ago, or to crimes or torts committed by a third party years or decades after you last communicated with him. The city police phone call is more likely for ordinary investigatory purposes about crimes that your father is alleged to have committed, rather than any investigation of you. Anywhere in the USA, you are well within your ordinary 5th and 6th Amendment rights to not answer those calls, or to tell the investigators either a flat "I will not answer any questions without the advice of my attorney". A more practical answer, if you can commit to strictly limiting your comments, would be something to the effect of "I left home when I was sixteen. I don't know anything about my father's conduct after the day I left, and will not answer any more questions without the advice of my attorney." If you are served notice of a lawsuit, you must respond to it, and should hire an attorney to help. Dismissal will almost certainly follow, but angry pro-se plaintiffs file groundless lawsuits all the time and you need to respond to them to limit the possible damage.

Human: Being prosecuted/sued for not reporting a crime I was a victim of? I (34 M) ran away from home when I was 16, to escape serious abuse from my parents, mostly my father. My father isn't a good person. He was very abusive to me and my mom. He is also a crook, the kind that cheats, steals from vulnerable people, doesn't pay his taxes and so on. I haven't had any contact with my father from the day I left home. I never reported the abuse to the police, I only told a few people at the time and I'm not sure they believed my anyway. My mother died shortly after I left, and my father married twice more, he has kids with both his second and third wives. I don't know the wives or their kids at all, not even their names. I heard through a relative that my father was arrested two or so weeks ago, I didn't know the charges against him. This was to be expected one day or another so I didn't give it any further thought. Three days ago though I was called by a very aggressive woman who claims to be his current wife. She was (understandably) upset that he was arrested. She accuses him of abusing their kids. The woman also told me that he stole from her, talked some relatives into investing in shady schemes of his then kept the money and a variety of other accusations. I don't know which of these crimes he's been arrested for. The woman who called was very angry. She says that I enabled my father by not reporting the abuse I went through. I have no idea who told her my father abused me. She said I knew how he was and didn't tell anyone and because of that he was free to marry her, abuse her and their kids and steal from her family. She said that she reported me to the police for knowingly enabling a criminal. She also said that she would take me to court for the money she lost, her and her kids suffering, everything. She said all I had to do was denounce him and not doing so is a serious crime and I'm going to pay for it because I knew. I didn't think she was serious but yesterday I had a missed call from the police department of the city where my father lives. They say I need to call them back and it's about him. It seems she made good on her threat and told the police about me so now I'm very worried. I didn't know one could get in trouble for not reporting abuse. Should I call them back or is there a risk for me? And what can this woman sue me for exactly? Is there anything I should do about it? Assistant:You haven't done anything wrong here, either legally or, in my opinion morally. She is understandably upset that she was taken advantage of but she has no right to project her anger on you or blame you so I hope she will do some serious introspection after the initial shock wears off and profusely apologize to you. Legally speaking, there is such a thing as mandatory reporting of crimes but that really only applies to situations like a client confessing a murder to a therapist or a student telling a teacher he is being abused at home, in which case the person would be legally required to report the crime to police.

Human: CMV: I think that the state should bankroll political parties and their campaigns, and that private contributions should be forbidden I live in the UK, where a significant contributing factor to the loss of the left-wing party in the recent election was a result of powerful vested interests. The "Conservatives" traditionally are able to spend more on their campaigns due to their pro-business, anti-regulation stance attracting campaign contributions from the UK's richest whilst "Labour" are able to spend only what they are paid by their main contributor, the country's Trade Unions. This not only gives big business interests or the Unions a huge amount of indirect power over policymaking, but in the case of Labour it actually allows them to control which Labour candidate gets into power. The recently resigned Labour leader Ed Milliband was one example of this - his personal popularity remained low throughout the Labour campaign, and it is likely that a more electable candidate could have taken the party to victory. However, Milliband's position was at least in significant part the result of his return to a socialist approach which was popular with the Trade Union powerbrokers that were financing the Labour campaign. Basically what I'm trying to say is, it seems ridiculous that in this day and age political parties are funded by a vested interest rather than a neutral umpire that is "the state". In my opinion, all political parties should receive funding from the state to some degree proportional to their membership. The top two political parties would receive equal funding for their campaigns, whilst levels of funding would increase in jumps similar to tax brackets, but instead of income these brackets would be divided by numbers of party membership. To qualify for this funding, a minimum membership number would be required in order to create a sufficient monetary barrier to establishing a political party and discourage just anyone from formalising their political beliefs. I know that this system has flaws - if nothing else the sheer cost - but it seems leagues better than the corruption that moneyed interests bring to politics. So reddit, 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:The biggest issue with this is who gets public funding and how much. You can't just give public funding to anyone who decides they want to run for office, that'd be impractical and a huge waste of taxpayer money. There would have to be rules. You have to gather a certain amount of signatures, you have to have a certain number of registered party members, you have to have received a certain percentage of the vote in the previous election. All of these things greatly favour the well-established major parties. We have public funding in Australia and how it works is the more votes you received in the previous election, the more funding you get. So the majority of public funding goes to the major parties. You have to get 4% of the vote before you can even receive any public funding. A lot of small political parties have to rely on private donations and membership fees, and they are competing with bigger parties who receive millions in taxpayer funding.

Human: CMV: I think that the state should bankroll political parties and their campaigns, and that private contributions should be forbidden I live in the UK, where a significant contributing factor to the loss of the left-wing party in the recent election was a result of powerful vested interests. The "Conservatives" traditionally are able to spend more on their campaigns due to their pro-business, anti-regulation stance attracting campaign contributions from the UK's richest whilst "Labour" are able to spend only what they are paid by their main contributor, the country's Trade Unions. This not only gives big business interests or the Unions a huge amount of indirect power over policymaking, but in the case of Labour it actually allows them to control which Labour candidate gets into power. The recently resigned Labour leader Ed Milliband was one example of this - his personal popularity remained low throughout the Labour campaign, and it is likely that a more electable candidate could have taken the party to victory. However, Milliband's position was at least in significant part the result of his return to a socialist approach which was popular with the Trade Union powerbrokers that were financing the Labour campaign. Basically what I'm trying to say is, it seems ridiculous that in this day and age political parties are funded by a vested interest rather than a neutral umpire that is "the state". In my opinion, all political parties should receive funding from the state to some degree proportional to their membership. The top two political parties would receive equal funding for their campaigns, whilst levels of funding would increase in jumps similar to tax brackets, but instead of income these brackets would be divided by numbers of party membership. To qualify for this funding, a minimum membership number would be required in order to create a sufficient monetary barrier to establishing a political party and discourage just anyone from formalising their political beliefs. I know that this system has flaws - if nothing else the sheer cost - but it seems leagues better than the corruption that moneyed interests bring to politics. So reddit, 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:State funding for political parties already existed in the UK, and a prominent party can in theory get millions of pounds, although the funding is limited to administrative costs and generally does not account for the majority of party funding. You can read more about it here. As for your statement in that the state alone should fund political parties, I will object on the grounds that it's important to recognise the right to support political parties as an important factor to a democracy. In a society with a variety of interest groups and individuals with different beliefs and goals it will enhance democracy to give them the ability to financially back the view they support. It's a free speech issue. Of course, at a certain point this will go too far. I think the UK party funding system is rather problematic, though not the worst. The solution that I think you'll be more comfortable with, however, would not be to ban private contributions, but simply to increase the state's role in party funding. In Sweden the state provides about 80-90% of party funding financed by taxes. Private contributions is okay but they play a limited role, enough to ground a party to their respective interest groups and supporters but not enough that the party becomes dependent on outside support to function. The catch here is that all of this comes out of the state's pocket, and a lot of taxpayers' money ended up for example subsidising a controversial party with extremist roots that many taxpayers do not want their money going towards. Alternatively one can simply limit contributions. I remember the Liberal Democrats proposing a 10,000 pounds cap per contribution, which should lessens the influence of wealthy donors significantly, while still allowing citizens and interest groups to have meaningful influences. I don't live in the UK and probably won't vote for them even if I do, but I read up on the Lib Dem proposal to "clean up politics" and it sounds like a more balanced, realistic solution to counter the influence of money in politics than the one you proposed.

Human: Anyone at Boeing want to comment on their adoption of the "Digital Thread," aka Model-Based Engineering (MBE)? Inspired by this recent Aviation Week article (free registration may be required to view). Also, googling "Digital Thread" and Boeing brings up a number of articles over the last several years. The "Digital Thread" is one of those buzzwords that has had incredible staying power over the last several years. Boeing is touting it as the key to the development of their next commercial airliner, and they state that they've laid the groundwork during development of recent military programs (The T-7A Red Hawk for the Air Force often gets brought up). The Av week article states: >At the heart of this strategy is the company’s ongoing digital transformation, the baseline concept under which Boeing is reimagining how work is achieved when all barriers to exchanging information are removed. The transition is exemplified by Boeing’s wholesale adoption of a model-based engineering (MBE) system in which modeling supports the development of a new aircraft, from system requirements, design, analysis and verification through conceptual design, development and operation. I read all this, and look back at my \~20 years in the industry and shake my head. First off, they tout successes made during design of the T-7A Red Hawk, but didn't that effort borrow heavily from Saab aircraft? Also, Boeing continually seems to talk about things like "Model Based Engineering" and "industry standard interfaces" as if they were some brand new concept, and not things that have been baked into aircraft development for decades. Additionally, every time I read one of these articles, I feel like I've been transported to the late 1970s. They talk about utilizing computing power as if they've only recently had access to a modern computer. Each and every person in Boeing has a laptop with incredible capabilities compared to even just 20 years ago. When I look into my crystal ball, here's what I see for Boeing's future regarding the "Digital Thread" and commercial airliner development: * There is an opportunity to tie everyone together utilizing a modern, shared digital environment. Truly everyone (engineering, manufacturing, support at Boeing, along with the same roles throughout their entire supplier base). * There is a real possibility of utilizing digital tools to transform the design and manufacturing process, in order to bring an aircraft to market on-time, on-budget, while meeting or beating performance expectations. * To do those previous two things, Boeing would have to spend a large amount of time, money, and other resources to truly build out the digital environment. They'd have to have support from the highest echelons of the company, with a charter to make it happen, no matter the cost. Someone who will follow in the footsteps of other legendary Boeing engineers like Joe Sutter or Alan Mulally. * Ultimately, Boeing will screw it up. They'll try to do it on the cheap, kind of like the 777X Fuselage Automated Upright Build (FAUB) process that attempted to use robots to rivet the 777X fuselage. After six years and millions of dollars of investment, they scrapped it and went back to using human machinists. * While Boeing will externally continue to push the successes of the Digital Thread effort, when you look "under the hood" of the development effort, you'll see the whole thing is held together by the proverbial "chewing gum and bailing wire." Due to Boeing's lack of willingness to properly develop the Digital Thread, you'll find engineers and suppliers resorting to old-fashioned solutions like e-mailing spreadsheets back-and-forth, and the resulting errors that's bound to bring. * Just like on the 787, working level engineers and other staff at Boeing will sound the alarm on the problems that are brewing, and just like with the 787 (or the MAX) they'll be either shouted down or moved aside. Management won't tolerate dissent. Bottom line, Boeing's unwillingness to properly fund and resource the Digital Thread effort will result in yet another case study in corporate failure, alongside 787 outsourcing and the 737 MAX MCAS. Interested in other thoughts, though. Assistant:Not at Boeing, but at a company aggressively pushing digital thread and I have to hear managers talking about it on the phone all day. In my opinion as an engineer, the whole "digital thread" concept is just busy work for managers to make themselves feel busy and important. Even with new developments, the whole idea of having everything traceable and integrated is a huge undertaking, and very few companies can succeed when dealing with projects at such a large scale. I remember asking my manager how they expected all of the teams tools to integrate with each other. It would take thousands of man hours to just create new tools to do the same tasks everyone was already doing. It is not a viable strategy for existing programs. Don't get me started on the tools that get pushed for the whole digital thread/transformation concept. It essentially will put companies on the leash of these tool developers for support when stuff inevitably breaks. /endrant

Human: Anyone at Boeing want to comment on their adoption of the "Digital Thread," aka Model-Based Engineering (MBE)? Inspired by this recent Aviation Week article (free registration may be required to view). Also, googling "Digital Thread" and Boeing brings up a number of articles over the last several years. The "Digital Thread" is one of those buzzwords that has had incredible staying power over the last several years. Boeing is touting it as the key to the development of their next commercial airliner, and they state that they've laid the groundwork during development of recent military programs (The T-7A Red Hawk for the Air Force often gets brought up). The Av week article states: >At the heart of this strategy is the company’s ongoing digital transformation, the baseline concept under which Boeing is reimagining how work is achieved when all barriers to exchanging information are removed. The transition is exemplified by Boeing’s wholesale adoption of a model-based engineering (MBE) system in which modeling supports the development of a new aircraft, from system requirements, design, analysis and verification through conceptual design, development and operation. I read all this, and look back at my \~20 years in the industry and shake my head. First off, they tout successes made during design of the T-7A Red Hawk, but didn't that effort borrow heavily from Saab aircraft? Also, Boeing continually seems to talk about things like "Model Based Engineering" and "industry standard interfaces" as if they were some brand new concept, and not things that have been baked into aircraft development for decades. Additionally, every time I read one of these articles, I feel like I've been transported to the late 1970s. They talk about utilizing computing power as if they've only recently had access to a modern computer. Each and every person in Boeing has a laptop with incredible capabilities compared to even just 20 years ago. When I look into my crystal ball, here's what I see for Boeing's future regarding the "Digital Thread" and commercial airliner development: * There is an opportunity to tie everyone together utilizing a modern, shared digital environment. Truly everyone (engineering, manufacturing, support at Boeing, along with the same roles throughout their entire supplier base). * There is a real possibility of utilizing digital tools to transform the design and manufacturing process, in order to bring an aircraft to market on-time, on-budget, while meeting or beating performance expectations. * To do those previous two things, Boeing would have to spend a large amount of time, money, and other resources to truly build out the digital environment. They'd have to have support from the highest echelons of the company, with a charter to make it happen, no matter the cost. Someone who will follow in the footsteps of other legendary Boeing engineers like Joe Sutter or Alan Mulally. * Ultimately, Boeing will screw it up. They'll try to do it on the cheap, kind of like the 777X Fuselage Automated Upright Build (FAUB) process that attempted to use robots to rivet the 777X fuselage. After six years and millions of dollars of investment, they scrapped it and went back to using human machinists. * While Boeing will externally continue to push the successes of the Digital Thread effort, when you look "under the hood" of the development effort, you'll see the whole thing is held together by the proverbial "chewing gum and bailing wire." Due to Boeing's lack of willingness to properly develop the Digital Thread, you'll find engineers and suppliers resorting to old-fashioned solutions like e-mailing spreadsheets back-and-forth, and the resulting errors that's bound to bring. * Just like on the 787, working level engineers and other staff at Boeing will sound the alarm on the problems that are brewing, and just like with the 787 (or the MAX) they'll be either shouted down or moved aside. Management won't tolerate dissent. Bottom line, Boeing's unwillingness to properly fund and resource the Digital Thread effort will result in yet another case study in corporate failure, alongside 787 outsourcing and the 737 MAX MCAS. Interested in other thoughts, though. Assistant:I’m in the aerospace industry. And I think MBSE is kinda a joke, a lot of money is spent on products that ultimately don’t produce anything and don’t really have an affect on the real engineering that goes into it…

Human: I’m pretty sure my lawyers are incompetent, I’ve been out of work b/c of an accident caused by a commercial vehicle which hit me and resulted in a coma and permanent spine injury. I’m an RN and they say I may never work again. The company keeps changing LLC’s- Please help. What are my options?? Middle of January, I was traveling westbound on a 4 lane highway and a commercial tow truck not carrying a vehicle at the time slammed into my car which then a chain reaction and 10 other cars were damaged from being hit from behind or purposely trying to get out the way of what they saw happening in their rear view. It had been raining all day, but by 7pm EST the roads weren’t terribly wet. The driver was simply on his phone and not paying attention. Later he tested positive for THC and alcohol and was said to be under the influence. No one else was found at fault. Some family friends, a son and father team, have a law firm and took the case pro bono as I mentioned and filed suit against the person operating the commercial vehicle, the company he is still driving for and employed by, and against the insurance company who insured the trucks. The issue is that the driver is indigent and the owner of the company (who has assets) has already dissolved one LLC (this one I’m speaking about) to avoid liability in another pending civil suit and this current LLC is “non-compliant” it’s my belief that the company has already changed ownership and names, possibly now a foreign entity registered in another state. This company did something and had new DOT numbers given to them in the past because they were basically uninsurable. My lawyers dismiss this totally even when I show them proof of the owner of this company hiding assets in 2018 to avoid liability in another civil case (there’s currently two pending and one closed against this company). What, if any are my options? The attorneys demanded a jury trial. The depositions have been taken with the exception on one (the owner). We had to hire process servers to even serve this company because they hid and kept the doors locked. If I’m able to work again the doctors say I will not be able to travel as an RN or make rounds on a 12 hour shift. Basically, it will be a desk job and I’m only 35 y/o. I was in the hospital for 2 + months which was dead in the middle of the Covid when we all thought it would kill everyone, so the anxiety of that was awesome. Call it intuition, but I’m afraid that we will end up with nothing or the bare minimum based on my research on this company. My lawyers say it will “be fine.” I was the one that did the leg work and told my attorneys they were suing the wrong entity. They filed to amend it to add the real LLC to the suit and the judge signed it, but as I keep watching I’m afraid the company has changed names or ownership again, but I haven’t been able to find it- YET. In one instance in the past this company traded it back and forth between family members until litigation was resolved. If it matters the other 10 cars involved settled out of court. While some left the scene in ambulance none sustained permanent injuries as I have. Any thoughts, questions, concerns would be helpful and I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to financially ruin this company, I just want medical bills covered and such and those bills will be over what his insurance can cover given the other payouts and the fact this company has jumped from insurance provider to insurance provider because they keep getting dropped. Assistant:The Insurance company that the tow truck was insured by at the TIME OF THE ACCIDENT is the only entity that matters to you lawsuit. I would highly recommend discussing the strategy that your attorney is planning, with him, and making a decision when you understand what the plan is. If you do not agree, find another attorney. This is the type of accident that you see the Attorneys salivating for on TV, every third commercial. There is a reason for this. I am not an Attorney, however, I am an Insurance Adjuster handling Commercial Vehicle accidents. About the LLC dissolving and reforming, this absolutely needs to be addressed by the court. I am not competent to address this issue. The State is highly relevant in this case. Insurance and other Law varies greatly between States.

Human: I’m pretty sure my lawyers are incompetent, I’ve been out of work b/c of an accident caused by a commercial vehicle which hit me and resulted in a coma and permanent spine injury. I’m an RN and they say I may never work again. The company keeps changing LLC’s- Please help. What are my options?? Middle of January, I was traveling westbound on a 4 lane highway and a commercial tow truck not carrying a vehicle at the time slammed into my car which then a chain reaction and 10 other cars were damaged from being hit from behind or purposely trying to get out the way of what they saw happening in their rear view. It had been raining all day, but by 7pm EST the roads weren’t terribly wet. The driver was simply on his phone and not paying attention. Later he tested positive for THC and alcohol and was said to be under the influence. No one else was found at fault. Some family friends, a son and father team, have a law firm and took the case pro bono as I mentioned and filed suit against the person operating the commercial vehicle, the company he is still driving for and employed by, and against the insurance company who insured the trucks. The issue is that the driver is indigent and the owner of the company (who has assets) has already dissolved one LLC (this one I’m speaking about) to avoid liability in another pending civil suit and this current LLC is “non-compliant” it’s my belief that the company has already changed ownership and names, possibly now a foreign entity registered in another state. This company did something and had new DOT numbers given to them in the past because they were basically uninsurable. My lawyers dismiss this totally even when I show them proof of the owner of this company hiding assets in 2018 to avoid liability in another civil case (there’s currently two pending and one closed against this company). What, if any are my options? The attorneys demanded a jury trial. The depositions have been taken with the exception on one (the owner). We had to hire process servers to even serve this company because they hid and kept the doors locked. If I’m able to work again the doctors say I will not be able to travel as an RN or make rounds on a 12 hour shift. Basically, it will be a desk job and I’m only 35 y/o. I was in the hospital for 2 + months which was dead in the middle of the Covid when we all thought it would kill everyone, so the anxiety of that was awesome. Call it intuition, but I’m afraid that we will end up with nothing or the bare minimum based on my research on this company. My lawyers say it will “be fine.” I was the one that did the leg work and told my attorneys they were suing the wrong entity. They filed to amend it to add the real LLC to the suit and the judge signed it, but as I keep watching I’m afraid the company has changed names or ownership again, but I haven’t been able to find it- YET. In one instance in the past this company traded it back and forth between family members until litigation was resolved. If it matters the other 10 cars involved settled out of court. While some left the scene in ambulance none sustained permanent injuries as I have. Any thoughts, questions, concerns would be helpful and I’d appreciate it. I’m not trying to financially ruin this company, I just want medical bills covered and such and those bills will be over what his insurance can cover given the other payouts and the fact this company has jumped from insurance provider to insurance provider because they keep getting dropped. Assistant:It is very difficult, but not impossible, to “pierce the corporate veil.” Meaning, suing the owner individually because the LLC are under-funded, engaging in fraud, etc. and is a closely run company (ie small company and the owner runs it like a family business). The exact threshold varies by state. Is there no insurance at all?

Human: CMV: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished and Replaced By Popular Vote The electoral college disproportionately represents small states. A Wyoming person’s vote is worth three times the vote of someone from California. Since they are voting in the same election, that is ridiculous and obviously unfair to the Californian. Small states are given semi-autonomous government under federalism, and the Senate represents all states equally- so there’s no need for them to have more voting power in electing a president for the whole country. Furthermore, since in each state you win all the votes if a majority votes for you, you could theoretically win an election in which you win 51% of the vote in states that add up to 270 votes while 100% of people in every other state vote for your opponent. This would mean you become president of the country even though millions more people in it voted for your opponent. When adding in the small state advantage, a scenario where you win the states with the lowest population possible and only win 51% of the vote in them, to get to 270 you only need around 22% of the National Popular vote. Of course, that is an unrealistic scenario, but in real life people have lost the popular vote and won the election in 5 separate elections. That is ridiculous- in any democracy, the basic principle is that the person who gets the most votes wins. The other major flaw with the electoral college system is that the only states whose interests are prioritized are the swing states. If a candidate promises to bring back coal jobs, it will probably help them win Pennsylvania. If a candidate promises to end racial profiling, it will probably help them turn out voters in Detroit, part of the swing state Michigan. If a candidate promises to bring back manufacturing jobs and renegotiate trade deals, it will probably help them win the rust belt full of swing states. Coincidentally, those were major promises of candidates in the last presidential election. This also contributes to another problem: the United States has one of the lowest turnout rates of any democracy. This is (in part) because voters in states that aren’t swing states think their vote doesn’t matter- if your candidate is guaranteed to lose in your state, it makes no difference. If your candidate is guaranteed to win, it also makes no difference- after all, you can count on a majority of the half that does vote to have the same result. The exception to this? Turnout is higher in many swing states. You could say democracy is working for swing states. Thing is, it should be working everywhere. Assistant:After the last election i thought the same as you. I live in a highly populated city and i thought that yeah my vote is useless if i am in a state that will 100% be voting democratic or republican. I have since changed my thought on this the more i have seen some human interaction in this city. I have always tried to see both sides to every argument and ask myself why they see things that way. One arguement for the electoral college is so that we dont have mob rule. I had always dismissed this. I mean i live in a city, i have my own mind and my own thoughts i am not being controlled or manipulated into a mob. But when in reality you dont ever realize that it has already been happening. Just by talking with others and hearing what they complain about without anyone else counterarguing their complaints you start to get that feeling of yeah they are on to something and then start seeing political agendas that adress those issues. This would, in turn, make those areas of highly populated areas vote in only one direction. As is historical evidence this has been happening. The electoral college is able to deter this a bit. The other thing that i personally think is better with the electoral college is that candidates go to different swing states every election cycle to campaign. Why is that significant? I have seen so many news videos that have been created to be shown as democratic or republican that things are taken so far out of context. When i finally go look up the actual speech or video they were referencing i do see how it isnt actually how they portrayed it. So by letting the candidates go to different areas every cycle people can go to the rallies and hear it from the candidates themselves. If it was just catering to the highly populated areas that they needed to do then there would be big areas of the map that would always be relying on news to tell them what news media wants to tell them. I do, however, believe that all states should go in the direction that massachutes has in that it splits its votes. If its 51-49 i still think the winner of that state should be given more than 50% of the electoral college though as there should be significance given to those that campaign well enough in that state.

Human: CMV: The Electoral College Should Be Abolished and Replaced By Popular Vote The electoral college disproportionately represents small states. A Wyoming person’s vote is worth three times the vote of someone from California. Since they are voting in the same election, that is ridiculous and obviously unfair to the Californian. Small states are given semi-autonomous government under federalism, and the Senate represents all states equally- so there’s no need for them to have more voting power in electing a president for the whole country. Furthermore, since in each state you win all the votes if a majority votes for you, you could theoretically win an election in which you win 51% of the vote in states that add up to 270 votes while 100% of people in every other state vote for your opponent. This would mean you become president of the country even though millions more people in it voted for your opponent. When adding in the small state advantage, a scenario where you win the states with the lowest population possible and only win 51% of the vote in them, to get to 270 you only need around 22% of the National Popular vote. Of course, that is an unrealistic scenario, but in real life people have lost the popular vote and won the election in 5 separate elections. That is ridiculous- in any democracy, the basic principle is that the person who gets the most votes wins. The other major flaw with the electoral college system is that the only states whose interests are prioritized are the swing states. If a candidate promises to bring back coal jobs, it will probably help them win Pennsylvania. If a candidate promises to end racial profiling, it will probably help them turn out voters in Detroit, part of the swing state Michigan. If a candidate promises to bring back manufacturing jobs and renegotiate trade deals, it will probably help them win the rust belt full of swing states. Coincidentally, those were major promises of candidates in the last presidential election. This also contributes to another problem: the United States has one of the lowest turnout rates of any democracy. This is (in part) because voters in states that aren’t swing states think their vote doesn’t matter- if your candidate is guaranteed to lose in your state, it makes no difference. If your candidate is guaranteed to win, it also makes no difference- after all, you can count on a majority of the half that does vote to have the same result. The exception to this? Turnout is higher in many swing states. You could say democracy is working for swing states. Thing is, it should be working everywhere. Assistant:This is an interesting argument that requires an examination of how The "United" States of America came to be. Before USA was a thing, you just had States. Each of them was responsible for their own people, borders, healthcare, etc. The only reason a Federal/United discussion came to be was to improve the position of trade and war with larger, more established countries. So, how do you get a group of very different people with different priorities/beliefs to come together? You create a system that guarantees all who join will have an equal voice in the collective group. Thus, the Electoral College was created. My opinion is that each State should be allowed and encouraged to pursue their unique life/liberty/happiness. In order for that to happen, every State must have equal participation in the Union, regardless of land size or population size.

Human: Daughter contracted GBS meningitis, and I’m terrified to have another. A little context: I had my daughter when I was 21 years old, and she was my first baby. I attended all of my prenatal appointments, quit smoking as soon as I found out I was pregnant and took my prenatal vitamins as recommended. Obviously, I was tested for group b strep around 35-36 week and it came back positive. My OB brushed it off like it was nothing (and I know most of the time it’s not a big deal) and told me I’d just receive IV antibiotics while I was in labor. Cool cool. Fast forward: my water broke at 38 weeks, and IV antibiotics were started as soon as the determined my water had actually broke. Later they had to start me on pitocin because I wasn’t progressing or even really having any contractions. Everything went great. I had my day vaginally after a 22 hour labor, and 1 hour of pushing. She was perfect. So so perfect. We got to take her home, and I was finally adjusting to the idea of being a being a mother and caring for her. The night after her 1 month appointment things just went down hill. She was fussy and irritable, she wouldn’t sleep or take a bottle. I just got a new thermometer that day was I just kept checking. Watching it creep up from 98.1 one to 99.0 in an hour. Everyone thought I was crazy. My MIL told me that she was probably just gassy, and said “you’re going to have so many nights like this”. And my SO was irritated with the beep from the thermometer because he had to be up early to work. I knew something was wrong. I just knew it, in my heart and soul I knew that my baby had NEVER cried like this before. I finally convinced my MIL to take us to the hospital (I had a lot of driving anxiety, and my nerves were tore all to pieces over this so I was in no shape to drive myself, but I would have if she hadn’t of offered). They ran every test imaginable aside from a spinal tap that night. They placed an IV in her scalp, swabbed to viruses, drew blood, cathed her for a urine culture... everything came back negative. So they told her she just had a virus, and that it would run it’s course. I felt SO bad putting my 1 month old baby through that. I felt so much guilt. Until about 2 hours later when she started grunting. Like she was trying to poop but constantly. She wouldn’t stop. MIL started to get freaked out after about 15 minutes of her doing this, and me balling my eyes out because I KNEW something was not right. We rushed back to the hospital, and I was so distraught at this point I didn’t even know what to say when the receptionist ask what the problem was. I just lifted my daughters arm and let it fall. I was shaking and crying so hard I physically couldn’t respond. She didn’t ask anymore questions and we were back in a room in about 2 minutes. I sat down and waiting for the the doctor or whoever and my daughter just stopped breathing, right there in my arm. One big gasp and just stopped breathing entirely. I’m a medical assistant, trained in infant CPR, but I completely blanked at this point. I panicked. I didn’t know what to do. Luckily a nurse was walking in as soon as this happened. She grabbed my daughter and ran to the crash room down the hall. This all happened so fast my MIL barley noticed until we were already running down the hall. Next thing I know there a million people around. Doctors, nurses, PAs, NPs.. I can’t even remember. There was so much going on and I just could breathe. It was a mess. I remember when they get her stabilized (luckily, they didn’t have to vent her but they did start her on oxygen ASAP) the pediatric ER doctor was just standing in the middle of the room looking so frazzled, just taking deep breaths... trying to center herself I guess. After a second she looked at me and just said “We aren’t sure what’s going on, but we have a very sick baby on our hands”. I remember looking down at my daughter after everything had settled. I really looked at her, and her skin was this tent of blueish-grey, and she was breathing so deeply and ragged. All these little wires on her, IVs, blood and pin holes from failed emergency IV tried. I could help but think that she was going to die. I was so scared. She was my first baby, and I had no idea what was going on. My MIL stood out in the hallway and called my SO.. I think she did that because she didn’t want me to hear her. But I was so hyper aware of everything in that moment that I still heard her. “You need to come now. It’s bad. Jemma’s really sick. Come now.” And then just hung up the phone and walked back into the room. 10 minutes later my SO showed up, and he just lost it. He gave her a kiss, rubbed her head, and proceeded to take a picture of her. (Later he told me he did that because he was afraid it would be the last picture he’d take of her alive). They did a spinal tap, and drew more blood. Turns out that I’m the 2-3 hour since we left the hospital the first time my daughter had become septic, on top of that the tap showed she had meningitis. We stayed in the hospital for about 2 and a half, 3ish weeks while my daughter received 2 different types of IV antibiotics. Gentamicin and Ampicillin. She had to relearn how to fed from a bottle, and by that point my breast milk he all but dried up from all the stress. She also started having seizures. They weren’t sure how this was going to effect her. They said that it was very uncommon, and cases varied so much that all they could do was hope for the best, but prepare me for the possibility of having a moderately-severely disabled child. But she was going to live, and that all that mattered to me. Over the next two years, I completely engrossed myself with her numerous appointments with all different kinds of specialists and therapies. EI was very worried about her at first as she was scoring 1-2/6 on everything for her age. But I’m proud to say my little girl is doing great. It’s been a long and exhausting road, but she a little over 2 and a half years old now and she’s doing most of everything she should be. She started a bit later than most kids, and it took a lot more effort on her part to achieve certain milestones, but she’s is dominating. She’s so smart. She can sing her ABCs, count to 17, can distinguish shapes and some colors. She can finish sentence in books we’ve read a few times. Aside from a bit of left side weakness (which is only really noticeable when she tries to run) and a tad lack of coordination, she’s doing amazing. But I’m terrified. I’m constantly worried sick, and I’m even more terrified of having another child even though I want another so badly. I don’t want to go through this again. I don’t want to put another child at risk for going through it. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what kind of precautions can be taken, if any at all. I guess my question is.. what can I do? How likely is it to happen again? What can I do, or doctors do to prevent it? Are their any protocols for this kind of stuff? Would my next child be at greater risk, since she got sick? I’m tore all to pieces, and just at a complete loss right now.. I know my daughter was lucky. She received swift and excellent care, but I know most aren’t as lucky. I know that a lot of these kids end up disabled. Or they die.. What do I do? I apologize for the long post, it was just very traumatic for everyone involved.. and I felt like that experience needed to be included.. thank you in advance for any advice given... Assistant:I know everyone says therapy, but therapy. You went through an incredibly traumatic ordeal and my guess is that you were/have been so focused on her, that you’re not even thinking about you. You probably see it as what happened to her, but it happened to you too. And I’m a mom, so I’m going to guess there’s a small part of you somewhere that feels responsible for what happened. But it’s not your fault and I hope you don’t think that. Anyone can carry GBS, and in most cases the iv antibiotics work. Your daughter was lucky you stuck to your guns and followed your intuition. She’s alive because you did that. What happened to her is rare. The odds of it happening a second time are so small. Like so, so small. I know that’s not really comforting, but it’s true. I don’t think if you were to have another baby that this would be the outcome. I also think that if you don’t believe this, then you’re still responding from trauma. And that’s okay, it’s not right or wrong. It just *is* because you had a traumatic event. You need to take care of yourself too. You sound like you’re a really good mother. I’m sure another baby would be lucky to have you when you’re ready. Don’t be afraid to take care of yourself and take time to work through this. Time isn’t a luxury you get when you have a baby. Especially a baby with extra needs.

Human: Daughter contracted GBS meningitis, and I’m terrified to have another. A little context: I had my daughter when I was 21 years old, and she was my first baby. I attended all of my prenatal appointments, quit smoking as soon as I found out I was pregnant and took my prenatal vitamins as recommended. Obviously, I was tested for group b strep around 35-36 week and it came back positive. My OB brushed it off like it was nothing (and I know most of the time it’s not a big deal) and told me I’d just receive IV antibiotics while I was in labor. Cool cool. Fast forward: my water broke at 38 weeks, and IV antibiotics were started as soon as the determined my water had actually broke. Later they had to start me on pitocin because I wasn’t progressing or even really having any contractions. Everything went great. I had my day vaginally after a 22 hour labor, and 1 hour of pushing. She was perfect. So so perfect. We got to take her home, and I was finally adjusting to the idea of being a being a mother and caring for her. The night after her 1 month appointment things just went down hill. She was fussy and irritable, she wouldn’t sleep or take a bottle. I just got a new thermometer that day was I just kept checking. Watching it creep up from 98.1 one to 99.0 in an hour. Everyone thought I was crazy. My MIL told me that she was probably just gassy, and said “you’re going to have so many nights like this”. And my SO was irritated with the beep from the thermometer because he had to be up early to work. I knew something was wrong. I just knew it, in my heart and soul I knew that my baby had NEVER cried like this before. I finally convinced my MIL to take us to the hospital (I had a lot of driving anxiety, and my nerves were tore all to pieces over this so I was in no shape to drive myself, but I would have if she hadn’t of offered). They ran every test imaginable aside from a spinal tap that night. They placed an IV in her scalp, swabbed to viruses, drew blood, cathed her for a urine culture... everything came back negative. So they told her she just had a virus, and that it would run it’s course. I felt SO bad putting my 1 month old baby through that. I felt so much guilt. Until about 2 hours later when she started grunting. Like she was trying to poop but constantly. She wouldn’t stop. MIL started to get freaked out after about 15 minutes of her doing this, and me balling my eyes out because I KNEW something was not right. We rushed back to the hospital, and I was so distraught at this point I didn’t even know what to say when the receptionist ask what the problem was. I just lifted my daughters arm and let it fall. I was shaking and crying so hard I physically couldn’t respond. She didn’t ask anymore questions and we were back in a room in about 2 minutes. I sat down and waiting for the the doctor or whoever and my daughter just stopped breathing, right there in my arm. One big gasp and just stopped breathing entirely. I’m a medical assistant, trained in infant CPR, but I completely blanked at this point. I panicked. I didn’t know what to do. Luckily a nurse was walking in as soon as this happened. She grabbed my daughter and ran to the crash room down the hall. This all happened so fast my MIL barley noticed until we were already running down the hall. Next thing I know there a million people around. Doctors, nurses, PAs, NPs.. I can’t even remember. There was so much going on and I just could breathe. It was a mess. I remember when they get her stabilized (luckily, they didn’t have to vent her but they did start her on oxygen ASAP) the pediatric ER doctor was just standing in the middle of the room looking so frazzled, just taking deep breaths... trying to center herself I guess. After a second she looked at me and just said “We aren’t sure what’s going on, but we have a very sick baby on our hands”. I remember looking down at my daughter after everything had settled. I really looked at her, and her skin was this tent of blueish-grey, and she was breathing so deeply and ragged. All these little wires on her, IVs, blood and pin holes from failed emergency IV tried. I could help but think that she was going to die. I was so scared. She was my first baby, and I had no idea what was going on. My MIL stood out in the hallway and called my SO.. I think she did that because she didn’t want me to hear her. But I was so hyper aware of everything in that moment that I still heard her. “You need to come now. It’s bad. Jemma’s really sick. Come now.” And then just hung up the phone and walked back into the room. 10 minutes later my SO showed up, and he just lost it. He gave her a kiss, rubbed her head, and proceeded to take a picture of her. (Later he told me he did that because he was afraid it would be the last picture he’d take of her alive). They did a spinal tap, and drew more blood. Turns out that I’m the 2-3 hour since we left the hospital the first time my daughter had become septic, on top of that the tap showed she had meningitis. We stayed in the hospital for about 2 and a half, 3ish weeks while my daughter received 2 different types of IV antibiotics. Gentamicin and Ampicillin. She had to relearn how to fed from a bottle, and by that point my breast milk he all but dried up from all the stress. She also started having seizures. They weren’t sure how this was going to effect her. They said that it was very uncommon, and cases varied so much that all they could do was hope for the best, but prepare me for the possibility of having a moderately-severely disabled child. But she was going to live, and that all that mattered to me. Over the next two years, I completely engrossed myself with her numerous appointments with all different kinds of specialists and therapies. EI was very worried about her at first as she was scoring 1-2/6 on everything for her age. But I’m proud to say my little girl is doing great. It’s been a long and exhausting road, but she a little over 2 and a half years old now and she’s doing most of everything she should be. She started a bit later than most kids, and it took a lot more effort on her part to achieve certain milestones, but she’s is dominating. She’s so smart. She can sing her ABCs, count to 17, can distinguish shapes and some colors. She can finish sentence in books we’ve read a few times. Aside from a bit of left side weakness (which is only really noticeable when she tries to run) and a tad lack of coordination, she’s doing amazing. But I’m terrified. I’m constantly worried sick, and I’m even more terrified of having another child even though I want another so badly. I don’t want to go through this again. I don’t want to put another child at risk for going through it. I don’t know what to do. I don’t know what kind of precautions can be taken, if any at all. I guess my question is.. what can I do? How likely is it to happen again? What can I do, or doctors do to prevent it? Are their any protocols for this kind of stuff? Would my next child be at greater risk, since she got sick? I’m tore all to pieces, and just at a complete loss right now.. I know my daughter was lucky. She received swift and excellent care, but I know most aren’t as lucky. I know that a lot of these kids end up disabled. Or they die.. What do I do? I apologize for the long post, it was just very traumatic for everyone involved.. and I felt like that experience needed to be included.. thank you in advance for any advice given... Assistant:The likelihood of this happening to a second child is EXCEEDINGLY low. I think it would be valuable for you to see a therapist before conceiving another child, though, as it sounds like you hold onto a lot of the trauma you experienced. Seeing a therapist can assist you in planning another baby, and remaining as stress free as possible during and after a second pregnancy.

Human: CMV: It's much worse to hate somebody because of their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs than it is to hate somebody because of their opinions First of all, please don't tell me that it's wrong to hate people, period. What I'm looking for is somebody to refute my point with a statement that it's worse to hate somebody for their opinions than it is to hate somebody for their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs. I hate the fact that most people judge (and often condemn) other people just because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation (rather than their opinions). Not every white person is like David Duke. Not every gay person is like Jeffrey Dahmer. Not every old man is like Jerry Sandusky. Not every black person is like John Allen Muhammad. And not every Muslim is like Osama bin Laden. Why shouldn't we judge and stereotype people because of their opinions rather than their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, or religious beliefs? Are there a lot of differences between people who hold the opinion that "my race is the only race that matters" or the opinion that "it's completely acceptable to molest children"? Bottom line: the bond between people who hold a certain opinion is MUCH STRONGER than that of the bond between people of the same race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs. I don't think anybody can prove me wrong on that! Everybody, regardless of rage, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs, is capable of evil. But has there ever been an evil person (examples of my view of evil people are Hitler and Jerry Sandusky) that DIDN'T hold obscene opinions? One can argue that many Germans agreed with Hitler that the world would be a better place without Jews. Sandusky must have also been of the opinion that it was acceptable to molest children (as long as he could get away with it). In my eyes, a white person of the opinion that "the world would be a better place without Jews" is no different than a black person who holds that same opinion. The same goes with a gay person who happens to think "it's acceptable to molest children" and a straight person who also holds that opinion! So what if their sexual preferences differ? A gay aspiring child molester has got more in common with a straight aspiring child molester, all because of common opinions, than he does with a gay person who is completely against molesting children! Martin Luther King said it best: "instead of judging people by their skin color, the world would be a better place if we only judged them by the content of their character." That, to me, means that a person's OPINIONS (content of their character) should ALWAYS matter more than their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs! _____ > *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:Please define the difference between "opinion" and "religious beliefs". If I claim my opinions were revealed to me by my god, does that mean you can no longer hate me for my opinions? What has been lost in the history of freedom from discrimination is that it is suppose to be religious *affiliation*, not religious *belief*. A religious belief has no more reasoned claim to protection than a political belief, or a philosophical belief, or a general personal belief. If that's the case, then it incentivizes people to create religions around their personal beliefs and opinions.

Human: CMV: It's much worse to hate somebody because of their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs than it is to hate somebody because of their opinions First of all, please don't tell me that it's wrong to hate people, period. What I'm looking for is somebody to refute my point with a statement that it's worse to hate somebody for their opinions than it is to hate somebody for their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs. I hate the fact that most people judge (and often condemn) other people just because of the color of their skin or sexual orientation (rather than their opinions). Not every white person is like David Duke. Not every gay person is like Jeffrey Dahmer. Not every old man is like Jerry Sandusky. Not every black person is like John Allen Muhammad. And not every Muslim is like Osama bin Laden. Why shouldn't we judge and stereotype people because of their opinions rather than their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, or religious beliefs? Are there a lot of differences between people who hold the opinion that "my race is the only race that matters" or the opinion that "it's completely acceptable to molest children"? Bottom line: the bond between people who hold a certain opinion is MUCH STRONGER than that of the bond between people of the same race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs. I don't think anybody can prove me wrong on that! Everybody, regardless of rage, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs, is capable of evil. But has there ever been an evil person (examples of my view of evil people are Hitler and Jerry Sandusky) that DIDN'T hold obscene opinions? One can argue that many Germans agreed with Hitler that the world would be a better place without Jews. Sandusky must have also been of the opinion that it was acceptable to molest children (as long as he could get away with it). In my eyes, a white person of the opinion that "the world would be a better place without Jews" is no different than a black person who holds that same opinion. The same goes with a gay person who happens to think "it's acceptable to molest children" and a straight person who also holds that opinion! So what if their sexual preferences differ? A gay aspiring child molester has got more in common with a straight aspiring child molester, all because of common opinions, than he does with a gay person who is completely against molesting children! Martin Luther King said it best: "instead of judging people by their skin color, the world would be a better place if we only judged them by the content of their character." That, to me, means that a person's OPINIONS (content of their character) should ALWAYS matter more than their race, age, sexual orientation, gender, and religious beliefs! _____ > *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:First of all, I'd argue that it's a bad idea to *literally hate* people for any reason. Opinions can be changed, and approaching them with a "they're just horribly misguided" mindset rather than a "they're bad people" one is much more likely to change their mind. For example, someone holding racist beliefs isn't necessarily a bad person. Growing up in Romania, there are a lot of gypsy gangs that pickpocket and even beat up and rob people. As a result of that, a lot of otherwise good people are at least afraid of darker skinned people, and some are outright discriminatory. It's still in everyone's best interest to encourage people to judge individuals on their own merit rather than putting them in a box based on random traits, but it's also human nature to feel wary if the *only* contact you've ever had with a group of people is a negative one. The way we move past that is to show them examples of how many individuals belonging to the minority group are good people, rather than calling them racist for guarding their pockets in crowded buses. If anything, it would be much more rational to hate someone because of their religious belief. It is still something that you can change (unlike skin color etc.). If their religion is responsible for quite a few modern day atrocities, yet they still support it through donations and association (which impacts legislation), they are actively harming other people, unlike someone who merely holds an opinion but doesn't act on it. I don't think you should *hate* them, but, if you're to hate anyone, this makes more sense to me.

Human: AskScience AMA Series: We are Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010-2016 and a senior member of the UN team that created the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, our new book The Future We Choose is out! AUA! We were two of the lead negotiators of the Paris Climate Agreement, and continue to dedicate our careers and lives to stopping the climate crisis -- Christiana was Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010-2016 and Tom was a senior member of the UN team that created the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 195 countries in 2015. AUA! ** We are at a critical decision making moment that will determine the entire future of humanity.** This year and the next ten are going to have more of an impact on the future of the Earth than any other decade in history. We are facing either a world of breakdown and conflict, of floods and disasters that will be close to home more quickly than we could have imagined, where hope has slipped away - OR - a world that is renewed, where forests have regrown and cities are remade, where your children are not afraid to have children of their own. That reality is overwhelming for most of us because we don't know what to do about it. While we do not deny that daunting challenges are ahead, we do not agree with the idea that we are somehow already doomed to a devastating future or that humanity is somehow flawed and incapable of responding to big problems; we are fully convinced that we can avert the worst of the climate crisis through a change of mindset and the ten actions outlined in our book. We are really excited to be here today to answer all of your questions around climate change and creating together the world that we all hope to see -- and live in! We will be here at 4:30pm ET today, so ask us anything and let's talk about how to wade through all of the existing news and information about climate issues, and really distill it all down so we can each create our own action plans to collectively survive the climate crisis. You can see more on our book at https://globaloptimism.com and also connect with us further on Twitter at @cfigueres and @tomcarnac. We also host a podcast called Outrage & Optimism where we interview journalists and global leaders on how to drive social and environmental change. ----- Again, our guests will be here at 4:30pm ET (21:30 UT). Assistant:Why is the UNFCCC's Common Reporting Format, or CRF as we used to call it, so poorly developed? I worked in the field of climate change for 2 years as a scientist tasked with the annual reporting of GHG emissions to the EU and UNFCCC from the transport sector in my country. I'm sorry but the portal is absolutely attrocious and buggy. This tool is an essential component of GHG emissions reporting for every country in the world, its efficacy and stability is imperative imo.

Human: AskScience AMA Series: We are Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2010-2016 and a senior member of the UN team that created the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, our new book The Future We Choose is out! AUA! We were two of the lead negotiators of the Paris Climate Agreement, and continue to dedicate our careers and lives to stopping the climate crisis -- Christiana was Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2010-2016 and Tom was a senior member of the UN team that created the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, signed by 195 countries in 2015. AUA! ** We are at a critical decision making moment that will determine the entire future of humanity.** This year and the next ten are going to have more of an impact on the future of the Earth than any other decade in history. We are facing either a world of breakdown and conflict, of floods and disasters that will be close to home more quickly than we could have imagined, where hope has slipped away - OR - a world that is renewed, where forests have regrown and cities are remade, where your children are not afraid to have children of their own. That reality is overwhelming for most of us because we don't know what to do about it. While we do not deny that daunting challenges are ahead, we do not agree with the idea that we are somehow already doomed to a devastating future or that humanity is somehow flawed and incapable of responding to big problems; we are fully convinced that we can avert the worst of the climate crisis through a change of mindset and the ten actions outlined in our book. We are really excited to be here today to answer all of your questions around climate change and creating together the world that we all hope to see -- and live in! We will be here at 4:30pm ET today, so ask us anything and let's talk about how to wade through all of the existing news and information about climate issues, and really distill it all down so we can each create our own action plans to collectively survive the climate crisis. You can see more on our book at https://globaloptimism.com and also connect with us further on Twitter at @cfigueres and @tomcarnac. We also host a podcast called Outrage & Optimism where we interview journalists and global leaders on how to drive social and environmental change. ----- Again, our guests will be here at 4:30pm ET (21:30 UT). Assistant:How can we prevent industries to bypass laws by for exemple just changing a label on a wrapping. The one I have in mind is the plastic bags, still being in circulation because they now print "100% reusable" or "100% recyclable" on it.

Human: CMV: I think anyone who claims America was founded as a "Christian nation" is either lying, or willfully ignorant I think this goes beyond just being wrong about something. It's extremely easy to confirm this claim. Just go online and search our country's founding documents. Obviously if America was *founded* as a christian nation, then we'd expect to see references to this in the *founding* documents. But there is literally zero mention of the word "Christianity" or "Christian" (or any other kind of religion) in any of the founding documents. Even "God" can't be found. Not only that, but in written correspondence from the founding fathers they specifically point out that America is *NOT* a Christian nation. This is a quote from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church: *Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.* Okay, what about "in god we trust" on our currency? Just look that up, the idea was first implemented in 1864 on a single piece of currency, then added to all paper currency in 1957. This is well after our country was founded. "Under God" in the pledge...1954. So my view isn't exactly that America was not founded as a Christian nation (but I'm open minded to being wrong about this if you feel I'm incorrect). My view is that the evidence is so objective and so obvious that a person must either be intentionally lying when making the claim, or they are just willfully choosing to be ignorant. No person that is reasonable could come to the conclusion that America was founded as a christian nation. _____ > *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:>Just go online and search our country's founding documents. Obviously if America was founded as a christian nation, then we'd expect to see references to this in the founding documents. You do see references to it. While others have quoted the Federalist Papers, you don't even have to go _that_ far to find references. The Declaration of Independence has these lines: >the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them >they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights >with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence Now, unless were are going to argue that the "Creator" referenced is the parents of the author, it is clear that "Divine providence", "Creator" and "Nature's God" are reference to a spiritual entity. Given the religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers, that spiritual entity could only be the Christian God. While it is certainly true that they didn't want the new nation to be a theocracy, they did believe that they freedoms and liberties that the nation was founded on were gifts from God Himself. In that sense, we very much are a "Christian nation" if you believe that to mean, "A nation founded by Christians based on Christian principles".

Human: CMV: I think anyone who claims America was founded as a "Christian nation" is either lying, or willfully ignorant I think this goes beyond just being wrong about something. It's extremely easy to confirm this claim. Just go online and search our country's founding documents. Obviously if America was *founded* as a christian nation, then we'd expect to see references to this in the *founding* documents. But there is literally zero mention of the word "Christianity" or "Christian" (or any other kind of religion) in any of the founding documents. Even "God" can't be found. Not only that, but in written correspondence from the founding fathers they specifically point out that America is *NOT* a Christian nation. This is a quote from a letter Jefferson wrote to a church: *Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.* Okay, what about "in god we trust" on our currency? Just look that up, the idea was first implemented in 1864 on a single piece of currency, then added to all paper currency in 1957. This is well after our country was founded. "Under God" in the pledge...1954. So my view isn't exactly that America was not founded as a Christian nation (but I'm open minded to being wrong about this if you feel I'm incorrect). My view is that the evidence is so objective and so obvious that a person must either be intentionally lying when making the claim, or they are just willfully choosing to be ignorant. No person that is reasonable could come to the conclusion that America was founded as a christian nation. _____ > *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:Most people who are saying it is a "Christian nation" are referring to Christian values of which the country was most certainly founded on. You are trying to have a legal argument about how it is not specifically encoded into the law or something when probably very few people are trying to make that claim when calling the US a "Christian nation". This has also risen into more prominence recently with a large contingent of people making the claim that the US has always been a "nation of immigrants" with highly varied cultures and religious practices.

Human: CMV: It’s okay to initially assume other people’s gender (and sexual orientation and other common things). I’ve heard the argument that when you meet new people, you should immediately ask their pronouns or wait until they tell you theirs or you figure them out before referring to them with pronouns. You should stop referring to strangers as “sir” or “ma’am” or “miss” due to the possibility of misgendering them. I see a few major arguments for this: 1. By assuming gender, you’re being at least subconsciously transphobic. 2. You’re continuing to push the idea that transgender people are living in a fundamentally cisgender world, and that transgender people are therefore inherently abnormal. 3. From the perspective of a transgender person who presents as cis, it can be very discouraging to constantly have to deal with correcting people you meet and telling them to use different pronouns. Background: I’m a gay male, not trans, so I’m a part of the LGBTQ+ community but not that particular part. I’m about as socially liberal as it gets, and fully support trans rights. I live in the US. To restate my belief as an example, if someone appears to be a male, I think it’s okay to initially refer to them as he/him/sir until they tell you otherwise. I do believe that when someone corrects you for misgendering them, you should immediately try your absolute best to remember and use their preferred pronouns. Here’s my reasoning: We CONSTANTLY make assumptions all the time out of convenience, and tend to assume things that are most common and normal to us in our lives. For example, when you ask someone you don’t know very well, “What do your parents do for a living?” you’re subconsciously assuming that they have two living parents that they keep in contact with. For all you know, they could’ve been killed in a horrible accident the week before and this is a extremely sensitive topic. It that seeming innocent question therefore ignorant or insensitive to people who have lost their parents? No, it’s just that most (younger) people have two parents that are alive. (I chose this analogy because one of my parents died when I was younger, and people usually assume I have two parents. I subtly correct them, but I’m not offended as I know this is not the norm.) A similar analogy can be drawn when people ask me things like “Do you have a girlfriend?” I’m not offended, because I know most people are straight. People usually don’t assume I’m gay, and I don’t mind answering “Boyfriend*.... and no.” I do, however, realize that being gay in the US has become a lot more socially acceptable in the past few years, whereas trans folks still face many more challenges. I’m a firm believer in inclusivity and equality, and I feel like being offended by assuming genders incorrectly only serves to distance the LGBTQ+ community from move moderate/conservative people. Also, I’d LOVE for some trans people to comment on this, whether they agree or disagree, as I must admit I don’t have any openly trans friends that I can talk about this with myself. Assistant:Personally I don't mind people making initial assumptions if they aren't assholes when corrected, and I think it's those assholes who create the real problem. To take the example of your parents, I doubt that when you explain that one of your parents died, the other person is nasty about it and accuses you of being antagonistic or 'making a big deal out of nothing' for simply correcting them. They probably say 'oh, I'm so sorry for your loss' and move on. It would be much easier for everyone if that's how people responded when they discovered someone is LGBTQ+. Instead, homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic people tend to get mad and defensive after being corrected. And the 'don't make so many assumptions' attitude reflects the fact that these people wouldn't be so mad if they were more open-minded and willing to go with the flow. I've made so many of these errors with people and never been accused of ill will because I always just correct myself and move on.

Human: CMV: It’s okay to initially assume other people’s gender (and sexual orientation and other common things). I’ve heard the argument that when you meet new people, you should immediately ask their pronouns or wait until they tell you theirs or you figure them out before referring to them with pronouns. You should stop referring to strangers as “sir” or “ma’am” or “miss” due to the possibility of misgendering them. I see a few major arguments for this: 1. By assuming gender, you’re being at least subconsciously transphobic. 2. You’re continuing to push the idea that transgender people are living in a fundamentally cisgender world, and that transgender people are therefore inherently abnormal. 3. From the perspective of a transgender person who presents as cis, it can be very discouraging to constantly have to deal with correcting people you meet and telling them to use different pronouns. Background: I’m a gay male, not trans, so I’m a part of the LGBTQ+ community but not that particular part. I’m about as socially liberal as it gets, and fully support trans rights. I live in the US. To restate my belief as an example, if someone appears to be a male, I think it’s okay to initially refer to them as he/him/sir until they tell you otherwise. I do believe that when someone corrects you for misgendering them, you should immediately try your absolute best to remember and use their preferred pronouns. Here’s my reasoning: We CONSTANTLY make assumptions all the time out of convenience, and tend to assume things that are most common and normal to us in our lives. For example, when you ask someone you don’t know very well, “What do your parents do for a living?” you’re subconsciously assuming that they have two living parents that they keep in contact with. For all you know, they could’ve been killed in a horrible accident the week before and this is a extremely sensitive topic. It that seeming innocent question therefore ignorant or insensitive to people who have lost their parents? No, it’s just that most (younger) people have two parents that are alive. (I chose this analogy because one of my parents died when I was younger, and people usually assume I have two parents. I subtly correct them, but I’m not offended as I know this is not the norm.) A similar analogy can be drawn when people ask me things like “Do you have a girlfriend?” I’m not offended, because I know most people are straight. People usually don’t assume I’m gay, and I don’t mind answering “Boyfriend*.... and no.” I do, however, realize that being gay in the US has become a lot more socially acceptable in the past few years, whereas trans folks still face many more challenges. I’m a firm believer in inclusivity and equality, and I feel like being offended by assuming genders incorrectly only serves to distance the LGBTQ+ community from move moderate/conservative people. Also, I’d LOVE for some trans people to comment on this, whether they agree or disagree, as I must admit I don’t have any openly trans friends that I can talk about this with myself. Assistant:first of all, respect for wanting trans ppl to comment on this and not acting like this is entirely your area, a lot of people fail on that part. you said it was a matter of convenience for you, like it was a convenient assumption. as much as i think that’s a valid point in a lot of areas, it’s rly not with trans ppl. i know for a fact that having to correct someone’s on my pronouns is rly rly hard for me and pretty much every trans person you’ll ask, and only serves to alienate us even more than we already are. it can ruin conversations too - i’ve had to correct ppl on my pronouns and it’s kind of put a stutter on the conversation, bevause it rly screws up the rhythm. you wouldn’t think it would, but trust me, i’ve seen it first hand. when someone assumes a trans persons gender incorrectly, we essentially have one of two options - to correct them and risk screwing up a conversation or to just sit there and let someone misgender us bc we can’t correct them. i guess what i’m saying is, yes it’s a matter of convenience, but it’s a hell of a lot less inconvenient for you to just ask someone’s pronouns than it is inconvenient for them when you assume their gender.

Human: CMV: I am unapologetically patriotic for the United States of America Don't get me wrong, I don't believe my country is perfect - but I do believe it's the most impressive by a long shot. I mean first and only nation to ever put a man on the moon! Won both world wars! Created airplanes! I mean the world is all around a better place with America in it. For me personally, it's the idea of America that is truly beautiful. The idea is that each and every person born in this country has the ability to choose and design their own destiny. That all men are created equal and deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sure we haven't always lived up to this, but millions of Americans have fought at home and abroad for these ideals. I think we were flawed then and still are flawed now but we have been generally successful in achieving our almost impossible highest ideals. Here are some critiques I hear of America - We are racist, intolerant, fat, and a horrible world leader. Growing up in America, I've been so lucky to grow up around maybe the most diverse group of people in the world. In terms of race, language, ethnicity, religion, and ideals. I know blacks, Asians, Latinos, Whites, and Indians. I know Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists. I know die-hard MAGA-loving gun-wielding trump lovers, and I know bleeding-heart passionate liberals. Growing up in this country is like growing up in a buffet of world cultures. I get to experience a little bit of everything, and it's amazing. I think the news likes to portray as polarized and divided, which may be true. They like to depict us as hateful racist people, which does actually happen. But in a community in my state, there is such a love, tolerance, and diversity that I'm not sure I could get anywhere else in the world. Racism does exist in America, but largely speaking I think social justice (I mean that in a good way, not in the regular negative connations it's heard in) and anti-racist attitudes have now been ingrained in the culture. In terms of being fat. We are! And it's literally the worst health problem behind COVID-19 (Obesity and obesity-related diseases). And though that's terrible... I mean isn't it amazing in some dark sense that the #1 problem is population faces is we have TOO much to eat? I understand a lot of it is rooted in a lack of access to nutritional options, and also in part because of our food-based culture - but I mean come on! Yeah, we're fat, that's *almost* (not really) something to be proud about. And in terms of being a world leader... we are totally not living up to our full potential. We have screwed up in the past. We for sure aren't using our role as the global hegemon to its full extent, especially in terms of things that require global cooperation like climate change. But realistically the world is a lot better for having America around. We helped defeated the Nazis, sustained the Western World following the war, and help liberate eastern Europe by causing the downfall of tyrannical communism across Europe. We have been the world leader in tech innovations. I mean just recently, America should be taking *at least* 60% of the credit for the development of COVID vaccines that have and will save 10 of millions if not hundredths of millions of lives. Is America perfect? Hell no! But I'm proud to be an American, and I hope we can live up to our highest ideals in the future. Assistant:America literally has something like 25% of the world’s prisoners, yet only has 4% of the world’s population. Is that really something to be proud of? “Land of the free” Lol

Human: CMV: I am unapologetically patriotic for the United States of America Don't get me wrong, I don't believe my country is perfect - but I do believe it's the most impressive by a long shot. I mean first and only nation to ever put a man on the moon! Won both world wars! Created airplanes! I mean the world is all around a better place with America in it. For me personally, it's the idea of America that is truly beautiful. The idea is that each and every person born in this country has the ability to choose and design their own destiny. That all men are created equal and deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sure we haven't always lived up to this, but millions of Americans have fought at home and abroad for these ideals. I think we were flawed then and still are flawed now but we have been generally successful in achieving our almost impossible highest ideals. Here are some critiques I hear of America - We are racist, intolerant, fat, and a horrible world leader. Growing up in America, I've been so lucky to grow up around maybe the most diverse group of people in the world. In terms of race, language, ethnicity, religion, and ideals. I know blacks, Asians, Latinos, Whites, and Indians. I know Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists. I know die-hard MAGA-loving gun-wielding trump lovers, and I know bleeding-heart passionate liberals. Growing up in this country is like growing up in a buffet of world cultures. I get to experience a little bit of everything, and it's amazing. I think the news likes to portray as polarized and divided, which may be true. They like to depict us as hateful racist people, which does actually happen. But in a community in my state, there is such a love, tolerance, and diversity that I'm not sure I could get anywhere else in the world. Racism does exist in America, but largely speaking I think social justice (I mean that in a good way, not in the regular negative connations it's heard in) and anti-racist attitudes have now been ingrained in the culture. In terms of being fat. We are! And it's literally the worst health problem behind COVID-19 (Obesity and obesity-related diseases). And though that's terrible... I mean isn't it amazing in some dark sense that the #1 problem is population faces is we have TOO much to eat? I understand a lot of it is rooted in a lack of access to nutritional options, and also in part because of our food-based culture - but I mean come on! Yeah, we're fat, that's *almost* (not really) something to be proud about. And in terms of being a world leader... we are totally not living up to our full potential. We have screwed up in the past. We for sure aren't using our role as the global hegemon to its full extent, especially in terms of things that require global cooperation like climate change. But realistically the world is a lot better for having America around. We helped defeated the Nazis, sustained the Western World following the war, and help liberate eastern Europe by causing the downfall of tyrannical communism across Europe. We have been the world leader in tech innovations. I mean just recently, America should be taking *at least* 60% of the credit for the development of COVID vaccines that have and will save 10 of millions if not hundredths of millions of lives. Is America perfect? Hell no! But I'm proud to be an American, and I hope we can live up to our highest ideals in the future. Assistant:You didn't win the first wold war, sorry.

Human: CMV: Religion has no place in the modern world and steps must be taken to eradicate it Now, this idea has been troubling me for a long time. The frustrating part is that it is the only strong view of mine that I feel is not justified by reason and my core values. I have a sort of irrational, almost instinctual distaste to religion as a concept, which is quite ironic since the opposite of being a part of a dogmatic religion should be open-mindedness. That's why I would like to ask you to either give me reasons to make peace with religion or be comfortable with this view of mine. Below are some thoughts I had about this. First, religions are restrictive by nature. It is not a problem in itself, as laws are also restrictive, but the authority of the laws in religions lie not within utilitarian circumstances or human free will, but within an unreachable deity (or deities) and their sacred teachings, which cannot be questioned or revised. This makes the teachings of religion absolute for all circumstances, times and people, which is problematic as these tend to change. It is possible to avoid this by avoiding change, but I cannot accept it as change and progress is one of my values (besides, there is an argument to be made that change is unavoidable). I believe that currents are taking us to reality when the teachings (maybe not all, but many) of most religions will be obsolete and even harmful, so that is one reason to wish to remove religion from humanity's path. Second, and this may be on the more "irrational" side, I find the metaphysics of religions problematic. Religions tend to have descriptions of reality, phenomena and truths of existence which are mystical in nature. Most religions have something to say about creation, the mechanisms of the Universe and what happens after death. This knowledge is not substantial in my opinion, as again it is derived from authority of a deity and sacred texts, and valid only if faith is present. In all fairness, science is not guaranteed to bring us to the truth either. Causality itself is an assumption which is true only as long as it is continuously verified, and there is nothing inherently certain about knowledge gained from evidence. Even so, I personally choose to believe in the assumptions of science and especially that evidence leads to the truth, and not to believe in the religious knowledge in sacred texts given by God (or deities in general). Epistemologically speaking, I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, but personally I am biased towards science and against religion when it comes to knowledge about reality. The reason is that science brings consistent (and frankly satisfying) results and serves to improve our lives, while the knowledge from religion doesn't have practical utility and often even hampers education and advances in science. On a personal side, the knowledge about the reality in religions feels unsatisfying and against reason and common sense. I don't know whether it is just me, or whether everyone is a little frustrated with it, but I think it is better for us to have a knowledge base that is not being rejected by our reason. Third, and this is very subjective and I feel will raise the most objections, religions serve no useful purpose. Of course they don't really have to (some principles must be enforced in all cases - whether they bring harm or good), but my impression is that most religions are constructed so that it is implied they should bring happiness and good things to those who follow them. And I think they don't bring much good - not anymore at least. They might have been essential for building societies bigger than a family-tribe, but in modern world we have mechanisms that ensure successful cooperation without the same religion - or with no religion at all. We are tied first of all economically - we cannot live a modern lifestyle without all of humanity working together - fruits of globalism. Furthermore, many societies are deeply secular, and they are successful like that. The questions of moral nature are being taken care of by the law, based on the will of the people. So religion is not necessary for a society to thrive, in general. What about just useful? Also no, reasons as in the first argument above, plus they create unnecessary divisions. What about useful for the individuals? This is more tricky, as no one can vouch for all the individuals' experiences, but I will go ahead and say that even in that dimension religions are not that useful. Some people cope with stress through religion, enhance their emotional state and health, some are encouraged to do good through the teachings of religion, which I believe is important and impactful, and some derive sense of meaning in their existence. This all is true, and this all is very good for people, I agree. But I don't think that the source of it all is necessarily the religion itself. In fact, I think religion acts like a catalyst that unlocks people's potential to these positive things, but it is not unique and it is not indispensable for this purpose. People can be mentally healthy, motivated to do good and see meaning in their lives without religion. And my argument is that it will be even easier without it. I think people are more content when things fall into their places under their willful, controlled effort much more than when they do due to higher authority they cannot question. What I am trying to say, in religion life is not as reliant on an individual's action, so merit for good things also isn't felt as strongly as one's own, and that dulls the good things' intensity also. I will leave this thought at that, as I haven't developed it fully yet, but please let me know if I am making sense or if I am wrong somewhere. About the "steps must be taken to eradicate it" part, I think above reasons are good enough to reach this conclusion. By getting rid of religion we (a) don't loose anything positive that we cannot do without, and (b) we eliminate all the negatives of the religion. I know this goes against free will and people's right to live as they want, and it is the main point of conflict for me, but for the sake of argument let's say this actually is worth it in utilitarian sense, and in the end will lead to more open-minded and free society. This is one last "old-time" measure to get rid of the "old-time" way of life. Of course the way it is done is important as well, so no coercion, no punishment for practicing, no violence, only subtle and soft methods. In the end, the process of abandoning religions is already ongoing due to many reasons. What I am proposing is to accelerate this process by enforcing and multiplying those reasons. Those were some of my arguments why to disagree with religion. Are they good enough reasons to want religion gone completely? Help me tone down that passionate voice inside, please. Thank you. Assistant:>I personally choose to believe in the assumptions of science and especially that evidence leads to the truth What surprises me with this is that you say you believe in science, and yet don't use any science anywhere in your thinking. There have been thousands of scientific studies done on the effects of religion. Would those have an impact? For instance, religious involvement correlates with both personal happiness and civil involvement. It also gives a number of surprising health benefits. Certainly, it is well known that religious people give more to charity. In fact, the increased generosity of religious people is so well established, that when a study came out suggesting there was a counter-example, it came under increased scrutiny. That, in turn, caused the researches to find a programming error, which in turned caused them to retract their findings. There is even evidence that Protestant missionaries were responsible for spreading democracy. But if you only read one thing I'm putting here, read this article by two skeptics for the Skeptical Inquirer magazine. It is easily the best article I have read on the subject. They look at meta-study after meta-study to determine if the world would be better off without religion. Spoiler: after looking at the science, they don't think it would.

Human: CMV: Religion has no place in the modern world and steps must be taken to eradicate it Now, this idea has been troubling me for a long time. The frustrating part is that it is the only strong view of mine that I feel is not justified by reason and my core values. I have a sort of irrational, almost instinctual distaste to religion as a concept, which is quite ironic since the opposite of being a part of a dogmatic religion should be open-mindedness. That's why I would like to ask you to either give me reasons to make peace with religion or be comfortable with this view of mine. Below are some thoughts I had about this. First, religions are restrictive by nature. It is not a problem in itself, as laws are also restrictive, but the authority of the laws in religions lie not within utilitarian circumstances or human free will, but within an unreachable deity (or deities) and their sacred teachings, which cannot be questioned or revised. This makes the teachings of religion absolute for all circumstances, times and people, which is problematic as these tend to change. It is possible to avoid this by avoiding change, but I cannot accept it as change and progress is one of my values (besides, there is an argument to be made that change is unavoidable). I believe that currents are taking us to reality when the teachings (maybe not all, but many) of most religions will be obsolete and even harmful, so that is one reason to wish to remove religion from humanity's path. Second, and this may be on the more "irrational" side, I find the metaphysics of religions problematic. Religions tend to have descriptions of reality, phenomena and truths of existence which are mystical in nature. Most religions have something to say about creation, the mechanisms of the Universe and what happens after death. This knowledge is not substantial in my opinion, as again it is derived from authority of a deity and sacred texts, and valid only if faith is present. In all fairness, science is not guaranteed to bring us to the truth either. Causality itself is an assumption which is true only as long as it is continuously verified, and there is nothing inherently certain about knowledge gained from evidence. Even so, I personally choose to believe in the assumptions of science and especially that evidence leads to the truth, and not to believe in the religious knowledge in sacred texts given by God (or deities in general). Epistemologically speaking, I don't think that one is necessarily better than the other, but personally I am biased towards science and against religion when it comes to knowledge about reality. The reason is that science brings consistent (and frankly satisfying) results and serves to improve our lives, while the knowledge from religion doesn't have practical utility and often even hampers education and advances in science. On a personal side, the knowledge about the reality in religions feels unsatisfying and against reason and common sense. I don't know whether it is just me, or whether everyone is a little frustrated with it, but I think it is better for us to have a knowledge base that is not being rejected by our reason. Third, and this is very subjective and I feel will raise the most objections, religions serve no useful purpose. Of course they don't really have to (some principles must be enforced in all cases - whether they bring harm or good), but my impression is that most religions are constructed so that it is implied they should bring happiness and good things to those who follow them. And I think they don't bring much good - not anymore at least. They might have been essential for building societies bigger than a family-tribe, but in modern world we have mechanisms that ensure successful cooperation without the same religion - or with no religion at all. We are tied first of all economically - we cannot live a modern lifestyle without all of humanity working together - fruits of globalism. Furthermore, many societies are deeply secular, and they are successful like that. The questions of moral nature are being taken care of by the law, based on the will of the people. So religion is not necessary for a society to thrive, in general. What about just useful? Also no, reasons as in the first argument above, plus they create unnecessary divisions. What about useful for the individuals? This is more tricky, as no one can vouch for all the individuals' experiences, but I will go ahead and say that even in that dimension religions are not that useful. Some people cope with stress through religion, enhance their emotional state and health, some are encouraged to do good through the teachings of religion, which I believe is important and impactful, and some derive sense of meaning in their existence. This all is true, and this all is very good for people, I agree. But I don't think that the source of it all is necessarily the religion itself. In fact, I think religion acts like a catalyst that unlocks people's potential to these positive things, but it is not unique and it is not indispensable for this purpose. People can be mentally healthy, motivated to do good and see meaning in their lives without religion. And my argument is that it will be even easier without it. I think people are more content when things fall into their places under their willful, controlled effort much more than when they do due to higher authority they cannot question. What I am trying to say, in religion life is not as reliant on an individual's action, so merit for good things also isn't felt as strongly as one's own, and that dulls the good things' intensity also. I will leave this thought at that, as I haven't developed it fully yet, but please let me know if I am making sense or if I am wrong somewhere. About the "steps must be taken to eradicate it" part, I think above reasons are good enough to reach this conclusion. By getting rid of religion we (a) don't loose anything positive that we cannot do without, and (b) we eliminate all the negatives of the religion. I know this goes against free will and people's right to live as they want, and it is the main point of conflict for me, but for the sake of argument let's say this actually is worth it in utilitarian sense, and in the end will lead to more open-minded and free society. This is one last "old-time" measure to get rid of the "old-time" way of life. Of course the way it is done is important as well, so no coercion, no punishment for practicing, no violence, only subtle and soft methods. In the end, the process of abandoning religions is already ongoing due to many reasons. What I am proposing is to accelerate this process by enforcing and multiplying those reasons. Those were some of my arguments why to disagree with religion. Are they good enough reasons to want religion gone completely? Help me tone down that passionate voice inside, please. Thank you. Assistant:Get in line, there have been a lot of times when people tried to eradicate a religion, and at times the people practicing it. You cannot legislate what I think and what I believe, and if my religion were made to be illegal (and it is illegal in many countries) I would still practice it. And look at the countries in the world that make religions illegal, forgetting the “eradication” language which suggests you might be willing to use force to get your way, do you want to be like those nations? The nations who repress religion are not nations that are enlightened. You can have an enlightened nation that has people who follow religions you do not, and all you have to do is not go to church.

Human: CMV: Modern Art is not "Real Art" and using the argument that it's subjective is a poor argument. I'm talking about art like simply a random latrine, random globs/strokes of paint, a cup of water being placed on the floor, etc. The argument for modern art seems to be two-fold, one art is subjective and thus anything can be art as long as I believe it is. And two trying to define what is and isn't art or trying to put a label on it is too constrictive and squashes any changes in innovation and art style. My first point I'd like to bring up is a misunderstanding of the definition of subjective, contrary to popular belief it isn't synonymous with opinion. All Opinions are Subjective, but not everything that is subjective is based on opinion. What is Subjective can indeed be based off one's personal feelings and impressions that however does not mean that subjectivity DOESN'T have form. Subjective simply means the impression of an object is based on the frame of reference and impression on the subject, and thus it may not be the same as another person. If I witness the same event as another person. My recall of the event is Subjectively different than the other person, (Even more I attach an interpretation.) HOWEVER it does not mean the scene we did not witness wasn't real and exist outside us. Basically what I'm saying is while it's true that art can be subjective in HOW we interpret it and what we think of it, the object of the art itself that we are interpreting is an actual object. I would also like to point out even two people's different subjective interpretations may be different and may not 100% fall into Objective reality. That our Subjective interpretations still have a form or mode of reasoning behind them. One can have a system of logic that is consistent and built on reasonable axioms, but these self-system of reasoning can still be divorced from external reality, this is the difference between Philosophy and Science. While both are trying to be consistent and logical in modeling the world, Science is attempting to verify with external observation, that if repeated by different subjects will yield similar results. (Thus is independent of the subjective experience of the observer.) Thus I submit that simply saying that anything can be art because it's "subjective" is like confusing how one views a work, with the work itself. (This get's into debates of course of the author's intent vs the audience.) I also feel that one can have Form and still be Subjective (Since one argument is trying to apply form to something ruins the subjectivity.) Even if something is made to not be photo realistic or give a perfect impression of reality (Like Impressionism) It still has a form, the form is simply a creation from the artist's own impression rather than an imitation of reality. To use an example if there was a theoretical universe with different laws of physics then the ones that governed ours, that universe would have an inherently different form than ours and if it didn't exist only exist in the mind of the subject, in other words it is neither objective nor empirical but it has form. Even many subjective forms might try to imitative objective reality in one way, but choose to ignore or exaggerate certain elements to bring that element of reality to the forefront never the less, it still has form. To Simply say anything can be art, is too in effect destroy the purpose of having a word, which is too distinguish and identify one idea distinct from another, if everything can be "art" what is even art if we cannot compare it against what "isn't" art. Even if we try to say "Some art is more artistic then others" can we really do that if we don't have something that "isn't" art at one end of the scale as a point of zero. When you literally cannot tell modern art from a random glob of paint on a canvas, I have to ask how does one discriminate what pieces of art are more "valuable" than others, what one's we choose to put on display and celebrate, and if art is truly only decided by personal opinion, then how can one truly say how valid one interpretation of art is over another, unless it has some form to compare one's interpretation to. To go more deeply into the "defining what is and isn't art" shuts down creativity. I say this, there is nothing to say that definition cannot change and evolve, or that muliple different "forms" cannot be added. However it is another to say that definitions ought to be flexible or that there can be alternate forms, and that there is no definition or forms at all. Without them you lack a language and no way to communicate. Like it or not, definitions primary purpose is not to "ruin people's fun" it's so we are all on the same page and can communicate, definitions can change, but the two parities must understand the semantic meaning between the word. (Even if one disagrees with it at least they understand what the other is TRYING to say.) TL;DR one must not use Subjectivity as an excuse that art should not have form, and one must not confuse the concept of form as a legalistic inflexible system, but as a toolkit to build your own interpretation or style. (Style in of itself is something we try to recognize based on reoccurring elements, patterns, or motifs that mark an individual, group, or system of ideologies presence.) Reality is one form, but one can have a form without it lining up 100% with reality, and there can be many different forms that don't follow the same rules, but they do follow rules, the rules are simply different from subject to subject. (In short rules and forms can be subjective themselves and not simply an interpretation or opinion of the same rules.) Assistant:**You're bringing a knife to a gun fight**. By that I mean you're jumping into a conversation that has been going on for eons without any theoretical background. Because, strangely enough, this conversation has been happening since time immemorial and there are those who would agree with your view. They are those who would destroy it. Where you situate yourself in that conversation, where you position yourself within it, is interesting. But to try to state a position within it, without understanding the conversation, proves that you haven't thought it through. >Even if something is made to not be photo realistic or give a perfect impression of reality (Like Impressionism) It still has a form, the form is simply a creation from the artist's own impression rather than an imitation of reality ...] Even many subjective forms might try to imitative objective reality in one way, but choose to ignore or exaggerate certain elements to bring that element of reality to the forefront never the less, it still has form. Here you're cribbing Plato. Well, sort of cribbing Plato, you haven't gone totally bug-nutty on the ideal form of a flower, but you're more or less making his case. There's there's the flower itself, the actual flower, growing in the dirt. Then there's a photo of the flower, a thousand photos of the flower, trying for representation. Then I paint the flower. I try to paint with perfect representation. I won't get perfect, but I attempt for it. Then I can go out into abstractions of the flower (like Monet, like an impressionist). Maybe I paint a cubist flower. The petals are coming out the stem, round shapes are refracted and disordered into rectangular forms, but at the end of the day, I still have a flower. But then I take my cubist painting, hand it to my impressionist friend, and he paints an impressionist form of my painting. Now, we're still painting the flower but we're painting and impressionist rendition of a cubist's rendition of the flower. Is it still a flower? Hmm...maybe. But then I give that painting to my abstract expressionist friend and he draws a big, yellow streak down the canvas, takes a green line and cuts the yellow streak at a diagonal. And he says, "Behold! My flower. It is art!" And you say, "No, a bridge too far, that's just two fucking lines of paint". And many agree. **It is not about form**. That's where your argument goes off the rails. Art has form(s). Form doesn't define art. Art is the relationship between sign and signified. If you give an eight year old an Iphone and send them out in a field, they will take a picture of that flower. But we also agree photography is an art form. What makes my cousin's shitty photo of a flower just a flower photograph versus a photo we'd hang in a gallery? What makes a Georgia O'Keeffe painting different than a bad, finger-painted daisy? It's not a set of rules, a sense of style, technique, or form. **What makes something 'art' is when it transcends the boundaries of sign and signifier**. Art is what happens when you can signify MORE than the connotative value of the sign. **Here's a word-based example**: no matter what, I can't make you feel what I feel, right? Like, we both see the color blue but there's no way to prove that my subjective experience of blue is the same as yours. Yet, we know there's a similarity because we both see the same "blue" things as blue. But I can't jump inside your head and share your vision. At least, not yet. So if I want to express how I'm feeling, I can't just use connotative language. After the miscarriage, I felt sad. That descriptive, it is accurate, but it doesn't make you feel anything. After the miscarriage, I felt depressed. I felt crushed. I felt hopeless. All true, all descriptive, not making you feel my pain. After the miscarriage, my sadness was like cottonmouth in a sandstorm. Metaphor (or simile in this case) is not descriptive. By taking something that does NOT connote, is not literal, but in fact creates a gap or space in meaning, you create an emotion. You still can't feel what i feel, but you will feel something and that something is closer than I could gt you by descriptive language alone. You explain feelings, you create emotions, within the space that can't be descriptive, that is subjective, that defies regular connotation. It's the difference between the finger painting and the O'Keeffe. **Here's an art example**: [Abstract Expressionism looks like a lot of shitty paint on a canvas. But it was an attempt to answer this question: how do I paint the atom bomb? How to I paint the holocaust? How do I paint fascism? How do I paint my feelings after the miscarriage. Artists using this form did NOT want to represent things. They did not want to paint a mushroom cloud and say, "Look, there it is". They went back to primitive forms, to what they thought of as a kind of Jungian, collective mythology of violence and desire. If you think of surrealism as representational dream landscapes, you can think of AE as a kind of non-representational way of visually embodying a nightmare. **Why was it art and not just paint thrown around?** Because when people looked at it, they didn't see the paint. They saw the nightmare. The art communicated to people that vastness, the blackness, the despair, the frenetic energy, the walls closing in. They looked and the message got across. Not because they were told to feel that, but because the art and the mood connected to the audience. **But then we take it a step further** and we get to the glass of water on a table. Normal glass, tap water, little placard (*Still* by Exis007). Or you get a Zebra suspended in Listerine ala Damien Hirst. You want to say, "I look at that and it means fucking nothing to me" and I'll agree with you. The edge of art has always been, will always be, a kind of con-job. Like...how far can we take this, how much can we push, how esoteric can the communication be and still "work" in the sense that working is connecting to the audience. Love or hate that fucking zebra, I feel something when I look at it. What I feel is something akin to rage, but I feel...something. I don't feel anything when I look at my cousin's shitty finger painting. Is it art? I don't know. **You want there to be rules**. But that misses the point. You want it to work like math, like physics, like logic. But that can't happen because art happens in gaps, in subjective experience, in what we feel but cannot rationally explain. I don't know why WCW's The Red Wheelbarrow fills me with sorrow, but it does. I can't explain it. I can explain the form, I can break it down in terms of historicism, I can analyze the line breaks and the twisting and how the little trickle of information brings out a sense of foreboding. I can tell you HOW he does it. I just can't tell you why. >I have to ask how does one discriminate what pieces of art are more "valuable" than others, what one's we choose to put on display and celebrate, and if art is truly only decided by personal opinion That's just the metric. Sorry. "Value" isn't subjective. Value is decided by auctions, by what people will pay. So, that's objective inasmuch as it is a show of hands. If Billy will pay 10 million dollars for the Listerine Zebra, that's what its worth even if you'd have to pay ME 10 mil to let you put that thing in my house. And, as for what goes in a museum, we all collectively decide that too by a show of hands. People pay other people to decide what will trigger an emotional reaction. If they are good at their jobs, people come. If they are bad at their jobs, people won't come and museum closes. You want a better metric. So have a billion people before you. They want to define it, to say what it is and it isn't, to apply rules. And they've failed. Every time. Because inevitably someone comes and puts a glass of water on a little pedestal, calls it *Still* by Exis007 and someone feels...something. Rage? Curiosity? It hangs in their brain, it haunts their dreams. It said SOMETHING to them. It was more than a glass of water because it meant more than what it said. And that's the ballgame.

Human: CMV: Modern Art is not "Real Art" and using the argument that it's subjective is a poor argument. I'm talking about art like simply a random latrine, random globs/strokes of paint, a cup of water being placed on the floor, etc. The argument for modern art seems to be two-fold, one art is subjective and thus anything can be art as long as I believe it is. And two trying to define what is and isn't art or trying to put a label on it is too constrictive and squashes any changes in innovation and art style. My first point I'd like to bring up is a misunderstanding of the definition of subjective, contrary to popular belief it isn't synonymous with opinion. All Opinions are Subjective, but not everything that is subjective is based on opinion. What is Subjective can indeed be based off one's personal feelings and impressions that however does not mean that subjectivity DOESN'T have form. Subjective simply means the impression of an object is based on the frame of reference and impression on the subject, and thus it may not be the same as another person. If I witness the same event as another person. My recall of the event is Subjectively different than the other person, (Even more I attach an interpretation.) HOWEVER it does not mean the scene we did not witness wasn't real and exist outside us. Basically what I'm saying is while it's true that art can be subjective in HOW we interpret it and what we think of it, the object of the art itself that we are interpreting is an actual object. I would also like to point out even two people's different subjective interpretations may be different and may not 100% fall into Objective reality. That our Subjective interpretations still have a form or mode of reasoning behind them. One can have a system of logic that is consistent and built on reasonable axioms, but these self-system of reasoning can still be divorced from external reality, this is the difference between Philosophy and Science. While both are trying to be consistent and logical in modeling the world, Science is attempting to verify with external observation, that if repeated by different subjects will yield similar results. (Thus is independent of the subjective experience of the observer.) Thus I submit that simply saying that anything can be art because it's "subjective" is like confusing how one views a work, with the work itself. (This get's into debates of course of the author's intent vs the audience.) I also feel that one can have Form and still be Subjective (Since one argument is trying to apply form to something ruins the subjectivity.) Even if something is made to not be photo realistic or give a perfect impression of reality (Like Impressionism) It still has a form, the form is simply a creation from the artist's own impression rather than an imitation of reality. To use an example if there was a theoretical universe with different laws of physics then the ones that governed ours, that universe would have an inherently different form than ours and if it didn't exist only exist in the mind of the subject, in other words it is neither objective nor empirical but it has form. Even many subjective forms might try to imitative objective reality in one way, but choose to ignore or exaggerate certain elements to bring that element of reality to the forefront never the less, it still has form. To Simply say anything can be art, is too in effect destroy the purpose of having a word, which is too distinguish and identify one idea distinct from another, if everything can be "art" what is even art if we cannot compare it against what "isn't" art. Even if we try to say "Some art is more artistic then others" can we really do that if we don't have something that "isn't" art at one end of the scale as a point of zero. When you literally cannot tell modern art from a random glob of paint on a canvas, I have to ask how does one discriminate what pieces of art are more "valuable" than others, what one's we choose to put on display and celebrate, and if art is truly only decided by personal opinion, then how can one truly say how valid one interpretation of art is over another, unless it has some form to compare one's interpretation to. To go more deeply into the "defining what is and isn't art" shuts down creativity. I say this, there is nothing to say that definition cannot change and evolve, or that muliple different "forms" cannot be added. However it is another to say that definitions ought to be flexible or that there can be alternate forms, and that there is no definition or forms at all. Without them you lack a language and no way to communicate. Like it or not, definitions primary purpose is not to "ruin people's fun" it's so we are all on the same page and can communicate, definitions can change, but the two parities must understand the semantic meaning between the word. (Even if one disagrees with it at least they understand what the other is TRYING to say.) TL;DR one must not use Subjectivity as an excuse that art should not have form, and one must not confuse the concept of form as a legalistic inflexible system, but as a toolkit to build your own interpretation or style. (Style in of itself is something we try to recognize based on reoccurring elements, patterns, or motifs that mark an individual, group, or system of ideologies presence.) Reality is one form, but one can have a form without it lining up 100% with reality, and there can be many different forms that don't follow the same rules, but they do follow rules, the rules are simply different from subject to subject. (In short rules and forms can be subjective themselves and not simply an interpretation or opinion of the same rules.) Assistant:It's true that subjective understanding does not imply a subjective reality. However, that truth doesn't really change the argument here, because the value of art is *only* in its subjective understanding, and not in any objective reality. The objective reality of a glob paint on canvas is exactly the same as the objective reality of a Monet on canvas. They are paints on a canvas. They have no other objective value; the universe doesn't favor one or the other. Neither is more fit for survival, neither will help you feed your family better, neither will kill your enemies. The *only* value of either is in a person's subjective recognition of them as valuable. That is, the value is in the person who sees either one and has a subjective experience that provides meaning in the context of their mind. This is because beauty and art and meaning are all human constructs. Their value comes only from our widespread recognition that they have value. And on this, it seems like you agree: "rules and forms can differ from subject to subject and can be subjective themselves." What I'm not clear on is why you don't recognize the inherent flexibility in that statement which extends beyond where you're leaving it.

Human: How do you manage sourcing materials and components from suppliers that won't tell you what they sell? I'm really annoyed by a longstanding problem that seems common specifically with the metal distribution industry, at least in my area. There are some small metal shops in town, and none of them publish a list of what they sell, despite their selection effectively never changing. This wouldn't be so much of a problem for materials I can purchase there; I can just go in and browse their shelves and see what they offer, except it's annoying not having a summary including prices for standard lengths. Unfortunately though, there is no source in my city for angle and tubing in aluminum alloys like 6061 and 7075, which I use frequently. The only quasi-local source is a company called Trident Metals (they're elsewhere in the state but make daily delivery runs and so their delivery charge is very reasonable). As you can see from the site, there's no actual list of stocked profiles that they carry, and they have nothing like that to offer when I ask on the phone. So every time I call (every few months or so), I have to waste nontrivial time on the phone going over what they sell and what the prices are, which is usually goes something like: "Do you have __ by __ ?" "Yes." "Ok, do you have __ by __?" "No." "Then do you have __ by __?" "No." "Can you tell me what dimensions you carry in this alloy?" "Well what are you looking for?" ...during which I'm invariably made to feel like I'm a hassle they'd rather not deal with. I'm trying to come up with a reasonable design, and part of my criteria is *what's available for a reasonable price*. I would be a much better and more frequent customer of theirs if I could just read that off of a web page or a reasonably up-to-date catalog page. I could go with Online Metals, Metals Supermarket or some other web-based dealer that actually has their IT shit together, but the prices are so (vastly!) much higher even before shipping, it's difficult to justify. How does any retail industry survive, which refuses to openly list and describe what they sell? And what do engineers do when trying to evaluate design choices based on the availability and cost of various stock materials, when this information is such a pain to acquire? Why is this so hard? How is this normally handled? Assistant:Metal suppliers don't list prices because my company doing 100K a month in sales gets a lot better deal than you doing a one time 1K purchase of 3 feet of rare stuff. Even then it's all down to purchases and contract negotiation on terms or delivery etc and they don't want you to know that machine shop b down the street buys the same stuff for 30% less. Also prices fluctuate so they don't list prices because when you order 1000 feet of bar, they turn around and order 1000 feet from their distributor or producer and the prices may fluctuate. Very few metal suppliers offer direct pricing and if they do it's for "retail" common things or metal they are willing to break down beyond the full or half-stick length. I know this because I make and sell a ton of metal widgets and I'm quoting metal for every buy (www.shotgun-shots.com www.cubit-cubes.com), I try to keep my cash flow such that I can buy at least 1K of any material at a time so I can get better per length or weight pricing, but that's not always realistic. What do I do? I honestly usually build my quote off of what online-metals and metals-depot has they are almost always the most expensive, but they have a good selection so I'll build my cost estimates off that and then depending on order size or how common it is I'll look for it locally then in my state and finally country-wide. If I can stomach online-metals pricing then I know I can probably get a better deal locally, but if not I have a worst case backup. In the metals world unless you are bringing big orders to the table you don't have much leverage, if you only want one stick or a few feet drops you are a waste of time for the big metal suppliers. That being said usually the smaller local suppliers are willing to buy it if you want to pay the price for it being shipped from a regional distributor or manufacturer, but a lot of them have minimums. When you call and they have something that was in stock, but now isn't that's because a big time shop bought 10,000 feet of it and they had a a few hundred left over as safety stock but once it's gone they aren't going to reorder more until another big timer makes the call. Tl:DR design off of what you know you can get on online-metals then send in RFQ to your local or regional distributors. **Unless you are doing 10K or more in sales you aren't a valued customer you are a nuisance order they have to fill.**

Human: How do you manage sourcing materials and components from suppliers that won't tell you what they sell? I'm really annoyed by a longstanding problem that seems common specifically with the metal distribution industry, at least in my area. There are some small metal shops in town, and none of them publish a list of what they sell, despite their selection effectively never changing. This wouldn't be so much of a problem for materials I can purchase there; I can just go in and browse their shelves and see what they offer, except it's annoying not having a summary including prices for standard lengths. Unfortunately though, there is no source in my city for angle and tubing in aluminum alloys like 6061 and 7075, which I use frequently. The only quasi-local source is a company called Trident Metals (they're elsewhere in the state but make daily delivery runs and so their delivery charge is very reasonable). As you can see from the site, there's no actual list of stocked profiles that they carry, and they have nothing like that to offer when I ask on the phone. So every time I call (every few months or so), I have to waste nontrivial time on the phone going over what they sell and what the prices are, which is usually goes something like: "Do you have __ by __ ?" "Yes." "Ok, do you have __ by __?" "No." "Then do you have __ by __?" "No." "Can you tell me what dimensions you carry in this alloy?" "Well what are you looking for?" ...during which I'm invariably made to feel like I'm a hassle they'd rather not deal with. I'm trying to come up with a reasonable design, and part of my criteria is *what's available for a reasonable price*. I would be a much better and more frequent customer of theirs if I could just read that off of a web page or a reasonably up-to-date catalog page. I could go with Online Metals, Metals Supermarket or some other web-based dealer that actually has their IT shit together, but the prices are so (vastly!) much higher even before shipping, it's difficult to justify. How does any retail industry survive, which refuses to openly list and describe what they sell? And what do engineers do when trying to evaluate design choices based on the availability and cost of various stock materials, when this information is such a pain to acquire? Why is this so hard? How is this normally handled? Assistant:So much of the power generation industry is the same. No one has prices for anything. You either have to go to the person they supply through (who also doesn't have public prices) or ask them for a price for their standard items. I assume this is so they can try and give everyone the worst possible deal (and protect the people they give good deals to). The whole thing is incredibly infuriating.

Human: CMV: It's morally acceptable to kill and eat animals because they are fundamentally inferior to humans My point ultimately boils down to the title, I often hear vegetarians/vegans talking about trying to convince people to join their cause, which is fine, it's important to proselytize if you want your movement to grow. In these discussions you'll often see vegans who are utterly baffled when their tactics and arguments fail and people don't listen to them, and I think a major reason for that is they misunderstand how most people think about this. Most people, myself included, simply do not feel that animals deserve the same rights and considerations as humans because they are not sapient, for lack of a better word. There are certainly shortcoming to this argument, but at this point those do not outweigh the rest of it in my eyes. Before you comment here's an argument I've heard before many times that has failed to convince me, and fails to convince many people. My goal with this post is to hear arguments that I haven't been exposed to before, so I'll lay out my rebuttal here in an attempt to encourage people to comment other arguments instead: "Slave owners thought black people were inferior to white people too" 1. The definitions of what makes a person black or white are not rigid, they are mostly societal constructs that are able to and do change over time, I am working with the definition of human being a member of the species Homo Sapiens. 2. It's an argument that ultimately isn't designed to be debated or considered logically in the first place, it serves the purpose of a gotcha that's difficult to refute in the moment to catch people off guard and make them look dumb so that it can be shared on social media as a big win for whoever is saying it. 3. It can be applied retroactively to literally any argument wherein a qualitative judgement is made about the value of existence. Because the argument and the logic it follows can be broken down as "it was once consensus among one group that another group was inferior to them, we have since learned that group was wrong. Therefore you can not consider any group to be inferior to another because it is wrong to do so". This is of course absurd when applied to rocks, which I consider fundamentally inferior to humanity. Even the most hardcore vegans agree that it is ethical to kill and harvest plants and would scoff if you compared them to slave owners, and I think it's a pointless argument to try and apply to this situation. 4. I'm not particularly fond of the equivocation of minority groups to farm animals, considering that was the exact logic used to reinforce the oppression those groups experienced in the first place. Please don't waste my time and yours debating this point. You will not be the first person to try it and I'm sure you can come up with something focusing on the actual point of debate (the title of the post). Assistant:The point about sapience is a difficult one to defend, I find. Studies into the intelligence of animals constantly find them to be surprisingly adept; Crows have been found to be able to perform basic counting and mathematics, as well as being able to fashion tools and solve logical problems. Elephants have been shown to have complex social behaviours, to mourn, console each other... Pigs have demonstrated puzzle and logic solving, we train mice in labs to perform all kinds of tasks... and chimps and apes have even been taught to perform basic sign language, to use "currency", etc... By most measures, most animals rank around the intelligence of a human toddler, so the "sapience" argument can imply some really dark connotations in terms of eugenics and human ethics. Sapience alone could suggest that killing toddlers or the mentally impaired is ethically justifiable. Further, the degree to which people empathise with animals and recognise them as thinking feeling creatures disregards sapience as a factor as well. People own pets- cats, dogs, rabbits- they treat them like members of their family, recognise they are clever enough to know their name, grab their food bowl and bring it when they're hungry, that they have personalities and feelings... and yet then eat burgers with a cognitive dissonance that a cow isn't that far removed from their beloved dog. And unless you're suggesting that everyone who eats burgers on the grounds of sapience wouldn't bat an eyelash to kill and eat their dogs too, we can see how social norms and compartmentalisation have a lot more to do with people's ethics on food than a measured and weighed philosophical consideration of "sapience" as a justification. When it comes to the moral question, it is almost impossible to actually defend the slaughter of animals as morally pure from any logical or philosophical framework; being okay with it depends entirely on compartmentalisation and dissonance.

Human: CMV: It's morally acceptable to kill and eat animals because they are fundamentally inferior to humans My point ultimately boils down to the title, I often hear vegetarians/vegans talking about trying to convince people to join their cause, which is fine, it's important to proselytize if you want your movement to grow. In these discussions you'll often see vegans who are utterly baffled when their tactics and arguments fail and people don't listen to them, and I think a major reason for that is they misunderstand how most people think about this. Most people, myself included, simply do not feel that animals deserve the same rights and considerations as humans because they are not sapient, for lack of a better word. There are certainly shortcoming to this argument, but at this point those do not outweigh the rest of it in my eyes. Before you comment here's an argument I've heard before many times that has failed to convince me, and fails to convince many people. My goal with this post is to hear arguments that I haven't been exposed to before, so I'll lay out my rebuttal here in an attempt to encourage people to comment other arguments instead: "Slave owners thought black people were inferior to white people too" 1. The definitions of what makes a person black or white are not rigid, they are mostly societal constructs that are able to and do change over time, I am working with the definition of human being a member of the species Homo Sapiens. 2. It's an argument that ultimately isn't designed to be debated or considered logically in the first place, it serves the purpose of a gotcha that's difficult to refute in the moment to catch people off guard and make them look dumb so that it can be shared on social media as a big win for whoever is saying it. 3. It can be applied retroactively to literally any argument wherein a qualitative judgement is made about the value of existence. Because the argument and the logic it follows can be broken down as "it was once consensus among one group that another group was inferior to them, we have since learned that group was wrong. Therefore you can not consider any group to be inferior to another because it is wrong to do so". This is of course absurd when applied to rocks, which I consider fundamentally inferior to humanity. Even the most hardcore vegans agree that it is ethical to kill and harvest plants and would scoff if you compared them to slave owners, and I think it's a pointless argument to try and apply to this situation. 4. I'm not particularly fond of the equivocation of minority groups to farm animals, considering that was the exact logic used to reinforce the oppression those groups experienced in the first place. Please don't waste my time and yours debating this point. You will not be the first person to try it and I'm sure you can come up with something focusing on the actual point of debate (the title of the post). Assistant:your base assumption, that it’s moral to kill an “inferior” creature precisely because of its inferiority, is strange to me. leaving the “inferior humans” argument aside, is animal cruelty OK by you?

Human: I think my mom is going to try to kill my grandmother and make it look like suicide. For some background, I live in WA and my mother and grandmother live together in NJ. My grandmother is 82, diabetic, mostly blind, has anxiety and needs help with some daily tasks (shopping, hygiene, etc.), but otherwise is doing fairly well considering. She had surgery about a week and a half ago to have a toe amputated, which is when this whole fiasco started. My mother is mentally ill and refuses to seek treatment for it, and has a long history of abusing other people and/or overlooking abuse of others for her own gain. That is to say that her killing her own mother definitely would be something in the realm of possibilities for her. She also has about 15 years experience in the medical field (EMS), so she knows a thing or two. Since my grandmother's surgery, my mother has been really playing up the fact that my grandmother is depressed. She's always been the alarmist type, so I just brushed it off, but the way she spoke about her was as though she was insisting she thought my grandmother was going to pass soon. At some point during this time, my aunt tried to call my grandmother to see how her recovery was going, but my mom answered (GM was napping), went off of my aunt, and to my understanding lied and said that my grandmother couldn't talk because something had happened during surgery and now she needs a speech therapist. I spoke my my grandmother on Sunday and there is no difference in her speech, so clearly the speech therapist was BS. My grandmother also expressed that she feels great, that her leg gets sore occasionally but they put a salve on it and the soreness goes away, and otherwise she's healing and recovering well, isn't on any pain medication or antibiotics, and her foot looks good. I know that she's my grandmother and doesn't like for me to worry, but all of this does align with my mother's updates, except that my mother keeps insisting upon the depression. Today my mom messaged me again insisting that my grandmother is depressed, she's having a hard time recovering, etc. and telling me that she spoke with a social worker who is helping her take the necessary steps to become her paid caretaker. She also stated that she's seeking POA for my grandmother's medical care and "affairs", that they're putting together a living will, a will, and making funeral arrangements for my grandmother's cremation. She says that my grandmother insists we use the cheapest funeral home we can find (I believe this is true) and that she wants us to use her life insurance to pay the cremation costs, and split the remainder between my mother, myself and one of my brothers (I suspect this is a lie). The problem is, my brother and I are the only beneficiaries on my grandmother's life insurance, which is where the POA comes in. I knew my mom was going to try to weasel her way into the life insurance somehow, and now I know how she's going to do it. Several hours after this conversation it dawned on me - I believe she's planning to save up money for a while and kill my grandmother, making it look like a suicide, and have everything left to her. I plan on talking to my uncle and explaining my suspicions to him, as well as trying to get in touch with the social worker, but I was wondering what other steps I can take to try to prevent this from happening. Can I request that a social worker check in on my grandmother and speak to her privately on a regular basis? Can I demand an autopsy upon her death under suspicion of foul play, even if it goes against my grandmother's final wishes? Is there a way that I can get the police involved to stop the cremation from happening before I'm able to get an autopsy performed? What steps could my uncle take to prevent my mother from gaining POA and putting herself on my grandmother's life insurance? Any and all advice is welcome, as I truly don't know what to do in this situation. Just a note: A caregiver other than my mom is out of the question - there's no way my mother would allow it, and my grandmother would vouch for my mother because my mother is the only person she's comfortable with taking care of her due to her anxiety. Assistant:Conservator, that would mean that in the event of your Grandmothers death, your uncle or you would proceed with final wishes and but considered a primary party. This also, usually, comes with a boiler plate power of attorney. At least the ones I've seen have. You should also have a Will made with some more specific language as to what happens with the life insurance. I will say, in many cases that I've seen (as a legal assistant mind you) Conservators have some power. Especially if/when you ask for police to open an investigation. ​ Consequently, if your mom has a diagnosed mental illness, you can have her declared unfit and have an order created to get the insurance in the form of a trust with terms either spelled out by a Will or the Conservator. This would also stop your mother from ever being able to be assigned POA over anyone. That said, this will likely trash your relationship with your mom.

Human: I think my mom is going to try to kill my grandmother and make it look like suicide. For some background, I live in WA and my mother and grandmother live together in NJ. My grandmother is 82, diabetic, mostly blind, has anxiety and needs help with some daily tasks (shopping, hygiene, etc.), but otherwise is doing fairly well considering. She had surgery about a week and a half ago to have a toe amputated, which is when this whole fiasco started. My mother is mentally ill and refuses to seek treatment for it, and has a long history of abusing other people and/or overlooking abuse of others for her own gain. That is to say that her killing her own mother definitely would be something in the realm of possibilities for her. She also has about 15 years experience in the medical field (EMS), so she knows a thing or two. Since my grandmother's surgery, my mother has been really playing up the fact that my grandmother is depressed. She's always been the alarmist type, so I just brushed it off, but the way she spoke about her was as though she was insisting she thought my grandmother was going to pass soon. At some point during this time, my aunt tried to call my grandmother to see how her recovery was going, but my mom answered (GM was napping), went off of my aunt, and to my understanding lied and said that my grandmother couldn't talk because something had happened during surgery and now she needs a speech therapist. I spoke my my grandmother on Sunday and there is no difference in her speech, so clearly the speech therapist was BS. My grandmother also expressed that she feels great, that her leg gets sore occasionally but they put a salve on it and the soreness goes away, and otherwise she's healing and recovering well, isn't on any pain medication or antibiotics, and her foot looks good. I know that she's my grandmother and doesn't like for me to worry, but all of this does align with my mother's updates, except that my mother keeps insisting upon the depression. Today my mom messaged me again insisting that my grandmother is depressed, she's having a hard time recovering, etc. and telling me that she spoke with a social worker who is helping her take the necessary steps to become her paid caretaker. She also stated that she's seeking POA for my grandmother's medical care and "affairs", that they're putting together a living will, a will, and making funeral arrangements for my grandmother's cremation. She says that my grandmother insists we use the cheapest funeral home we can find (I believe this is true) and that she wants us to use her life insurance to pay the cremation costs, and split the remainder between my mother, myself and one of my brothers (I suspect this is a lie). The problem is, my brother and I are the only beneficiaries on my grandmother's life insurance, which is where the POA comes in. I knew my mom was going to try to weasel her way into the life insurance somehow, and now I know how she's going to do it. Several hours after this conversation it dawned on me - I believe she's planning to save up money for a while and kill my grandmother, making it look like a suicide, and have everything left to her. I plan on talking to my uncle and explaining my suspicions to him, as well as trying to get in touch with the social worker, but I was wondering what other steps I can take to try to prevent this from happening. Can I request that a social worker check in on my grandmother and speak to her privately on a regular basis? Can I demand an autopsy upon her death under suspicion of foul play, even if it goes against my grandmother's final wishes? Is there a way that I can get the police involved to stop the cremation from happening before I'm able to get an autopsy performed? What steps could my uncle take to prevent my mother from gaining POA and putting herself on my grandmother's life insurance? Any and all advice is welcome, as I truly don't know what to do in this situation. Just a note: A caregiver other than my mom is out of the question - there's no way my mother would allow it, and my grandmother would vouch for my mother because my mother is the only person she's comfortable with taking care of her due to her anxiety. Assistant:Sounds like possible elder abuse to me. I have no idea where you are, or who the relevant authority is there, but your local police should be able to point you in the right direction if you give them a call.

Human: Border Patrol truck totaled my car, lied to the FD on my behalf and are now being evasive about insurance This happened in Arizona Yesterday, my gf and I were making a left turn with a green arrow and an oncoming truck ran the red light and hit us so hard that we flipped all the way around and hit another car. They weren't in a chase or anything, and didn't have sirens on. The driver was just being negligent. Immediately the BP agent's supervisor swarmed onto the scene with other people in their convoy, making it difficult to tell what was going on. I spoke to one police officer who I think took a statement? Can't be sure. The BP handled most of everything. I asked for proof of insurance but they said it was handled differently, and they only showed me a slip of paper that said they were exempt from something with some legalize I don't quite understand. I took photos of everything and was sure to get a few phone numbers from witnesses who saw that I wasnt at fault, which I gave to the police as well as kept copies of for myself. When the FD came they asked if anything was broken, I said no but we might have whiplash and I'd like to be checked out. They must not have heard me since they immediately got back in the engine and went to leave, and the BP agent wanted to ask me more questions. Later, when when the ambulance came the BP supervisor told them we had denied care, which I told them was untrue and they checked us and took our vitals. The BP wanted me to sign something for them to hook up a computer to my car for diagnostics and I got rather upset and mouthed off a bit about how they were the perpetrators looking to cover their buddy's ass. And if I was going to sign anything, it would be with my insurance and not them. I tried to get a photo of the truck's license plates but the agents there refused to let me leave the side of the street I was on to do so. On the phone with my insurance, the operator said she wasn't sure what to do, and that my adjuster would call me later today. I did go to the ER later that afternoon and got Xrays, and nothing is broken. But my right wrist steel hurts like hell and I make most of my income from digital art and playing bass, which I currently can't do on account of the pain. On top of that I have PTSD from being an EMT and this whole thing has me pretty rattled. Almost checked back into the hospital for psych stuff last night but wanted to stay home to comfort my GF. This whole situation has been painful. What are my options moving forward? Assistant:Go through your insurer only. You do not want to be dealing directly with the border patrol.

Human: Border Patrol truck totaled my car, lied to the FD on my behalf and are now being evasive about insurance This happened in Arizona Yesterday, my gf and I were making a left turn with a green arrow and an oncoming truck ran the red light and hit us so hard that we flipped all the way around and hit another car. They weren't in a chase or anything, and didn't have sirens on. The driver was just being negligent. Immediately the BP agent's supervisor swarmed onto the scene with other people in their convoy, making it difficult to tell what was going on. I spoke to one police officer who I think took a statement? Can't be sure. The BP handled most of everything. I asked for proof of insurance but they said it was handled differently, and they only showed me a slip of paper that said they were exempt from something with some legalize I don't quite understand. I took photos of everything and was sure to get a few phone numbers from witnesses who saw that I wasnt at fault, which I gave to the police as well as kept copies of for myself. When the FD came they asked if anything was broken, I said no but we might have whiplash and I'd like to be checked out. They must not have heard me since they immediately got back in the engine and went to leave, and the BP agent wanted to ask me more questions. Later, when when the ambulance came the BP supervisor told them we had denied care, which I told them was untrue and they checked us and took our vitals. The BP wanted me to sign something for them to hook up a computer to my car for diagnostics and I got rather upset and mouthed off a bit about how they were the perpetrators looking to cover their buddy's ass. And if I was going to sign anything, it would be with my insurance and not them. I tried to get a photo of the truck's license plates but the agents there refused to let me leave the side of the street I was on to do so. On the phone with my insurance, the operator said she wasn't sure what to do, and that my adjuster would call me later today. I did go to the ER later that afternoon and got Xrays, and nothing is broken. But my right wrist steel hurts like hell and I make most of my income from digital art and playing bass, which I currently can't do on account of the pain. On top of that I have PTSD from being an EMT and this whole thing has me pretty rattled. Almost checked back into the hospital for psych stuff last night but wanted to stay home to comfort my GF. This whole situation has been painful. What are my options moving forward? Assistant:Keep working with your insurance adjustor. There must be some avenue when the other party is a governmental agency -- perhaps use that term rather than BP. I looked around for similar cases and the insurance company had to sue the federal government. But your insurance company should be working with you.

Human: TN - Unhelpful neighbors let dog roam, dog is nearly run over on our busy street constantly. No animal control or animal shelter; non-aggressive roaming dogs aren't a police issue in this rural area. No concrete evidence of actual neglect or abuse. How to save dog? Small Tennessee town. My next door neighbors aren’t very good animal owners. Our street is short and residential but busy because it’s a “short cut” road through town. They have a chihuahua that roams pretty freely. It roams into our fenced in driveway/yard and chases squirrels and birds. It’s not destructive, just annoying, but it’s not my biggest concern. That poor sweet dumbass escapes death by moving car at least 5 times per day. At least 3 or 4 times per week, I’m sprinting outside toward the street, arms waving, looking *insane* to get the attention of a driver who can’t see that 50 feet ahead over the small hill, there’s an idiot dog the same color as the road laying in their lane, eating butterflies or doing some other unhelpful deathwish shit. I see cars swerve dangerously close to mailboxes and the sidewalks, and slam brakes when they see the dog in their paths. I’ve gone to my neighbors about it specifically 4 times in the last 8 months, not counting the times I’ve knocked on their door to physically return the animal to them after finding it napping in the road or similarly not ideal place. The first 2 times, they acted surprised but willing to work on it. The last 2 times, the last one being 4 days ago, they switched up to saying that they don’t keep him fenced in because “he just barks and gets the other dog goin’” and that he’d be fine if I just left him alone; he’s only been hit once! They were really irritated that I had bothered them and questioned their actions. They *have* a fenced in back yard **where they keep another dog**! It’s just insanity. The solution is obviously animal control, or finding some legal variation of “Oh look at this lost dog I found and have never seen before, better take him to the animal shelter…?” but neither our city or county have an animal control unit for strays or an animal shelter. The next largest county over has both, but animal control won’t travel out of county and the animal shelter only accepts surrenders/drop offs if you live in the county. It’s not something I want to ‘take to the police’ necessarily, mostly because this area of the state is generally super rural, meaning roaming animals are normal, and the police definitely already know about this dog (from having to navigate their cars around it or hit their siren/horn to get it to move). What can I do to save this dog? Assistant:Not your problem. Unless there is a law that requires dogs to be fenced or leashed then the owners are completely within their rights to let the dog roam free. Not everything stupid is illegal.

Human: TN - Unhelpful neighbors let dog roam, dog is nearly run over on our busy street constantly. No animal control or animal shelter; non-aggressive roaming dogs aren't a police issue in this rural area. No concrete evidence of actual neglect or abuse. How to save dog? Small Tennessee town. My next door neighbors aren’t very good animal owners. Our street is short and residential but busy because it’s a “short cut” road through town. They have a chihuahua that roams pretty freely. It roams into our fenced in driveway/yard and chases squirrels and birds. It’s not destructive, just annoying, but it’s not my biggest concern. That poor sweet dumbass escapes death by moving car at least 5 times per day. At least 3 or 4 times per week, I’m sprinting outside toward the street, arms waving, looking *insane* to get the attention of a driver who can’t see that 50 feet ahead over the small hill, there’s an idiot dog the same color as the road laying in their lane, eating butterflies or doing some other unhelpful deathwish shit. I see cars swerve dangerously close to mailboxes and the sidewalks, and slam brakes when they see the dog in their paths. I’ve gone to my neighbors about it specifically 4 times in the last 8 months, not counting the times I’ve knocked on their door to physically return the animal to them after finding it napping in the road or similarly not ideal place. The first 2 times, they acted surprised but willing to work on it. The last 2 times, the last one being 4 days ago, they switched up to saying that they don’t keep him fenced in because “he just barks and gets the other dog goin’” and that he’d be fine if I just left him alone; he’s only been hit once! They were really irritated that I had bothered them and questioned their actions. They *have* a fenced in back yard **where they keep another dog**! It’s just insanity. The solution is obviously animal control, or finding some legal variation of “Oh look at this lost dog I found and have never seen before, better take him to the animal shelter…?” but neither our city or county have an animal control unit for strays or an animal shelter. The next largest county over has both, but animal control won’t travel out of county and the animal shelter only accepts surrenders/drop offs if you live in the county. It’s not something I want to ‘take to the police’ necessarily, mostly because this area of the state is generally super rural, meaning roaming animals are normal, and the police definitely already know about this dog (from having to navigate their cars around it or hit their siren/horn to get it to move). What can I do to save this dog? Assistant:Do you have an HOA?

Human: CMV: If Biden wins the Democratic Primary, then Trump is basically guaranteed to be reelected in the General Election. This is coming from someone who watched the 2016 election while under 18, who was initially a Warren supporter for 2020 w/Sanders as a second choice, and now a Sanders supporter right before the Iowa Caucus. To preference: I think any democrat (outside of Gabbard and Bloomberg) are leagues better than Trump in a multitude of ways. I personally consider myself a Social Democrat/Progressive, but I would vote Biden in a heartbeat in the general to make sure Trump is defeated. This CMV is to hopefully give me some peace at mind for Super Tuesday if Biden comes around and becomes the leading candidate for the primary, and to not become extremely anxious with the future. But with that out the way, here are my main concerns regarding Biden: -Policy wise, he's significantly more moderate than the rest of the candidates outside of Bloomberg. This makes me fear that hardcore sanders supporters who have polled to be more "their candidate or no candidate" will not turnout in the general, hurting the chances to beat Trump. -Personality wise, I find that his frequent gaffes show a sense of age and mental decay, unlike other candidates within his age group. This makes me fear that he'll get destroyed in a debate vs. Trump just through being out of his element (if there even are general election debates). Not to mention the significant number of poor pictures of Biden with young uncomfortable girls. That could really damage his image. -In regards to his history, the whole Hunter Biden / Ukraine situation screams to me as something similar to Clinton & her emails / benghazi / uranium one / insert other scandal here. Now, I don't think any of the above were illegal activities, nor even bad actions by Biden or Clinton. I find it to be a smear campaign by the GOP to discredit them early before the general election, with the idea that the GOP/Trump expected Biden to be the leading candidate to win the primary (and in turn have the most mud prepared to throw at him). So while a lot of this is false or lies, I am fearful that it will damage Biden's image enough in the general election to hurt his chances at beating Trump. -In regards to the "moderate vote", I don't believe any democratic candidate have the means to sway someone who is pro trump. Trump's whole shtick is populism with a cult-like sense of connection. Biden's plan, to me, seems to be one of false hope. It's been previously studied that we're in a political war between urban and rural for democrats & the GOP, and no matter who will lead the primary, the results will be the same: Urban will overwhelmingly support the Democrat, Rural will overwhelmingly support Trump, with suburban leaning Democrat. But if Biden's whole plan is to focus on rural areas, then suburban areas will feel like they're getting ignored and forgotten, which to me seems like a repeat of 2016 all over again. Now with this in mind, compare this to what would happen in the General if Sanders won. -Policy wise, the only people who would potentially not vote for him are economically conservative ideologies, i.e. those who would already support Trump in the general anyways. Rank in file democrats would choose "blue no matter who", and even more moderate or conservative people might still vote for Sanders over Trump, see Joe Walsh for an example. Then combine that with Sanders supporters having their preferred candidate, there won't be any issue with voter turnout in the general as "bernie or bust" wouldn't happen. Sure he calls himself a socialist, but to be fair Trump would call any democrat a "socialist" due to how much the overton window has shifted in the US. -Personality wise, he is as sharp as a tack. Now sure, there might be some damaging quotes that Sanders have made in the past (castro for example), but they are more based around policy than personality, and I feel the general election will be more based around personality than policy (i.e. populism). -Historically, Sanders has been consistent and has already admitted to past mistakes or votes. So overall, I don't think Sanders would be hurt by his history. Now sure, there might be some topics of Russia attempting to support Sanders, although I find this to be more along the lines of spreading chaos and division rather than actually supporting Sanders' policies (he's already condemned russia for this, and supports sanctions on russia as well as SA and other notable countries in similar situations). -In regards to the "moderate vote", like before, I don't think this will be much of an issue as the vast majority of moderates would already be supporting Trump over any democrat. But even then, I still think Sanders would have a better chance than Biden to potentially sway voters over in this isle, as due to Sanders' similarly populist appeal akin to Trump, in which he can likely grab some strong support from lower-politically educated voters. So please, help me change my view, or at least give me the comfort that if Biden does win the primary / super tuesday, he can still likely beat Trump. Assistant:Why do progressive Democrats hate Biden so much? I could buy it if they hated Obama, but most people like Obama and thought he did a great job. Biden was second in command during 8 of the best years in recent history, and his policy proposals are just a slightly more progressive version of happened then. I can understand liking Sanders more than Biden. That's based on policy. But actually disliking Biden is ridiculous to me. If progressive Democrats particularly disliked Hillary Clinton, fine. Maybe she was uniquely corrupt or horrible to Sanders supporters. But Biden did nothing wrong except run against Sanders. I mean even Elizabeth Warren is getting an insane amount of hate for not being Sanders, and her policy positions are very similar to his. Biden was VP during the Obama administration. He wasn't a joke like on the show Veep. Obama genuinely considers him a close friend and confidante. I mean he surprised Biden with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. That's not something he needed to do at all. And for the conspiracy minded folks out there, if Obama was just trying to set the Democrats up for another win, he would have given one to Hillary Clinton while she was running. The only reason he didn't endorse Biden from the start was because he wanted to avoid giving the impression that Biden was being selected by establishment Democrats. But now that Biden is starting to pull in so many votes from regular people (he's currently winning the popular vote), it's changing the dynamic. I think everyone is seeing this election though the most cynical lenses possible. That's the Trump-effect. But I genuinely think that once the dust settles, Democrats both progressive and moderate will support Biden. Not because they have to in order to beat Trump. But because Biden is a good person and a great leader. As a final point, Biden is still marginally beating Trump in polls despite the fact that the Democratic Party is so split. If it actually unites the way I think it will, then Biden is going to win in a landslide.

Human: CMV: If Biden wins the Democratic Primary, then Trump is basically guaranteed to be reelected in the General Election. This is coming from someone who watched the 2016 election while under 18, who was initially a Warren supporter for 2020 w/Sanders as a second choice, and now a Sanders supporter right before the Iowa Caucus. To preference: I think any democrat (outside of Gabbard and Bloomberg) are leagues better than Trump in a multitude of ways. I personally consider myself a Social Democrat/Progressive, but I would vote Biden in a heartbeat in the general to make sure Trump is defeated. This CMV is to hopefully give me some peace at mind for Super Tuesday if Biden comes around and becomes the leading candidate for the primary, and to not become extremely anxious with the future. But with that out the way, here are my main concerns regarding Biden: -Policy wise, he's significantly more moderate than the rest of the candidates outside of Bloomberg. This makes me fear that hardcore sanders supporters who have polled to be more "their candidate or no candidate" will not turnout in the general, hurting the chances to beat Trump. -Personality wise, I find that his frequent gaffes show a sense of age and mental decay, unlike other candidates within his age group. This makes me fear that he'll get destroyed in a debate vs. Trump just through being out of his element (if there even are general election debates). Not to mention the significant number of poor pictures of Biden with young uncomfortable girls. That could really damage his image. -In regards to his history, the whole Hunter Biden / Ukraine situation screams to me as something similar to Clinton & her emails / benghazi / uranium one / insert other scandal here. Now, I don't think any of the above were illegal activities, nor even bad actions by Biden or Clinton. I find it to be a smear campaign by the GOP to discredit them early before the general election, with the idea that the GOP/Trump expected Biden to be the leading candidate to win the primary (and in turn have the most mud prepared to throw at him). So while a lot of this is false or lies, I am fearful that it will damage Biden's image enough in the general election to hurt his chances at beating Trump. -In regards to the "moderate vote", I don't believe any democratic candidate have the means to sway someone who is pro trump. Trump's whole shtick is populism with a cult-like sense of connection. Biden's plan, to me, seems to be one of false hope. It's been previously studied that we're in a political war between urban and rural for democrats & the GOP, and no matter who will lead the primary, the results will be the same: Urban will overwhelmingly support the Democrat, Rural will overwhelmingly support Trump, with suburban leaning Democrat. But if Biden's whole plan is to focus on rural areas, then suburban areas will feel like they're getting ignored and forgotten, which to me seems like a repeat of 2016 all over again. Now with this in mind, compare this to what would happen in the General if Sanders won. -Policy wise, the only people who would potentially not vote for him are economically conservative ideologies, i.e. those who would already support Trump in the general anyways. Rank in file democrats would choose "blue no matter who", and even more moderate or conservative people might still vote for Sanders over Trump, see Joe Walsh for an example. Then combine that with Sanders supporters having their preferred candidate, there won't be any issue with voter turnout in the general as "bernie or bust" wouldn't happen. Sure he calls himself a socialist, but to be fair Trump would call any democrat a "socialist" due to how much the overton window has shifted in the US. -Personality wise, he is as sharp as a tack. Now sure, there might be some damaging quotes that Sanders have made in the past (castro for example), but they are more based around policy than personality, and I feel the general election will be more based around personality than policy (i.e. populism). -Historically, Sanders has been consistent and has already admitted to past mistakes or votes. So overall, I don't think Sanders would be hurt by his history. Now sure, there might be some topics of Russia attempting to support Sanders, although I find this to be more along the lines of spreading chaos and division rather than actually supporting Sanders' policies (he's already condemned russia for this, and supports sanctions on russia as well as SA and other notable countries in similar situations). -In regards to the "moderate vote", like before, I don't think this will be much of an issue as the vast majority of moderates would already be supporting Trump over any democrat. But even then, I still think Sanders would have a better chance than Biden to potentially sway voters over in this isle, as due to Sanders' similarly populist appeal akin to Trump, in which he can likely grab some strong support from lower-politically educated voters. So please, help me change my view, or at least give me the comfort that if Biden does win the primary / super tuesday, he can still likely beat Trump. Assistant:- nobody can say for sure who will win, even the polls. It all depends on turnout - with that said, Biden looks much more like a national candidate than any other moderate. - I understand why people like Bernie but for Democrats who disagree with Sanders’s agenda or who worry he is a weaker general election candidate, there is now only one real alternative: Biden. - the only thing that counts is the Electoral College. there are multiple ways for Democrats to win the Electoral College, but there aren’t as many as you’d think. The party’s nominee needs to win all the states Clinton did in 2016 — she got a total of 232 electoral votes to Trump’s 306 — and then he or she has to get enough states to get to the magic number. The Upper Midwest trio that went to Trump last time around (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) are an obvious target, but there are also a handful of Sunbelt states (Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona) that Democrats can look to as well. Bernie Sanders path is different from a Mike Bloomberg, Joe Biden, or Elizabeth Warren one. - If Bernie Sanders is the nominee, he’s going to lean into the working-class states where his populism has more appeal. Those include Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, although his pledge to ban fracking is problematic in Pennsylvania. one place Sanders might struggle is Florida. His comments about Fidel Castro and the Cuban communist regime aren’t going to do him any favors among the state’s Cuban population. And his support skews young, which Florida voters are not. in a state like Arizona, Sanders may gain in appeal to young and Latino voters, but he struggles more with other demographics. One Arizona poll from December showed Sanders trailing Trump by 13 points in a head-to-head matchup. Biden, on the other hand, was just a point behind the president. - While Sanders’s path is probably more through the Rustbelt than the Sunbelt, Biden’s might be a mix of both. He could also put Florida in play and perhaps Georgia, especially if he were to have Stacey Abrams, who came close to winning the governorship there in 2018, on the ticket with him. - There are so many factors that can come into play by election. The economy is not as strong as Trump says it is. This coronavirus could have a huge impact. Especially Trumps response to it. Trump has solid support but he hits a wall. Again, the one thing I know is dont make predictions now. - I have been voting since Reagan and seen many elections come and go. I understand the young people skew Bernie and see a lot of bias in your post. the "moderate" vote is the average Democrat. There has never been a socialist candidate in US history to be voted to President. FDR did not like the socialist in his party and said Universal Health care is not pragmatic. I think Biden has a better chance than Bernie but again, dont take what I say, nobody knows. People dont for 5 point plans, they go by their gut. I think a majority of people in swing states would stomach Biden over Bernie any day.

Human: (Canada, Ontario) Former high school classmate "crashed" in my driveway, is demanding outrageous sums of money for damages. So this happened yesterday afternoon and I think that it has everything to do with the fact that my grandfather is giving me a lot of money. I just need to know how worried I should be about this guys claims and if I really am negligent in anything here. I'll apologize ahead of time for the length of this. Yesterday afternoon I was at home raking the yard with my girlfriend when we hear a fairly loud crash. I look and see that a car has crashed at the end of my driveway. I tell my girlfriend to call 911, duck inside to grab my first aid kit and rush out to see if the occupants were okay. Now I live pretty far out in the country and all the houses are pretty far back from the road. Basically it takes me a bit of time to run to the car (30 seconds or so). As I'm running it doesn't make sense to me how the car crashed. It's like it purposefully ran off the road and I worry that someone had an brain aneurysm or something while driving. I get there and there are two people in the car. A male driver, and a female passenger in the front. The driver is bleeding from his forehead but conscious and seemingly alert. It looks like he smashed it off the steering wheel since the airbags didn't deploy. The female passenger has a black eye for some reason but seems to be fine otherwise. I open the drivers door and ask them both if they are okay and tell the driver not to move his head in case he has a spinal injury. I probably should of said that to the passenger too but the blood made me focus entirely on the driver. As I'm saying this the driver fucking flips on me. He starts going off on how this is all my fault and how my driveway is unsafe and how he is going to sue me for this. The guy is goddamn livid and even though I told him to not move he tries to get out of the car. Now there is some background I should tell you about my driveway. Where I am there are large drainage ditches dug alongside of the country road (They are about 3 feet deep and 12 feet wide). All the houses have a sort of bridge that you have to cross to get to their driveways. I've always been worried about driving off of it so I always stick neon orange reflective poles on the sides of this little bridge-like thing in autumn so I can tell where the driveway is on really snowy days in winter. There had been 4 up at the time of the crash (2 right by the road, and 2 closer to my house). To make it easier understand I drew it out in paint. Even though I'm pleading with the guy to not move he removes his seat-belt and gets out of the car. He is calling me every name in the book and going on about how he was trying to turn around and my unsafe driveway caused him to crash. He's going on about how his car doesn't have insurance (which by law you need in Ontario) and how he needs the car for work and how now I need to buy him a new car. This car in question was a rusty old cavalier, probably a 1995. I'm completely taken aback by this, I went out trying to help someone and now this guy is demanding I pay for everything under the sun. I tell him to calm down and that he really shouldn't move because of the accident. I tell him that we already called 911 and that help was on the way. "Did you fucking call the cops!?" He got red in the face and I thought for sure he was going to attack me. He completely flipped out and pushed me hard a couple times and we started yelling at each other. I didn't touch him at all though. With all the yelling and him acting aggressively, which involved him stepping up to me and asking me if I want to fight while holding his neck because I assume it hurts I didn't notice the cop coming down the road but he did. He drops down and starts wailing about how much it hurts and how I attacked him for crashing his car. He is begging and pleading for help which the cop hears and takes to mean I had just been attacking him. Blood + guy on the ground crying for help while I'm standing above him doesn't look good for me. My face gets intimate with the gravel and I get cuffed. Long story short what happened next was the cop is talking to the guy and trying to give first aid. The fire department and an ambulance get there and the female passenger breaks into hysterics about how she was pregnant and my unsafe driveway might have killed her baby. Seriously, she was calm but conscious before more people showed up (though she told the cop later she was unconscious). My girlfriend is freaking out because I'm cuffed. some neighbors come over to say he guy was faking it, and generally there is a lot of yelling. It got pretty confusing but there was one thing I noticed. The general theme those two were going on about was how it was my driveways fault. Anyone who was there got told about it by either the driver or the passenger. The guy and the girl get taken to hospital and I narrowly avoid being arrested. Thankfully my neighbors across the street came out when they heard the noise, saw the guy menacing me, and were able to convince the police officers that I never laid a hand on the guy. In fact they made a point of mentioning the guys theatrics and how he was only "injured" when he saw the cruiser coming down the road. Today I get a Facebook message from the guy who was the driver of the car and he is demanding what adds up to millions from me. He goes on about how my property was unsafe and how the accident was entirely my fault because I didn't maintain the property. Seriously, Facebook, no lawyer was involved on his part so far. He also says that if I don't pay up "there will be consequences" and then he will sue me into oblivion (Yes, that exact order). His demands are so completely insane that I compiled a list; - New car of his choice (not replacement, brand new) ($?????) - Pain and suffering ($250,000) - He claims that he is going to miss work and I owe him for that ($1.7 million) - He also says that he can't work anymore because his neck hurts to I'll owe him for that too ($2.5 million) - Emotional trauma ($150,000 each for him and his girlfriend) - Apparently his passenger is his girlfriend and she is pregnant so I owe her a million for her and for the child - $100,000 for "causing trouble with the cops" Here is the thing, I never told him my name. I was cuffed by the cop and he was taken away by ambulance before I identified myself to the police officer. Plus we have 6 mutual friends, all from high school. I sent him the "I never told you my name" and he deleted his Facebook or blocked me (I did screenshot the message with his name and his profile before that so it's all there saved). I asked one of the mutual friends I'm pretty close with about the guy and he said that he was living in another major city about 2 hours away from me and had tried to shake him down for money in the past. Apparently he's been doing that with a few people and is even on disability for an injury at someplace he worked before. My Lawyer is on vacation until Wednesday so I figured I would get everyone's opinion here. What I want to ask is how at risk am I for being sued? I know he is being insane with his demands and that no judge in his right mind would give him as much as he was asking but from what I've said is my property unsafe? They redid the drainage ditch about 5 years ago (before I moved in) and there isn't a single pothole in my driveway. Did I do anything wrong by trying to help the guy? I opened the door because I wanted to make sure he was still breathing but should I have just waited for the ambulance? He moved himself but I'm worried that he might try to claim I moved him because we were sort of obscured by the ditch. I also would like to know what recourse I have against this guy. I don't need money but if he has been doing this to people for a while now what information can I give to the police that would help them to charge him? I'm 99% sure that the results of the investigation will clear me but should I try and contact the other people he allegedly did this sort of thing to and let them know about my situation so they could come forward? Thanks for taking the time to read this. Assistant:> my driveways fault Hahahahahahahahaha. This guy sounds like a total clown. Don't pay him a single dime. If he wants to sue you, contact your house insurer. They will retain a lawyer for you and they will pay for everything including the lawsuit and a(n unlikely) settlement. It actually might be a good idea to call your insurer now just to file a report (not a claim) to explain what happened. My old firm used to *love* getting retained by one particular insurance company to defend claims like this (the way you've explained it) because they had an unwritten rule that they would take every bullshit claim to trial and give the plaintiff nothing.

Human: (Canada, Ontario) Former high school classmate "crashed" in my driveway, is demanding outrageous sums of money for damages. So this happened yesterday afternoon and I think that it has everything to do with the fact that my grandfather is giving me a lot of money. I just need to know how worried I should be about this guys claims and if I really am negligent in anything here. I'll apologize ahead of time for the length of this. Yesterday afternoon I was at home raking the yard with my girlfriend when we hear a fairly loud crash. I look and see that a car has crashed at the end of my driveway. I tell my girlfriend to call 911, duck inside to grab my first aid kit and rush out to see if the occupants were okay. Now I live pretty far out in the country and all the houses are pretty far back from the road. Basically it takes me a bit of time to run to the car (30 seconds or so). As I'm running it doesn't make sense to me how the car crashed. It's like it purposefully ran off the road and I worry that someone had an brain aneurysm or something while driving. I get there and there are two people in the car. A male driver, and a female passenger in the front. The driver is bleeding from his forehead but conscious and seemingly alert. It looks like he smashed it off the steering wheel since the airbags didn't deploy. The female passenger has a black eye for some reason but seems to be fine otherwise. I open the drivers door and ask them both if they are okay and tell the driver not to move his head in case he has a spinal injury. I probably should of said that to the passenger too but the blood made me focus entirely on the driver. As I'm saying this the driver fucking flips on me. He starts going off on how this is all my fault and how my driveway is unsafe and how he is going to sue me for this. The guy is goddamn livid and even though I told him to not move he tries to get out of the car. Now there is some background I should tell you about my driveway. Where I am there are large drainage ditches dug alongside of the country road (They are about 3 feet deep and 12 feet wide). All the houses have a sort of bridge that you have to cross to get to their driveways. I've always been worried about driving off of it so I always stick neon orange reflective poles on the sides of this little bridge-like thing in autumn so I can tell where the driveway is on really snowy days in winter. There had been 4 up at the time of the crash (2 right by the road, and 2 closer to my house). To make it easier understand I drew it out in paint. Even though I'm pleading with the guy to not move he removes his seat-belt and gets out of the car. He is calling me every name in the book and going on about how he was trying to turn around and my unsafe driveway caused him to crash. He's going on about how his car doesn't have insurance (which by law you need in Ontario) and how he needs the car for work and how now I need to buy him a new car. This car in question was a rusty old cavalier, probably a 1995. I'm completely taken aback by this, I went out trying to help someone and now this guy is demanding I pay for everything under the sun. I tell him to calm down and that he really shouldn't move because of the accident. I tell him that we already called 911 and that help was on the way. "Did you fucking call the cops!?" He got red in the face and I thought for sure he was going to attack me. He completely flipped out and pushed me hard a couple times and we started yelling at each other. I didn't touch him at all though. With all the yelling and him acting aggressively, which involved him stepping up to me and asking me if I want to fight while holding his neck because I assume it hurts I didn't notice the cop coming down the road but he did. He drops down and starts wailing about how much it hurts and how I attacked him for crashing his car. He is begging and pleading for help which the cop hears and takes to mean I had just been attacking him. Blood + guy on the ground crying for help while I'm standing above him doesn't look good for me. My face gets intimate with the gravel and I get cuffed. Long story short what happened next was the cop is talking to the guy and trying to give first aid. The fire department and an ambulance get there and the female passenger breaks into hysterics about how she was pregnant and my unsafe driveway might have killed her baby. Seriously, she was calm but conscious before more people showed up (though she told the cop later she was unconscious). My girlfriend is freaking out because I'm cuffed. some neighbors come over to say he guy was faking it, and generally there is a lot of yelling. It got pretty confusing but there was one thing I noticed. The general theme those two were going on about was how it was my driveways fault. Anyone who was there got told about it by either the driver or the passenger. The guy and the girl get taken to hospital and I narrowly avoid being arrested. Thankfully my neighbors across the street came out when they heard the noise, saw the guy menacing me, and were able to convince the police officers that I never laid a hand on the guy. In fact they made a point of mentioning the guys theatrics and how he was only "injured" when he saw the cruiser coming down the road. Today I get a Facebook message from the guy who was the driver of the car and he is demanding what adds up to millions from me. He goes on about how my property was unsafe and how the accident was entirely my fault because I didn't maintain the property. Seriously, Facebook, no lawyer was involved on his part so far. He also says that if I don't pay up "there will be consequences" and then he will sue me into oblivion (Yes, that exact order). His demands are so completely insane that I compiled a list; - New car of his choice (not replacement, brand new) ($?????) - Pain and suffering ($250,000) - He claims that he is going to miss work and I owe him for that ($1.7 million) - He also says that he can't work anymore because his neck hurts to I'll owe him for that too ($2.5 million) - Emotional trauma ($150,000 each for him and his girlfriend) - Apparently his passenger is his girlfriend and she is pregnant so I owe her a million for her and for the child - $100,000 for "causing trouble with the cops" Here is the thing, I never told him my name. I was cuffed by the cop and he was taken away by ambulance before I identified myself to the police officer. Plus we have 6 mutual friends, all from high school. I sent him the "I never told you my name" and he deleted his Facebook or blocked me (I did screenshot the message with his name and his profile before that so it's all there saved). I asked one of the mutual friends I'm pretty close with about the guy and he said that he was living in another major city about 2 hours away from me and had tried to shake him down for money in the past. Apparently he's been doing that with a few people and is even on disability for an injury at someplace he worked before. My Lawyer is on vacation until Wednesday so I figured I would get everyone's opinion here. What I want to ask is how at risk am I for being sued? I know he is being insane with his demands and that no judge in his right mind would give him as much as he was asking but from what I've said is my property unsafe? They redid the drainage ditch about 5 years ago (before I moved in) and there isn't a single pothole in my driveway. Did I do anything wrong by trying to help the guy? I opened the door because I wanted to make sure he was still breathing but should I have just waited for the ambulance? He moved himself but I'm worried that he might try to claim I moved him because we were sort of obscured by the ditch. I also would like to know what recourse I have against this guy. I don't need money but if he has been doing this to people for a while now what information can I give to the police that would help them to charge him? I'm 99% sure that the results of the investigation will clear me but should I try and contact the other people he allegedly did this sort of thing to and let them know about my situation so they could come forward? Thanks for taking the time to read this. Assistant:> What I want to ask is how at risk am I for being sued? Almost none. > I also would like to know what recourse I have against this guy. Almost none, at least not at this point. You have no particular damage to your property, right? And it's not strictly illegal to make wild demands. You can certainly report this to the police. If he contacts you again, you have three options: 1. Give him your homeowner's insurance information and let them handle it. 2. Give him your lawyer's information and let him handle it. 3. Ignore him until or unless you receive a lawsuit.

Human: CMV: I am a 25 year old male with aspergers, complex PTSD, and relapsing many addictions. The only thing I have to look forward to is my death. I see no reason to do anything any more after semi-recovering from a psychological breakdown. Background: I seem to have been extremely derailed. I had a nervous breakdown stopped/failed school, and quit my job. The last six months I have spent in a numbed state of consciousnesses, barely functioning, and breaking down completely from the inside. Numerous trips to doctors, psych wards, and pill-pushers have increased my pain and numbness. I mentally have gone back to middle school/early high-school: subconscious "wait, why do I keep doing this thing" with my eating, porn, video game, and sleep addictions. I destroyed all my strong relationships, my network, any one one closely resembling my conflicted state of mind. My reputation of being a calm, hard-working, and intelligent student is completely gone. Some days I am happy, then others I feel intense misery and suffering. I cannot do anything productive. Highlighted issues: * I do not feel human. I rarely have experienced emotional intimacy, embrace, or non-material support. The last time I felt something from a hug was over 12 years ago. The last time I received a hug was 6 years ago. * My experiences in life are work (a single location), school, and my house. My dad drives me every place, does all my cooking, does all my laundry, does all my busy work. I feel unfulfilled. If I try to start them, there is this aggression, as if his purpose in life is being threatened. * One of my biggest goals in life was to live in the dorms at college and make a lot of friends. Learn how to do chores. Have no micromanaging parents. Unfortunately, I never got to ever experience this, self-destructed every time the chance was presented. * I have no friends and despite MANY girls asking me on dates, flirting with me, and generally thinking I am physically attractive, I have not done anything with women for fear of my uselessness. * And I caused a self-made head injury which has made my ability to think extremely difficult. I just live in my own bubble world of subconscious process to avoid headaches. * I just see life as this one big massive catch-up game that I may never actually achieve. Assistant:>had a nervous breakdown stopped/failed school, and quit my job You could've been a doctor! A pilot! A professor! And now look at you. Jobless, single, and wanking *again*. Everyone else is getting married or buying a house or earning 70k in their sexy jobs and you are clocking 300 hours on your next game on steam. You know what you should do, you can predict every bit of advice given to you "get a job" "learn an instrument" "get a girlfriend". You've thought about all of these things but every time you consider actually doing something productive it just doesn't seem to happen, and before you know it you're playing video games again. That image you used to have, the "intelligent student". That image puts pressure on you to "succeed", even if you don't notice it. Your family, freinds, teachers. They all expect greatness and when you don't/can't deliver what *you imagine* that to be, that's when you start to feel like a waster. Money is everything. Right? That's what success is right? Having a high-flying job, having a big house and a fancy car. That's what you are supposed to have by now. You can probably tell I'm projecting here, because everything you've said is just how I've felt over the past years. I'm naturally smart and was the first-born in my family (siblings *and* cousins) so I had special treatment growing up. I was special. I was the main character, destined for greatness. Straight 'A's all through school and college without even trying, I wasn't proud of that; I *expected* it. And then University. It wasn't that it was hard. But I had to actually submit large quantities of work, and I'm lazy. Soooo lazy. I would ace exams, and then not even submit any coursework. That didn't work at University. I threw away 5 years of uni for nothing. I had panic attacks, was depressed, no sleep, so much gaming, so much weed, so much wanking to try and escape the anxiety. Nobody really knew how fucked up my head was, even I didn't realise. I got a shitty job making coffee in a Café Nero. I was embarrassed to even be seen there to begin with, working along side a 44 year old Italian woman, with a school-leaver for a manager. My parents scoffed when I told them. "What, so you've been at uni for 5 years now you push a button to make people coffee?". Working at that Café changed me so much. It makes me laugh. I got taught the science behind the coffee, the history of coffee making and the company, how the beans are sourced, everything right down to the chemistry(They actually send you away on courses to learn). The best part though, was actually making the drinks. Using the high-tech machines felt like I was back in the uni-labs doing chemistry. After a few months mine were picture perfect, best in my store. I felt embarrassed of my pride. "It's fucking coffee. pathetic thing to be proud of." I'd made friends with the wreck-heads I worked with and started going for drinks with them after long shifts. That Italian woman was funny as hell and taught me plenty of rude Italian phrases. I hate my manager one week and was best friends with him again the next. I was ALIVE again. I've changed my outlook on life. I guess you could say I've lowered my own standards for myself. I am happy with what I have, even though it's not much. I'm happy with what I've achieved, even though that is even less. I found myself dancing to music for the first time in years last night while I was cooking. I think I'm rambling so I'm going to stop. I just see myself in you and want to reassure you that you *can* feel again.

Human: CMV: I am a 25 year old male with aspergers, complex PTSD, and relapsing many addictions. The only thing I have to look forward to is my death. I see no reason to do anything any more after semi-recovering from a psychological breakdown. Background: I seem to have been extremely derailed. I had a nervous breakdown stopped/failed school, and quit my job. The last six months I have spent in a numbed state of consciousnesses, barely functioning, and breaking down completely from the inside. Numerous trips to doctors, psych wards, and pill-pushers have increased my pain and numbness. I mentally have gone back to middle school/early high-school: subconscious "wait, why do I keep doing this thing" with my eating, porn, video game, and sleep addictions. I destroyed all my strong relationships, my network, any one one closely resembling my conflicted state of mind. My reputation of being a calm, hard-working, and intelligent student is completely gone. Some days I am happy, then others I feel intense misery and suffering. I cannot do anything productive. Highlighted issues: * I do not feel human. I rarely have experienced emotional intimacy, embrace, or non-material support. The last time I felt something from a hug was over 12 years ago. The last time I received a hug was 6 years ago. * My experiences in life are work (a single location), school, and my house. My dad drives me every place, does all my cooking, does all my laundry, does all my busy work. I feel unfulfilled. If I try to start them, there is this aggression, as if his purpose in life is being threatened. * One of my biggest goals in life was to live in the dorms at college and make a lot of friends. Learn how to do chores. Have no micromanaging parents. Unfortunately, I never got to ever experience this, self-destructed every time the chance was presented. * I have no friends and despite MANY girls asking me on dates, flirting with me, and generally thinking I am physically attractive, I have not done anything with women for fear of my uselessness. * And I caused a self-made head injury which has made my ability to think extremely difficult. I just live in my own bubble world of subconscious process to avoid headaches. * I just see life as this one big massive catch-up game that I may never actually achieve. Assistant:You should seek professional medical help. As you have described them as "pill-pushers" I'm going to infer that you are not on/taking any medication. You really should do what your doctor says. It helps - source: me, who has overcome something similar.

Human: I'm paid up. I'm a good tenant. Landlord and son packed up my entire apartment while I was gone, took door off hinges. No eviction, no notice. Studio attached to main house. My landlady lives in terror of her meth-addict son, and lies to the police to cover for him. Sick situation. He came back to live with his mom, decided he wanted my apartment, tried bullying me out. Attacked me twice. Gaslighting me, terrorizing me for months. I got an assault charge finally and order of protection is going through this weekend. Mother's Day he came into my apartment with his mom's key, held me down, threatened my life, pushed me out. I came back a day later to my entire apartment packed up. Meth heads love menial tasks. All doors off hinges, including main door. Cops come. He speaks for his mom, says 'Officer, he helped us pack.' Yeah, right. I'm getting my stuff and just moving. This is too crazy to deal with. Not even going to fight it anymore. I did nothing wrong, he'll get my apartment, his mom will lose the rent she was making from me. Good riddance. It's a gorgeous, cheap studio, but not worth this level of insanity. I know this guy is a thief. He bragged to me about how he steals a couple of times. I just know he'll have taken some of my things. I'm sure he'll have taken my nicest things, like my really nice-quality American flag, my box of old camcorder tapes I made growing up, my camera. I just know it. I'm terrified to be there so I just looked in the fridge and he had taken all my more expensive frozen foods, and my nice lamp was in his garage. My mini fridge is gone. The cop said it was a he said she said. He doesn't know if I helped them pack or not. But another cop in the dept. knows this guy is crazy. And he's the one who took my assault complaint after I showed him an audio recording of this guy in one of his psychopathic rants. Once I figure out what's missing--whether it's something expensive or something priceless for sentimental reasons, like 40 camcorder tapes full of footage... what do I do? The cop who was there, who didn't know the situation, said "this is a civil matter" and told me "Hey man, my ex wife threw out all my stuff one day, and it sucks, but it happens." I handled it well, didn't call him a fucking idiot, just said "Ok," and left with my lamp. What do I do here? Assistant:> I'm getting my stuff and just moving. This is too crazy to deal with. Not even going to fight it anymore. Sue for illegal eviction anyway. Not only do you need to be reimbursed for all your actual damages (any remaining time period for which the rent was already paid, your security deposit, moving expenses, etc. -- and I'd even try to claim the cost of inventorying all your stuff to make sure nothing is missing), you may (depending on jurisdiction, which you didn't tell us) also be entitled to *statutory damages* on top of that! This is in *addition* to whatever you do about the thefts.

Human: I'm paid up. I'm a good tenant. Landlord and son packed up my entire apartment while I was gone, took door off hinges. No eviction, no notice. Studio attached to main house. My landlady lives in terror of her meth-addict son, and lies to the police to cover for him. Sick situation. He came back to live with his mom, decided he wanted my apartment, tried bullying me out. Attacked me twice. Gaslighting me, terrorizing me for months. I got an assault charge finally and order of protection is going through this weekend. Mother's Day he came into my apartment with his mom's key, held me down, threatened my life, pushed me out. I came back a day later to my entire apartment packed up. Meth heads love menial tasks. All doors off hinges, including main door. Cops come. He speaks for his mom, says 'Officer, he helped us pack.' Yeah, right. I'm getting my stuff and just moving. This is too crazy to deal with. Not even going to fight it anymore. I did nothing wrong, he'll get my apartment, his mom will lose the rent she was making from me. Good riddance. It's a gorgeous, cheap studio, but not worth this level of insanity. I know this guy is a thief. He bragged to me about how he steals a couple of times. I just know he'll have taken some of my things. I'm sure he'll have taken my nicest things, like my really nice-quality American flag, my box of old camcorder tapes I made growing up, my camera. I just know it. I'm terrified to be there so I just looked in the fridge and he had taken all my more expensive frozen foods, and my nice lamp was in his garage. My mini fridge is gone. The cop said it was a he said she said. He doesn't know if I helped them pack or not. But another cop in the dept. knows this guy is crazy. And he's the one who took my assault complaint after I showed him an audio recording of this guy in one of his psychopathic rants. Once I figure out what's missing--whether it's something expensive or something priceless for sentimental reasons, like 40 camcorder tapes full of footage... what do I do? The cop who was there, who didn't know the situation, said "this is a civil matter" and told me "Hey man, my ex wife threw out all my stuff one day, and it sucks, but it happens." I handled it well, didn't call him a fucking idiot, just said "Ok," and left with my lamp. What do I do here? Assistant:This practice is uncommon but not unheard of in the Democratic Republic of Congo. You can grease the wheels of justice by offering your local governor a bribe of 150000-250000 Congolese Francs, about 100-200 US Dollars. If you live somewhere in the US though your options will depend on the state so you should probably put that in your post somewhere.

Human: CMV: I should not be socially or morally obligated to tip a restaurant worker I do not believe in tipping because 1) it’s not the customer’s job or problem to worry about the worker’s finances (that should be between the worker and the employer) 2) It’s completely arbitrary since it is percentage based. Assuming 20% tip, tipping $10 on a $50 total cost vs $20 on a $100 cost doesn’t mean that the worker did $10 more worth of effort. The worker may have worked *slightly* more but definitely not $10 more (which is over the federal minimum wage for 1hr worth of work) 3) Tipping promotes a culture of racism and sexism. Black and other minority workers statistically get less tipped than white workers. Attractive women get tipped significantly more then men or unattractive women 4) Cash tipping promotes tax fraud/evasion. It is common for cash tips to often go unreported or underreported for income tax purposes 5) The vast majority of other jobs, a lot of which are more challenging than simply waiting tables, are untipped. I don’t see what makes a waiter special. A waiter making $2/hr isn’t a proper justification for tips because employers are required by law to compensate workers to minimum wage if tips do not meet that threshold **Common arguments I’m anticipating:** 1) *Waiters make less than minimum wage and must on rely on tips:* This is false. By law the employer must compensate the employee to the federal/state minimum wage level if tips do not reach that threshold. Regarding living wage, that is a legislative issue to make minimum wage into a living wage. There are also many other untipped jobs paying minimum wage 2) *Tipping provides an incentive to provide better service:* I disagree. I’ve been to numerous bars/restaurants where a tip is already included in the final cost or tips are discouraged because the employer pays a living wage. I personally have not noticed inferior service in those establishments compared to tipped establishments. Also the incentive to do basic job duties well should be threat of getting fired, just like how practically every other job works (waiting tables is a low skill, highly replaceable job). A tip should only be given if the employee goes above and beyond normal job duties and does something that very few other employees can or are willing to do. 3) *Tipping helps the employee earn more than minimum wage* First of all, the employee’s financial situation should not be the concern of the customer. Secondly, waiting tables is a low skill job that is economically worth minimum. I have worked an untipped, uncommissioned job (Best Buy retail sales associate) that is more mentally difficult and more physically challenging than waiting for marginally better than minimum wage. If the market pays jobs like these minimum wage, I don’t see why waiting tables deserves higher income than that Assistant:You are 100% socially obligated to tip, that's literally the expectation in our society. I've never made anywhere near minimum wage as a server, and no one would be willing to work as a server for minimum wage. 1. The customer pays for the employee in any payment scheme. Directly or indirectly. 2. There is nearly no way that a $10 meal requires the same effort or preparation than a $100 meal 3. Minorities, the unattractive, or shorter people also receive lower salaries. I'd rather split the impact of biases between customers rather than rely on the biases of a single hiring mangager. 4. Pay with card if tax avoidance is a concern 5. There are basically no minimum wage jobs that are as physically, mentally, and socially demanding as waiting tables. Since you didn't respond yesterday, sorry for posting this all again. > I have worked an untipped, uncommissioned job (Best Buy retail sales associate) that is more mentally difficult and more physically challenging than waiting for marginally better than minimum wage. If the market pays jobs like these minimum wage, I don’t see why waiting tables deserves higher income than that You also received a pretty generous benefit package or at least had the opportunity to opt into them driving the real value of your income up, you could also get paid time off, or meaningful overtime increases. Nearly all waiters receive none of these. >Almost on a daily basis, I had to deal with whiny customers, rowdy children, knowledgeably explain every product and answer questions, troubleshoot basic computer problems, deter theft, act as a shopping cart for customers, move large/bulky/heavy inventory (TVs, computers, large printers, etc), and much more. I've worked retail (phones), sales (new cars), and spent over a decade waiting tables, you are dramatically underestimating the skills required for waiting as well as the pacing and stress level. First of all requisite skills/attributes, appearance is more important in who gets hired as a server, sadly. Overweight, unkempt, or those with any vaguely unappealing physical trait are going to have an easier time getting hired in retail than in FOH. The required out of pocket costs on grooming, clothing, etc, are far higher for servers as well. Secondly, the social/verbal skills required are far higher as well. Each customer has a way that they prefer to be addressed in a way that's separate from retail. In retail, a customer would like you to be knowledge and efficient, and that's pretty much it. In food service, there's varying levels of chummy/respectful, speedy/engaging, non-interfering/talkative, etc, and an important skill in waiting is the ability to read where in that matrix a customer would like you to fall. In my opinion, that's more of an innate skill that a learned one, further limiting the supply of possible waiters. Third and most important there's pacing. Nearly every serving job I've had I was moving at full speed through out the entire shift, aside from one 15 minute break. That means no coffee breaks, no unscheduled reddit poops, walking everywhere at top speed, etc. If business was slow one day, someone was likely getting sent home, until it was that level of activity. I literally can't think of a single "minimum wage" position that expects that level of consistent work while getting customer interference. Fourth, multitasking is far more required in food service than in retail. Sure you may be talking to a several group of customers at once while at best buy, but you are talking to fewer groups with a longer acceptable refraction time. There's a very short period between being seated and being greeted and having drink orders taken, before customers get pissed. There's a very short period better ordering drinks and ordering food before people get pissed. You need to time a window between appetizers and main course, or people get pissed. When to drop a ticket appropriate changes based on customer of people get pissed. Not to mention random check-ins and drink refills. Split the timing on this between multiple tables and it becomes generally difficult and not something everyone can do. When serving I was often juggling 10+ tables, that's super rare in retail, you usually get to work through one or two customers at a time. Sorry for writing a small book in response, there are other skills required for waiters but I think I've already gone on too long. TLDR: Waiting requires more innate and learned skills that most minimum wage jobs, and waiting is fairly unique in the levels of physical and mental stress caused in an average shift. It's clearly not worthy of minimum wage pay, and if it were reduced to minimum wage pay no one would agree to those terms. I'd work any position in a kitchen or in retail rather than serve if payed the same.

Human: CMV: I should not be socially or morally obligated to tip a restaurant worker I do not believe in tipping because 1) it’s not the customer’s job or problem to worry about the worker’s finances (that should be between the worker and the employer) 2) It’s completely arbitrary since it is percentage based. Assuming 20% tip, tipping $10 on a $50 total cost vs $20 on a $100 cost doesn’t mean that the worker did $10 more worth of effort. The worker may have worked *slightly* more but definitely not $10 more (which is over the federal minimum wage for 1hr worth of work) 3) Tipping promotes a culture of racism and sexism. Black and other minority workers statistically get less tipped than white workers. Attractive women get tipped significantly more then men or unattractive women 4) Cash tipping promotes tax fraud/evasion. It is common for cash tips to often go unreported or underreported for income tax purposes 5) The vast majority of other jobs, a lot of which are more challenging than simply waiting tables, are untipped. I don’t see what makes a waiter special. A waiter making $2/hr isn’t a proper justification for tips because employers are required by law to compensate workers to minimum wage if tips do not meet that threshold **Common arguments I’m anticipating:** 1) *Waiters make less than minimum wage and must on rely on tips:* This is false. By law the employer must compensate the employee to the federal/state minimum wage level if tips do not reach that threshold. Regarding living wage, that is a legislative issue to make minimum wage into a living wage. There are also many other untipped jobs paying minimum wage 2) *Tipping provides an incentive to provide better service:* I disagree. I’ve been to numerous bars/restaurants where a tip is already included in the final cost or tips are discouraged because the employer pays a living wage. I personally have not noticed inferior service in those establishments compared to tipped establishments. Also the incentive to do basic job duties well should be threat of getting fired, just like how practically every other job works (waiting tables is a low skill, highly replaceable job). A tip should only be given if the employee goes above and beyond normal job duties and does something that very few other employees can or are willing to do. 3) *Tipping helps the employee earn more than minimum wage* First of all, the employee’s financial situation should not be the concern of the customer. Secondly, waiting tables is a low skill job that is economically worth minimum. I have worked an untipped, uncommissioned job (Best Buy retail sales associate) that is more mentally difficult and more physically challenging than waiting for marginally better than minimum wage. If the market pays jobs like these minimum wage, I don’t see why waiting tables deserves higher income than that Assistant:Clarification: Is your main point that tipping shouldn't be a thing, and rather servers should get paid more? Or is your point that the current system is fine, but you shouldn't tip in it?

Human: AITA for imprisoning a man until he agreed to marry me? Recently, while entertaining friends, it was revealed that my courtship with my husband was less than orthodox. My friends now think that I'm an asshole for the way that I wooed him. When I was sixteen, my first husband (Adam) was killed while on Crusade. This news was relayed to me by one of Adam's comrades-at-arms (Robert, 29M) who arrived in Carrick bearing Adam's heart for burial in the family chapel. Although I had been fond of Adam (he was the father of my eldest daughter, after all), and was grieved at the news of his death, I was immediately struck by Robert's appearance and manners. I was, in fact, infatuated: not only was Robert handsome and charming, but as a cousin of the king, he was well-positioned at court and within the realm. I extended Robert an invitation to stay with me for several days so that he could rest after his journey from the Holy Land and he accepted my hospitality. As I really wanted him to stay with me forever, I instructed my household guard to ensure that Robert was confined to the boundaries of my estate. He was given freedom of the castle and its grounds, though, and I made every effort to be a charming, gracious, and attractive hostess. After several weeks of chaste companionship, I worked up the courage to propose marriage; either Robert could marry me and become lord of my estate, or, he could remain as my guest indefinitely. He chose to marry me and our first daughter was born nine months after the wedding. In the last fifteen years, we have had eleven children and have enjoyed a largely happy union. Still, our marriage did cause Robert's cousin, King Alexander III, some consternation. As countess of Carrick in my own right, I was considered an heiress of some importance within the kingdom, a ward of the crown's, and technically, I needed the king's approval to marry again. Yet, as I had married his own cousin, Alexander III could not really object to the match; that said, he fined us heavily before agreeing to allow my new husband the use of my title. By virtue of our marriage, Robert has therefore become the earl of Carrick in addition to the lord of Annandale. He is the administrator of my estate in Carrick, and of my fortune. I am happily the wife of a man that I chose and the mother of many beloved children. All's well that ends well, right? So, am I really an asshole? Assistant:~~INFO:~~ We're missing some vital information about your husband's mood during the time if his containment. Was he bright and chipper? Or was he resigned and upset? Did he accept the marriage with good humor? Or did he do so reluctantly? Edit: Upon seeing OP's response, NTA. He seemed to go along with it in good nature, and therefore to the best of our knowledge was not forced into a marriage.

Human: AITA for imprisoning a man until he agreed to marry me? Recently, while entertaining friends, it was revealed that my courtship with my husband was less than orthodox. My friends now think that I'm an asshole for the way that I wooed him. When I was sixteen, my first husband (Adam) was killed while on Crusade. This news was relayed to me by one of Adam's comrades-at-arms (Robert, 29M) who arrived in Carrick bearing Adam's heart for burial in the family chapel. Although I had been fond of Adam (he was the father of my eldest daughter, after all), and was grieved at the news of his death, I was immediately struck by Robert's appearance and manners. I was, in fact, infatuated: not only was Robert handsome and charming, but as a cousin of the king, he was well-positioned at court and within the realm. I extended Robert an invitation to stay with me for several days so that he could rest after his journey from the Holy Land and he accepted my hospitality. As I really wanted him to stay with me forever, I instructed my household guard to ensure that Robert was confined to the boundaries of my estate. He was given freedom of the castle and its grounds, though, and I made every effort to be a charming, gracious, and attractive hostess. After several weeks of chaste companionship, I worked up the courage to propose marriage; either Robert could marry me and become lord of my estate, or, he could remain as my guest indefinitely. He chose to marry me and our first daughter was born nine months after the wedding. In the last fifteen years, we have had eleven children and have enjoyed a largely happy union. Still, our marriage did cause Robert's cousin, King Alexander III, some consternation. As countess of Carrick in my own right, I was considered an heiress of some importance within the kingdom, a ward of the crown's, and technically, I needed the king's approval to marry again. Yet, as I had married his own cousin, Alexander III could not really object to the match; that said, he fined us heavily before agreeing to allow my new husband the use of my title. By virtue of our marriage, Robert has therefore become the earl of Carrick in addition to the lord of Annandale. He is the administrator of my estate in Carrick, and of my fortune. I am happily the wife of a man that I chose and the mother of many beloved children. All's well that ends well, right? So, am I really an asshole? Assistant:ESH - Look, I get its hard to date in this day and age but jeeze. This is getting just a *little bit creepy*. On the other hand, the dude seems to be going along with this surprisingly well. Sounds like ya'll are perfect for each other!

Human: My 11 year old autistic son is being bullied in school to the point he was being physically assaulted every single day. What legal courses of action can I(35F) take if any? I am in desperate need of any advice. Thank you in advance for any help. We are located in New York State. I posted this in r/advice as I need as much advice as possible and it was suggested that I post this here as well to get more accurate legal advice. My son is truly suffering and I need to do whatever I can to help him. Thank you so much for your time and any help. EDIT: Since posting this earlier my son has told me the bullies also spit on him as well. I don't post at all or even comment often but I have been a part of the community for years and made an account less than a year ago. I am not even sure if I have enough karma for me to post this and it not be taken down. I am really hoping it will stay and I can get some advice. Also I am sorry if this is long. I am just beside myself right now and really need to get this out and get any advice I can. I thank everyone in advance for any help you give today. Basically as the title says my son is 11 and high functioning autistic. I am a single mother and have always done everything I possibly can to help him succeed in life. I have always worried if this day would come due to him being diffirent and what I could do to help him if it did come. Welp, he told me over the weekend he was being bullied for the last 3 months of the school year last year, to the point he was being assaulted daily. I just got off the phone with the middle school and was a bit disappointed with the response. It seems their main way to handle this is to try to seperate the boys who pick on him by just scheduling seperate classes from him. They said because of the length of time since the bullying they may not be able to reprimand them at all but they will talk to them. I see them being spoken to by the school without consequences as a means for them to retaliate and get even worse with my son. He is more scared of that than anything which is partly why he waited so long to say anything(due to his autism he has a hard time communicating to begin with). He does not want it to get worse and is scared it will now that they will know he told on them and I agree with him. I know it is several months after the bullying but I want those kids to be reprimanded. I want to be able to pursue whatever I can to get these boys punished to help deter them from continuing this and let them know they will have consequences if they continue. If I can get the police involved I will. Honestly if I could I would beat their little asses. I won't but I wish I could. They made my sons life a living hell for 3 months to the point I put him in counseling because he was getting so anxious, self loathing and depressed(of course I did not know then that this bullying was going on). It isn't just 3 months for him either this continues on for him. He hates himself now and his confidence is just gone. He is scared to go back to school which is why he finally decided to tell me. I am absolutely livid and scared and feel powerless to help my son. I am so angry at myself and filled with so much sorrow at the thought that he was dealing with this alone. I failed him and will be damned if I continue to fail him. There are 3 boys. The first one (he doesn't know this boy's last name)punches him in the arms over and over again literally daily, he doesn't talk to him just hits him. My son had come home with bruises all over his arms several times last year and when asked about it he would refuse to talk about it. He can be pretty active and clumsy so I was a little concerned about it but he gets a new bruise almost everyday so I didn't think much of it. It was not something I thought could be caused by abuse at the time. I so deeply regret not pushing harder about it and pursuing it more. The second boy(my son knows his full name) daily called him gay, a homo and a fag because my son has long hair, he calls him a girl and gay because of it. My son does not get his hair cut because of his autistic sensory issues, he cannot stand it at all. The third boy(his name is known too) threatens my boy. He aggressively tells him not to look at him, not to talk to him. He threatens violence if he does. All 3 of them are friends, egg each other on and gang up on him together. All of this stuff was happening in class. Not the halls, not the cafeteria, not after school. These little shits were doing this right under the teachers noses when their backs were turned. So I am not exactly confident in the schools ability to protect my son. I want to make sure I do everything I can to protect him and put a stop to it. All this being said I absolutely appreciate any advice that is given. I need advice about what I can do to help my son cope with this emotionally at home(he is still in counseling). What he could try to do when the bullying is happening. Advice about how I should handle it with the school. Advice about if I can get police involved in this or not. As I said, just incase this info is needed, my son is high functioning autistic. He has had all the treatment and therapy I could get for him for his autism and no longer is in any. He does not have an IEP or anything like it. He excels academically and now his main struggles are sensory, social and fine motor skills. He doesn't qualify for assistance or therapies as he is not "disabled enough". TL;DR: High functioning autistic son being bullied at school. How can I help him and pursue safety for him at school and consequences for these little shits? Also sorry for any errors I am a bit of a mess right now. Assistant:I am not a lawyer - Did he ever have an IEP, or did they completely mainstream him and get him off it? Is there any chance you could at least get him a 504 due to the anxiety? Who said he isn't "disabled enough"? Was it the IEP team? If so, if it has been more than 12 months since he last got evaluated for an IEP, time for you to request another evaluation in all areas of suspected disability. Do you think he would benefit from an IEP i.e. would having resource room available for a quiet testing environment be helpful or him, or having OT/PT available monthly to help with sensory and motor issues be helpful? Since he is in middle school, talk to the guidance office - they might be able to set up a social skills group for the next school year - they could call it a lunch club or something, have kids who aren't good socially sit together at lunch and talk. Are you involved with Easter Seals? They usually have some programs for kids - might be helpful.

Human: My 11 year old autistic son is being bullied in school to the point he was being physically assaulted every single day. What legal courses of action can I(35F) take if any? I am in desperate need of any advice. Thank you in advance for any help. We are located in New York State. I posted this in r/advice as I need as much advice as possible and it was suggested that I post this here as well to get more accurate legal advice. My son is truly suffering and I need to do whatever I can to help him. Thank you so much for your time and any help. EDIT: Since posting this earlier my son has told me the bullies also spit on him as well. I don't post at all or even comment often but I have been a part of the community for years and made an account less than a year ago. I am not even sure if I have enough karma for me to post this and it not be taken down. I am really hoping it will stay and I can get some advice. Also I am sorry if this is long. I am just beside myself right now and really need to get this out and get any advice I can. I thank everyone in advance for any help you give today. Basically as the title says my son is 11 and high functioning autistic. I am a single mother and have always done everything I possibly can to help him succeed in life. I have always worried if this day would come due to him being diffirent and what I could do to help him if it did come. Welp, he told me over the weekend he was being bullied for the last 3 months of the school year last year, to the point he was being assaulted daily. I just got off the phone with the middle school and was a bit disappointed with the response. It seems their main way to handle this is to try to seperate the boys who pick on him by just scheduling seperate classes from him. They said because of the length of time since the bullying they may not be able to reprimand them at all but they will talk to them. I see them being spoken to by the school without consequences as a means for them to retaliate and get even worse with my son. He is more scared of that than anything which is partly why he waited so long to say anything(due to his autism he has a hard time communicating to begin with). He does not want it to get worse and is scared it will now that they will know he told on them and I agree with him. I know it is several months after the bullying but I want those kids to be reprimanded. I want to be able to pursue whatever I can to get these boys punished to help deter them from continuing this and let them know they will have consequences if they continue. If I can get the police involved I will. Honestly if I could I would beat their little asses. I won't but I wish I could. They made my sons life a living hell for 3 months to the point I put him in counseling because he was getting so anxious, self loathing and depressed(of course I did not know then that this bullying was going on). It isn't just 3 months for him either this continues on for him. He hates himself now and his confidence is just gone. He is scared to go back to school which is why he finally decided to tell me. I am absolutely livid and scared and feel powerless to help my son. I am so angry at myself and filled with so much sorrow at the thought that he was dealing with this alone. I failed him and will be damned if I continue to fail him. There are 3 boys. The first one (he doesn't know this boy's last name)punches him in the arms over and over again literally daily, he doesn't talk to him just hits him. My son had come home with bruises all over his arms several times last year and when asked about it he would refuse to talk about it. He can be pretty active and clumsy so I was a little concerned about it but he gets a new bruise almost everyday so I didn't think much of it. It was not something I thought could be caused by abuse at the time. I so deeply regret not pushing harder about it and pursuing it more. The second boy(my son knows his full name) daily called him gay, a homo and a fag because my son has long hair, he calls him a girl and gay because of it. My son does not get his hair cut because of his autistic sensory issues, he cannot stand it at all. The third boy(his name is known too) threatens my boy. He aggressively tells him not to look at him, not to talk to him. He threatens violence if he does. All 3 of them are friends, egg each other on and gang up on him together. All of this stuff was happening in class. Not the halls, not the cafeteria, not after school. These little shits were doing this right under the teachers noses when their backs were turned. So I am not exactly confident in the schools ability to protect my son. I want to make sure I do everything I can to protect him and put a stop to it. All this being said I absolutely appreciate any advice that is given. I need advice about what I can do to help my son cope with this emotionally at home(he is still in counseling). What he could try to do when the bullying is happening. Advice about how I should handle it with the school. Advice about if I can get police involved in this or not. As I said, just incase this info is needed, my son is high functioning autistic. He has had all the treatment and therapy I could get for him for his autism and no longer is in any. He does not have an IEP or anything like it. He excels academically and now his main struggles are sensory, social and fine motor skills. He doesn't qualify for assistance or therapies as he is not "disabled enough". TL;DR: High functioning autistic son being bullied at school. How can I help him and pursue safety for him at school and consequences for these little shits? Also sorry for any errors I am a bit of a mess right now. Assistant:https://www.stopbullying.gov/laws/new-york/index.html

Human: CMV: As humans move towards space colonization in the next few centuries, I believe that our society will moves towards becoming a stratocracy. I am a big fan of science fiction, and thus of pondering "what if's...?". One of my favorite things to ponder is the future of human society in a post-space colonization universe. When it comes to exploring the stars, I think most people have heard the usual theories; Energy consumption issues, world unification being needed for space travel, etc. Yet I think one of the most important aspects for future space travel is going to be how society works. Although this is definitely discussed in many forms, my own personal view is that due to controlled resources, complexity of travel, and potential threats, our society will move to a more militaristic model that encourages technical training and security. Let us take for example, initial space travel. As we begin to see more and more private corporations begin to sponsor or create space programs, it would be safe to assume that training and SOP will be incorporated to protect company interests as well as personal safety. Thus I think that many of our primary private space trips will be crewed by military personnel, whether retired or active, who have an active understanding of protocols. Since space travel is expensive, I think it will mean that unless you can actively contribute to a future colony *and* contribute during the trip, you won't find a spot on most ships. So really for humans to begin colonizing space, it might be almost compulsory to have education or specialization in order to venture into the vast dark. You might point out that civilians are transported places routinely on earth but I feel that cost effectiveness will become the lightning rod that unites space travel because so much calculation has to go into a single person going into space, let alone multiple people for extended travel. Now, looking at another side of this view, many discussions revolve around resources. For example, Dyson spheres, ringworlds, and other hypothetical artificial constructs, as well as hostile-environment colonies, would rely heavily on supply line based resources such as oxygen and water. Which means that almost all of these places would suffer heavily from piracy, military blockades, and trade line disruption. Therefore a military would be such a necessity that I feel any "citizen" must be able to take up arms in an emergency. So overall, in order for humans to really commit to space colonization, including travel, stations, and colonies, I think it will become compulsory for military training in order to further exploration, thus turning human society in a stratocracy. Assistant:What makes you think that space travel will differ drastically from sea travel around the "discovery" and colonization of the new world? Sea travel and colonization during that time was defined by pretty large expenses, high levels of danger, risk of piracy, and a heavy reliance on supply lines. Militaries of those areas were quite important, but do you think they were also Stratocracies?

Human: CMV: As humans move towards space colonization in the next few centuries, I believe that our society will moves towards becoming a stratocracy. I am a big fan of science fiction, and thus of pondering "what if's...?". One of my favorite things to ponder is the future of human society in a post-space colonization universe. When it comes to exploring the stars, I think most people have heard the usual theories; Energy consumption issues, world unification being needed for space travel, etc. Yet I think one of the most important aspects for future space travel is going to be how society works. Although this is definitely discussed in many forms, my own personal view is that due to controlled resources, complexity of travel, and potential threats, our society will move to a more militaristic model that encourages technical training and security. Let us take for example, initial space travel. As we begin to see more and more private corporations begin to sponsor or create space programs, it would be safe to assume that training and SOP will be incorporated to protect company interests as well as personal safety. Thus I think that many of our primary private space trips will be crewed by military personnel, whether retired or active, who have an active understanding of protocols. Since space travel is expensive, I think it will mean that unless you can actively contribute to a future colony *and* contribute during the trip, you won't find a spot on most ships. So really for humans to begin colonizing space, it might be almost compulsory to have education or specialization in order to venture into the vast dark. You might point out that civilians are transported places routinely on earth but I feel that cost effectiveness will become the lightning rod that unites space travel because so much calculation has to go into a single person going into space, let alone multiple people for extended travel. Now, looking at another side of this view, many discussions revolve around resources. For example, Dyson spheres, ringworlds, and other hypothetical artificial constructs, as well as hostile-environment colonies, would rely heavily on supply line based resources such as oxygen and water. Which means that almost all of these places would suffer heavily from piracy, military blockades, and trade line disruption. Therefore a military would be such a necessity that I feel any "citizen" must be able to take up arms in an emergency. So overall, in order for humans to really commit to space colonization, including travel, stations, and colonies, I think it will become compulsory for military training in order to further exploration, thus turning human society in a stratocracy. Assistant:Given that much of space exploration is being headed by private commercial interests, it seems likely the space society will have corporate loyalty and personality. Technocratic skills of all sorts will be necessary, a defense force would be just one of many subsidiaries.

Human: CMV: "Tiger King" as a documentary fails to adequately educate its audience about why private big cat ownership is harmful. *Tiger King* is a weird documentary. One of the stated purposes is to explore private big cat ownership—in fact, that is stated outright in the first episode by director Eric Goode—and yet it rarely delves into the *big cat* part of that topic. Instead, the bulk of the documentary is a circus freak show, using these people and their personalities for pure entertainment, combined a bit with a thread of true crime and the story of how Joe Exotic went to jail and how Baskin allegedly murdered her husband, the tigers and other big cats serving simply as a backdrop. As a result, the series attempts to equivocate the roadside zoos like the GW Zoo with Carole Baskin's Big Cat Rescue, when in fact there are several key differences between them that are relevant to the documentary's supposed topic: 1. Guest interaction, including cub petting, feeding, and playing with the animals. 2. Staff interaction, including entering the enclosures with the animals unnecessarily, moving or feeding animals unsafely, and removing cubs from mothers and keeping them in cribs in the home. 3. Using the animals for profit, and euthanizing them when they are no longer profitable. 4. Most importantly, irresponsibly breeding, including crossbreeding, captive animals for profit. Zoos and other institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that breed animals take precautions to increase genetic diversity as much as possible, with the goal of conservation and re-introduction to the wild. The breeding that GW Zoo and Antle engage in encourage inbreeding and genetic homogeneity. The crossbred animals serve no conservation purpose whatsoever, and the inbred cubs are separated from their mothers and destined to continue the cycle of private ownership of big cats. That's not to say Big Cat Rescue is perfect—it and Carole Baskin have their own issues to be sure—but these are some of the most problematic aspects of private ownership of wild animals, and yet they get very little attention in the show. I have seen several reactions online that fail to grasp these distinctions or see the Big Cat Rescue as equally bad as places like the GW Zoo. The series doesn't help in that regard, as they clearly try to play up the rivalry between Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin, and allow Joe's claims that GW Zoo is the same as Big Cat Rescue go relatively unchallenged except by Carole herself, playing up that rivalry. Tim Stark at one point makes the claim that breeding is beneficial to endangered animals because they increase the number of tigers, something that is completely and utterly false (the animals they breed are completely unsuited for release, due to genetics and how they are raised), and yet there is no push back from the documentary at all. There are no interviews with professional zookeepers, biologists, veterinarians, or anyone from the AZA, people who would be authorities on animal care and welfare. If the series wanted to be solely about the interpersonal drama of these people, that'd be fine. They are admittedly entertaining. However, the series intersperses enough tidbits that focus on *some* of the problems with big cats in captivity that it is easy to mistake it as being about that. The scenes of Joe separating cubs from their mother, accidents at the zoo, or of the aftermath of the zoo in Zanesville show some of the dangers of big cat ownership. But what makes those parks different from genuine sanctuaries, rescues, and zoos is not explored. There's no juxtaposition to places that are able to keep big cats responsibly, and Carole Baskin and Big Cat Rescue are lumped in with the others for the sake of drama. I see this as a critical failure given the stated mission of the documentary to explore big cats in captivity. It actively misleads its audience if they are coming to learn about animals in captivity. The comments I have seen online just reinforce that. Instead of educating viewers on animals in captivity, most seem to be confused as to what exactly makes roadside zoos and private ownership of big cats so harmful for the animals. They glorify or defend Joe Exotic, despite him engaging in outright animal abuse, while attacking Carole Baskin and Big Cat Rescue because she is portrayed as unlikable or phony. Assistant:>adequately It does it perfectly adequately. As in, "not at all." The documentary wasn't about that. In fact, I'd say Itd be irresponsible if they did. You're kinda arguing that "part" of the purpose of the documentary was to explain how private big cat ownership is harmful. But that can't really be a "part" of the message when you've got gay polygamy, straight polygamy, murder for hire, cocaine kingpins, the worst songs in the world, mullets, etc. The message of the inherent wrongdoing of big cat ownership will ALWAYS be lost in that mess. You try to tell me, "This doc says you shouldn't own tigers," and I'll respond, "Well I'm clearly more responsible than those people so maybe there's a responsible way to do it." If you want a documentary on why big cat ownership is inherently wrong, you gotta show responsible people accidentally being irresponsible.

Human: CMV: "Tiger King" as a documentary fails to adequately educate its audience about why private big cat ownership is harmful. *Tiger King* is a weird documentary. One of the stated purposes is to explore private big cat ownership—in fact, that is stated outright in the first episode by director Eric Goode—and yet it rarely delves into the *big cat* part of that topic. Instead, the bulk of the documentary is a circus freak show, using these people and their personalities for pure entertainment, combined a bit with a thread of true crime and the story of how Joe Exotic went to jail and how Baskin allegedly murdered her husband, the tigers and other big cats serving simply as a backdrop. As a result, the series attempts to equivocate the roadside zoos like the GW Zoo with Carole Baskin's Big Cat Rescue, when in fact there are several key differences between them that are relevant to the documentary's supposed topic: 1. Guest interaction, including cub petting, feeding, and playing with the animals. 2. Staff interaction, including entering the enclosures with the animals unnecessarily, moving or feeding animals unsafely, and removing cubs from mothers and keeping them in cribs in the home. 3. Using the animals for profit, and euthanizing them when they are no longer profitable. 4. Most importantly, irresponsibly breeding, including crossbreeding, captive animals for profit. Zoos and other institutions accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that breed animals take precautions to increase genetic diversity as much as possible, with the goal of conservation and re-introduction to the wild. The breeding that GW Zoo and Antle engage in encourage inbreeding and genetic homogeneity. The crossbred animals serve no conservation purpose whatsoever, and the inbred cubs are separated from their mothers and destined to continue the cycle of private ownership of big cats. That's not to say Big Cat Rescue is perfect—it and Carole Baskin have their own issues to be sure—but these are some of the most problematic aspects of private ownership of wild animals, and yet they get very little attention in the show. I have seen several reactions online that fail to grasp these distinctions or see the Big Cat Rescue as equally bad as places like the GW Zoo. The series doesn't help in that regard, as they clearly try to play up the rivalry between Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin, and allow Joe's claims that GW Zoo is the same as Big Cat Rescue go relatively unchallenged except by Carole herself, playing up that rivalry. Tim Stark at one point makes the claim that breeding is beneficial to endangered animals because they increase the number of tigers, something that is completely and utterly false (the animals they breed are completely unsuited for release, due to genetics and how they are raised), and yet there is no push back from the documentary at all. There are no interviews with professional zookeepers, biologists, veterinarians, or anyone from the AZA, people who would be authorities on animal care and welfare. If the series wanted to be solely about the interpersonal drama of these people, that'd be fine. They are admittedly entertaining. However, the series intersperses enough tidbits that focus on *some* of the problems with big cats in captivity that it is easy to mistake it as being about that. The scenes of Joe separating cubs from their mother, accidents at the zoo, or of the aftermath of the zoo in Zanesville show some of the dangers of big cat ownership. But what makes those parks different from genuine sanctuaries, rescues, and zoos is not explored. There's no juxtaposition to places that are able to keep big cats responsibly, and Carole Baskin and Big Cat Rescue are lumped in with the others for the sake of drama. I see this as a critical failure given the stated mission of the documentary to explore big cats in captivity. It actively misleads its audience if they are coming to learn about animals in captivity. The comments I have seen online just reinforce that. Instead of educating viewers on animals in captivity, most seem to be confused as to what exactly makes roadside zoos and private ownership of big cats so harmful for the animals. They glorify or defend Joe Exotic, despite him engaging in outright animal abuse, while attacking Carole Baskin and Big Cat Rescue because she is portrayed as unlikable or phony. Assistant:The purpose of the documentary is to get people to watch. Long winded explanations of responsible tiger breeding and care don’t attract people to your documentary. Absurd people and stories do attract people. That’s what they chose to focus on and it’s a gigantic success.

Human: CMV: the #MeToo movement has broadened the definition of sexual harassment and rape too much, to the point where it's attracting people with victimhood complexes. I'd like to start off by saying I think the movement has done a lot of good. But increasingly I'm reading stories from women where it seems like they're infantilizing themselves and refusing to take responsibility for their actions. One story I read was from a girl who went on a date with a guy, and they went back to his place, he started putting her hand on his dick, pressuring her basically, until she relented and had sex with him. Obviously that's uncomfortable, but why didn't she just leave? Some people are calling what happened rape, but there was no force or threats involved. I feel like calling something like that rape or sexual assault is making light of actual rape and sexual assault. I had a boyfriend once who came home and I was sleeping naked. I told him he could play with himself and touch me if he wanted, but that I didn't want to have sex, I wanted to sleep. He kept pushing his dick up against me, and I'd tell him it hurt because I was completely dry and unprepared and that I'd told him I didn't want to have sex with him that night. He said it was an accident, backed off for a few minutes, and did it again. I was completely unresponsive, trying to sleep, until it started to hurt. He apologized, insisted it was an accident and that he was NOT trying to put it in. After around 20 or 30 minutes of this I decided I'd take him at his word, and to stop complaining, but I knew he might go for it. Next time he put it in like that and I didn't push him away he kept going and finished. I've mentioned this online in a couple of discussions about sex because obviously it's annoying, but I got this patronizing and infantilizing tone saying that it was rape or assault, and that they pitied me. I could've walked away or pushed him off me at any moment. Seriously, just stood up. This was my decision. To turn women into victims when they are able to get out of situations is just insulting, women have more power than that. Instead we should be encouraging girls to leave situations where they're uncomfortable, or take responsibility if they stay in situations where they aren't comfortable. I'm posting because I literally don't even know what sort of insane logic you have to apply to believe you or anyone else is a victim when they could very easily just walk away from a situation. Obviously none of what I'm saying applies when there is physical force, serious threats, or where one party is too drunk or high to consent. _____ > *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 are almost certainly referring to the Aziz Ansari with your first story, or at least using vague enough details to make it clear you *could* be referring to Aziz Ansari. Very few people, even those who say that Aziz was in the wrong in some fashion, have called it sexual assault or rape. The fact that it was not literally criminal behavior, however, does not mean that it is OK and does not mean that it's inappropriate to put such an incident under the harassment umbrella of #MeToo. That is, it is possible for something to be inappropriate and coercive and worthy of criticism even if it is not illegal. There has been plenty of literature and commentary, for a long time, about the negative consequences of coerced, non-explicit, or otherwise unenthusiastic consent. In the case of Ansari, while what he did would probably be found consensual in the legal sense, his actions still revealed a (behavioral) standard of consent where he was allowed to do whatever he wanted absent an explicit "no", and was allowed to keep persisting absent the woman physically leaving. That is, the entire burden of consent was placed on the woman setting an explicit boundary, rather than on Aziz to obtain consent before going further. That is worthy of criticism precisely *because* it places (generally) women in a difficult spot where they must take very strong, very explicit actions to have encounters stay in their comfort zone while men bear no responsibility for uncomfortably testing or pushing boundaries (again, in a moral-ish sense, not legally). In your case, I'm glad that you do not feel traumatized by the action, but look at it from an outsider's perspective. * Your boyfriend lied to you about his intentions. * Your boyfriend did not respect an explicit boundary you set earlier in the encounter. * Your boyfriend continued to have sex with you after you claimed it physically hurt you. * After he stopped, he waited for a bit and continued the exact same behavior. * He again lied about his intentions and persisted until you stopped objecting. Now yes, you could have left at any time. But think about the unequal burden you are placing on yourself here. You are setting up a system where it is *expected and permissible* for a man to lie, ignore explicit boundaries, and hurt you, unless you object (in which case he might stop for a few minutes) or physically leave and find somewhere else to sleep. I do not think that it is infantilizing to suggest that, at least morally, guys should be better than that and women should not have to bear such a huge part of the burden of consent; if you ask to (literally) sleep peacefully with somebody, you should not have to *continuously* defend yourself and breaking that boundary should be met with censure.

Human: CMV: the #MeToo movement has broadened the definition of sexual harassment and rape too much, to the point where it's attracting people with victimhood complexes. I'd like to start off by saying I think the movement has done a lot of good. But increasingly I'm reading stories from women where it seems like they're infantilizing themselves and refusing to take responsibility for their actions. One story I read was from a girl who went on a date with a guy, and they went back to his place, he started putting her hand on his dick, pressuring her basically, until she relented and had sex with him. Obviously that's uncomfortable, but why didn't she just leave? Some people are calling what happened rape, but there was no force or threats involved. I feel like calling something like that rape or sexual assault is making light of actual rape and sexual assault. I had a boyfriend once who came home and I was sleeping naked. I told him he could play with himself and touch me if he wanted, but that I didn't want to have sex, I wanted to sleep. He kept pushing his dick up against me, and I'd tell him it hurt because I was completely dry and unprepared and that I'd told him I didn't want to have sex with him that night. He said it was an accident, backed off for a few minutes, and did it again. I was completely unresponsive, trying to sleep, until it started to hurt. He apologized, insisted it was an accident and that he was NOT trying to put it in. After around 20 or 30 minutes of this I decided I'd take him at his word, and to stop complaining, but I knew he might go for it. Next time he put it in like that and I didn't push him away he kept going and finished. I've mentioned this online in a couple of discussions about sex because obviously it's annoying, but I got this patronizing and infantilizing tone saying that it was rape or assault, and that they pitied me. I could've walked away or pushed him off me at any moment. Seriously, just stood up. This was my decision. To turn women into victims when they are able to get out of situations is just insulting, women have more power than that. Instead we should be encouraging girls to leave situations where they're uncomfortable, or take responsibility if they stay in situations where they aren't comfortable. I'm posting because I literally don't even know what sort of insane logic you have to apply to believe you or anyone else is a victim when they could very easily just walk away from a situation. Obviously none of what I'm saying applies when there is physical force, serious threats, or where one party is too drunk or high to consent. _____ > *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:I don't personally see the #metoo movement as looking to expand victimhood, but rather asking the questions "Do we, as a society, think X behavior is acceptable?" This is an important question to ask, because that is the _only_ way we make progress on these issues. At some point in history, a great number of behaviors we find abhorrent today were perfectly acceptable - for example, spousal rape didn't even exist as a concept 100 years ago and sexual harassment in the workplace was commonplace 50 years ago. The only reason our views changed is because people started asking whether or not that behavior _should_ be alright and we collectively decided "no, it shouldn't". All that #metoo is doing is bringing what has been a commonplace behavior standard forward for discussion and decision - it is good that these questions are being asked. I also think that a lot of these situations are not black and white - it is possible that _both_ parties in the situation didn't handle it appropriately, but that doesn't mean that either side is free from culpability. In the first example you gave (it was the story of Aziz Ansari, btw), I fully agree that "Grace" should have gotten dressed and left if she was uncomfortable with Aziz's advances. She didn't do what she needed to do, but that doesn't mean that what Aziz did was ok either. He either ignored or was oblivious to very overt signals of non-consent and that behavior isn't ok in the modern world. We can still admonish him for what he did and still decide that his behavior was not acceptable _regardless_ of whether or not Grace had the ability to make it stop herself.

Human: Is it necessary to go to court for legal custody, or should I be fine? [NC] I have 2 daughter's (6 and 7) whose birthdays were in July and September, respectively. I have been in their lives since prenatal appointments. Their mother left me for another man in July 2020. Since she left, her communication with the girls has been very spotty (months in between), and I have been 100% the only provider for them, and they've been in my physical custody. We saw her in February of last year, and then didn't hear from her until May 12th of the same year. While she was visiting during that day, I was exhausted and passed out from work. When I woke up, she was gone, and had taken the kids. She took them to live in a motel room with her boyfriend (random man to my kids and myself) and his 3 sons, who I believe ages ranged from like 6-12 at the time. She had them from May 13th, until I found her and took them back on August 26th of the same year. During the time she was gone, she wouldn't let me speak to them, and I missed my youngest daughter's birthday for the first time. The 2 times I saw her during that time frame, she tried to blackmail me I to signing joint custody papers. When. I got my kids back, they told me that their mom and her boyfriend had been spewing venom to them about me, and that the boyfriend would hit them with a belt. When I confronted her via phone, she said "Don't you think I know that? Why do you think I let you have them?". October 11th of last year, she texted me saying "I have to go away for a while". I didn't hear from her again until January on this year, and she spoke to them on the phone for all of about 5 minutes (If I'm being generous). Since then, we haven't heard from her. No birthday calla, nothing. I keep tabs on her via social media, so I know she is alive and well, and has a car. Her not seeing my kids is 100% her decision. I originally filed for full custody during the period where she took my kids, but I didn't follow through once I got them back. I still don't want to follow through yet, because I feel like she'd try to contest it just to spite me, and I don't want to wake the sleeping bear. Is it vital for me to file for custody, or am I fine by letting her go even longer without contact, to ruin her chances in the event she tries anything? I don't talk to my kids about her, as I don't see the point, but they express to me that they don't even so much as want to talk to her on the phone. Even for their birthdays. I also don't plan on ever letting her around them unsupervised, so she can't take them again. What is it looking like for me? Assistant:Not state specific. Get a laywer asap. Get them in therapy with a.professional who can testify to their admissions of physical abuse. Not to mention I'm sure these kids are dealing with major abandonment issues. Save all text convos documenting her acknowledgement of them being beat, of her abandoning them for months on end, etc. You want to ask for joint legal custody, she will get it anyway and it makes you look reasonable. Joint legal only pertains to decision making and info regarding medical, school and major life decisions. Has nothing to do with physical. Ask for full residential custody with un or supervised visitation for her. Which one you get is dependent on your evidence. You are not avoiding poking the bear by not addressing this. You are keeping your kids in a volatile and unstable situation with an unstable person the longer you wait. Not to mention undermining their sense of security. Short of you or someone else going to jail you physically cannot stop her from taking the kids again without an order. And that would destroy your case and virtually guarantee she could file and get custody.

Human: Is it necessary to go to court for legal custody, or should I be fine? [NC] I have 2 daughter's (6 and 7) whose birthdays were in July and September, respectively. I have been in their lives since prenatal appointments. Their mother left me for another man in July 2020. Since she left, her communication with the girls has been very spotty (months in between), and I have been 100% the only provider for them, and they've been in my physical custody. We saw her in February of last year, and then didn't hear from her until May 12th of the same year. While she was visiting during that day, I was exhausted and passed out from work. When I woke up, she was gone, and had taken the kids. She took them to live in a motel room with her boyfriend (random man to my kids and myself) and his 3 sons, who I believe ages ranged from like 6-12 at the time. She had them from May 13th, until I found her and took them back on August 26th of the same year. During the time she was gone, she wouldn't let me speak to them, and I missed my youngest daughter's birthday for the first time. The 2 times I saw her during that time frame, she tried to blackmail me I to signing joint custody papers. When. I got my kids back, they told me that their mom and her boyfriend had been spewing venom to them about me, and that the boyfriend would hit them with a belt. When I confronted her via phone, she said "Don't you think I know that? Why do you think I let you have them?". October 11th of last year, she texted me saying "I have to go away for a while". I didn't hear from her again until January on this year, and she spoke to them on the phone for all of about 5 minutes (If I'm being generous). Since then, we haven't heard from her. No birthday calla, nothing. I keep tabs on her via social media, so I know she is alive and well, and has a car. Her not seeing my kids is 100% her decision. I originally filed for full custody during the period where she took my kids, but I didn't follow through once I got them back. I still don't want to follow through yet, because I feel like she'd try to contest it just to spite me, and I don't want to wake the sleeping bear. Is it vital for me to file for custody, or am I fine by letting her go even longer without contact, to ruin her chances in the event she tries anything? I don't talk to my kids about her, as I don't see the point, but they express to me that they don't even so much as want to talk to her on the phone. Even for their birthdays. I also don't plan on ever letting her around them unsupervised, so she can't take them again. What is it looking like for me? Assistant:Yes you need a court order in place. I totally understand the 'let the bear sleep', but you are risking something much worse happening just for temporary peace. She already did something terrible. Do not assume it won't happen again; assume it will. Believe me I know it's easier to just let it be but you will absolutely regret it. You know it and that's why you're asking. Protect your kids. Do it now while 'the bear sleeps' rather than wait until you are in a desperate situation because the bear woke up and is mauling your ass. Get all your ducks in a row so you're protected if she retaliates, as in seek a temp order so she can't run off with them upon hearing you started legal proceedings.

Human: I believe that Atheism is incorrect, and scientists should shift towards a more logical belief system such as Possibilianism. CMV Hi reddit, first time posting here and this is a big one that i've believed for a while. First off let me explain what possiblianism is: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story." - David Eaglemen Now, some of my favorite writers such as Sam Harris have stated that this belief system is simply atheism in a new shell. I disagree. I've found that the word Atheism means that a god/gods doesn't exist and that there isn't a chance of any form of it. Even Richard Dawkins has stated in the God Delusion that Atheists today are not full blown atheists in the sense that they are not on the pure opposite side of the spectrum of creationist who are 100% certain there is a god. Its normally around 99% percent or so which makes me feel that the word atheism which comes from the Greek language "Without God" isn't appropriate for where most of us already stand. Perhaps it is more of a defintional thing, but the idea of holding all ideas with value and using what we know about the world to shift our views on the spectrum of Belief I---------------------------------------------I Belief Non- Belief I find that perhaps it is unlikely, but we certainly do not have the evidence to support that a god or gods doesnt exist. I originally registered myself as an atheist, but after coming across this term a few years ago this is where I have stood. I've always felt that this term better explained how many atheists felt, but most of us didn't know it actually existed. CMV reddit Assistant:Setting aside the comments about what is atheism (which has been beaten to death in the other comments in this thread), science is inherently materialistic, meaning that something is considered to exist if and only if it is has a perceptible effect in the universe - things like mass, energy, forces, etc. God and other immaterial concepts have no place in this framework.

Human: I believe that Atheism is incorrect, and scientists should shift towards a more logical belief system such as Possibilianism. CMV Hi reddit, first time posting here and this is a big one that i've believed for a while. First off let me explain what possiblianism is: "Our ignorance of the cosmos is too vast to commit to atheism, and yet we know too much to commit to a particular religion. A third position, agnosticism, is often an uninteresting stance in which a person simply questions whether his traditional religious story (say, a man with a beard on a cloud) is true or not true. But with Possibilianism I'm hoping to define a new position -- one that emphasizes the exploration of new, unconsidered possibilities. Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story." - David Eaglemen Now, some of my favorite writers such as Sam Harris have stated that this belief system is simply atheism in a new shell. I disagree. I've found that the word Atheism means that a god/gods doesn't exist and that there isn't a chance of any form of it. Even Richard Dawkins has stated in the God Delusion that Atheists today are not full blown atheists in the sense that they are not on the pure opposite side of the spectrum of creationist who are 100% certain there is a god. Its normally around 99% percent or so which makes me feel that the word atheism which comes from the Greek language "Without God" isn't appropriate for where most of us already stand. Perhaps it is more of a defintional thing, but the idea of holding all ideas with value and using what we know about the world to shift our views on the spectrum of Belief I---------------------------------------------I Belief Non- Belief I find that perhaps it is unlikely, but we certainly do not have the evidence to support that a god or gods doesnt exist. I originally registered myself as an atheist, but after coming across this term a few years ago this is where I have stood. I've always felt that this term better explained how many atheists felt, but most of us didn't know it actually existed. CMV reddit Assistant:This topic has been discussed here many times and the responses are usually the same. It all just boils down to a misunderstanding of the term "atheism." The prefix "a" means "to lack." Since *gnosis* is the Latin root for knowledge, an *a*gnostic is someone who lacks knowledge about a topic. Similarly an *a*theist is someone who lacks theism, or lacks a belief in god. To say atheists assert that there is no possibility that god exists is simply wrong. Some atheists may say that, but that's not what atheism is. The new term you've introduced "possibilianism" would just be a subcategory of atheism. Since they too would lack belief in god.

Human: [TN] I was fired from my job of 13 years upon returning from short term disability. Now, I am being sued for the cost of a scholarship due to "breach of contract". What happens now and how does the statute of limitations play in (this was 14 months ago)? I considered making a throwaway for this, but I am in desperate need of advice and I am hoping using my real account will increase the visibility of my question. I threw a TL;DR at the end because it's a super long read, but I would love to show my appreciation for any insight/advice by answering any questions you may have about pharmacy/medicine whenever such a need arises on your end (I have an active doctorate in pharmacy)! I worked at a popular retail pharmacy in Tennessee from 2003 - 2016 (13 years) with excellent performance reviews and continuous promotions (no attendance issues as well). I received a scholarship from the company with some fine print in the contract that I must work an equal amount of years at my company as the amount of years I took the scholarship. This was not an issue for me, as this company was my lifelong career plan. In March 2016 (2 years into my ~5 year scholarship/contract), I started having health issues related to some epidural steroid shots/back problems. I went on short term disability from March 2016 through June 2016 due to some bouts with loss of consciousness and incontinence (potential cauda equina). Upon return from short term disability, I was doing fine except for some slight hand tremors. I discovered I was not able to (reliably) give immunizations to patients, and my district manager put me on severely limited hours, based on his interpretation of a newly-updated company policy regarding immunization. While my doctor and I were trying to figure out if these tremors were a short-term or life-long thing, I managed to find my own hours by working across 3 districts, sometimes driving 10-15 hours a week. During this time (June 2016 through August 2016), I felt like my district manager was picking on me for smaller and smaller issues, so I began filing reports with corporate HR. I filed at least 2 reports specifically stating my concern that my district manager was trying to fire me under other/false pretenses because my disability/tremor was inconvenient but (unfortunately for him) was not in itself a fire-able offense. Near the end of August, I came in for a morning shift and almost immediately had to call the district office to get sick coverage for myself (vomiting and diarrhea). My relief arrived and I started to leave for home. The store manager tells me I am not allowed to leave because he had put in a request for me to take a drug test due to me "acting unusual". At this point, I shared with them that I actually needed to go home to clean myself up because I had had a small accident (vomit + diarrhea + desperately trying to hold it in = shart). I would then be happy to report to wherever they wanted me to go, as yes, I probably was behaving *unusual* since it was an *unusual* occurrence for me to sit around with stool in my pants. He told me not to bother with the drug test if I went home first. The next day, the district manager called me to tell me I was being terminated and was not eligible for re-hire for the rest of my life due to failure to comply with the drug test request. I later found out (through friends...not through something provable in court) that the store manager had only requested the drug test because the district manager had heard my call come in to the scheduler for the sick coverage request. The district manager then asked the store manager (whom I had never worked with) to put in a request for a supervised drug test across town. My guess is he knew a humiliating two hour chauffeured and chaperoned ordeal while carrying a bucket to vomit in and reeking of excrement might be something I finally kick back on. I feel lost, helpless, and stupid for deciding to not take action last year. I have always been the type of person that keeps their head down and desperately tries not to make waves no matter how much I get stepped on in the process. I'm sure that it doesn't help on the "speaking up" front that a large portion of my situation revolves around more than one episode of fecal incontinence (rrreeaaallly hoping this ends up being worth not making a throwaway). I really feel like I am in a "fighting city hall" scenario since my ex-employer is one of the top three retail chain pharmacies in the country. So...what is my question/s already? Please weigh in on any or all of the following: To start, some recent background: I work as a teacher now and am not making pharmacist bank anymore. I barely make enough right now to stave off just the interest of my $250,000 federal student loans from pharmacy school. Will I need to bring proof of income/debt or will that even be taken into consideration? How common would it be for a judge to decide guilty but then decide a different amount to be paid? How can I prove I called HR and filed the reports - if I ask for a copy of them do they have to give them to me? I don't really know how to go about getting a lawyer in Northeast Tennessee for this (do I need a disability lawyer? some other kind of lawyer?) and wasn't sure about statute of limitations (I was terminated Aug 30, 2016) and also affordability is an issue here as well (are lawyers' fees income based?). If I sue my ex-employer, is that a separate trial or will it be in the same one coming up for my 'breach of contract"? How hard is it to prove discrimination/wrongful termination in a right to work state? If statute of limitations is over now, what is the best way to handle their suit against me - should I even still get a lawyer? What happens if I say "not guilty", but I don't have a lawyer? There are so many other questions and issues that would make this way too long to type [I never got paid for my short term disability and never got reimbursed for my travel expenses so they technically owed me thousands of dollars during those six months BEFORE I lost my job (probably in the ballpark of $15,000 honestly, but it's been more than a year so does that matter?) and they are suing me for about $15,000 for the scholarship], so please ask me anything that will help you make better sense of this mess! TL;DR After 13 years with a retail pharmacy in Tennessee, I was (wrongfully?) terminated two months after returning from short-term disability and am now being sued for the full cost of a scholarship since being terminated made me unable to comply with their terms. What is the best recourse in a right to work state? (See last paragraph for some possibly related income issues) Assistant:I'm sorry that happened. If they're suing you for the $15k scholarship, like if that actually goes to court, get a lawyer the minute you find out it's going to court and ask them about countersuing for the $15k-ish that they owe you.

Human: [TN] I was fired from my job of 13 years upon returning from short term disability. Now, I am being sued for the cost of a scholarship due to "breach of contract". What happens now and how does the statute of limitations play in (this was 14 months ago)? I considered making a throwaway for this, but I am in desperate need of advice and I am hoping using my real account will increase the visibility of my question. I threw a TL;DR at the end because it's a super long read, but I would love to show my appreciation for any insight/advice by answering any questions you may have about pharmacy/medicine whenever such a need arises on your end (I have an active doctorate in pharmacy)! I worked at a popular retail pharmacy in Tennessee from 2003 - 2016 (13 years) with excellent performance reviews and continuous promotions (no attendance issues as well). I received a scholarship from the company with some fine print in the contract that I must work an equal amount of years at my company as the amount of years I took the scholarship. This was not an issue for me, as this company was my lifelong career plan. In March 2016 (2 years into my ~5 year scholarship/contract), I started having health issues related to some epidural steroid shots/back problems. I went on short term disability from March 2016 through June 2016 due to some bouts with loss of consciousness and incontinence (potential cauda equina). Upon return from short term disability, I was doing fine except for some slight hand tremors. I discovered I was not able to (reliably) give immunizations to patients, and my district manager put me on severely limited hours, based on his interpretation of a newly-updated company policy regarding immunization. While my doctor and I were trying to figure out if these tremors were a short-term or life-long thing, I managed to find my own hours by working across 3 districts, sometimes driving 10-15 hours a week. During this time (June 2016 through August 2016), I felt like my district manager was picking on me for smaller and smaller issues, so I began filing reports with corporate HR. I filed at least 2 reports specifically stating my concern that my district manager was trying to fire me under other/false pretenses because my disability/tremor was inconvenient but (unfortunately for him) was not in itself a fire-able offense. Near the end of August, I came in for a morning shift and almost immediately had to call the district office to get sick coverage for myself (vomiting and diarrhea). My relief arrived and I started to leave for home. The store manager tells me I am not allowed to leave because he had put in a request for me to take a drug test due to me "acting unusual". At this point, I shared with them that I actually needed to go home to clean myself up because I had had a small accident (vomit + diarrhea + desperately trying to hold it in = shart). I would then be happy to report to wherever they wanted me to go, as yes, I probably was behaving *unusual* since it was an *unusual* occurrence for me to sit around with stool in my pants. He told me not to bother with the drug test if I went home first. The next day, the district manager called me to tell me I was being terminated and was not eligible for re-hire for the rest of my life due to failure to comply with the drug test request. I later found out (through friends...not through something provable in court) that the store manager had only requested the drug test because the district manager had heard my call come in to the scheduler for the sick coverage request. The district manager then asked the store manager (whom I had never worked with) to put in a request for a supervised drug test across town. My guess is he knew a humiliating two hour chauffeured and chaperoned ordeal while carrying a bucket to vomit in and reeking of excrement might be something I finally kick back on. I feel lost, helpless, and stupid for deciding to not take action last year. I have always been the type of person that keeps their head down and desperately tries not to make waves no matter how much I get stepped on in the process. I'm sure that it doesn't help on the "speaking up" front that a large portion of my situation revolves around more than one episode of fecal incontinence (rrreeaaallly hoping this ends up being worth not making a throwaway). I really feel like I am in a "fighting city hall" scenario since my ex-employer is one of the top three retail chain pharmacies in the country. So...what is my question/s already? Please weigh in on any or all of the following: To start, some recent background: I work as a teacher now and am not making pharmacist bank anymore. I barely make enough right now to stave off just the interest of my $250,000 federal student loans from pharmacy school. Will I need to bring proof of income/debt or will that even be taken into consideration? How common would it be for a judge to decide guilty but then decide a different amount to be paid? How can I prove I called HR and filed the reports - if I ask for a copy of them do they have to give them to me? I don't really know how to go about getting a lawyer in Northeast Tennessee for this (do I need a disability lawyer? some other kind of lawyer?) and wasn't sure about statute of limitations (I was terminated Aug 30, 2016) and also affordability is an issue here as well (are lawyers' fees income based?). If I sue my ex-employer, is that a separate trial or will it be in the same one coming up for my 'breach of contract"? How hard is it to prove discrimination/wrongful termination in a right to work state? If statute of limitations is over now, what is the best way to handle their suit against me - should I even still get a lawyer? What happens if I say "not guilty", but I don't have a lawyer? There are so many other questions and issues that would make this way too long to type [I never got paid for my short term disability and never got reimbursed for my travel expenses so they technically owed me thousands of dollars during those six months BEFORE I lost my job (probably in the ballpark of $15,000 honestly, but it's been more than a year so does that matter?) and they are suing me for about $15,000 for the scholarship], so please ask me anything that will help you make better sense of this mess! TL;DR After 13 years with a retail pharmacy in Tennessee, I was (wrongfully?) terminated two months after returning from short-term disability and am now being sued for the full cost of a scholarship since being terminated made me unable to comply with their terms. What is the best recourse in a right to work state? (See last paragraph for some possibly related income issues) Assistant:You should find an experienced employment discrimination attorney. Normally you have 180 days after the adverse action to file a complaint with the EEOC. In TN you have 300 days. Judging by your termination date, it looks like your statute of limitations is going to be an issue.

Human: Should finding an engineer for a greenhouse project I'm trying to start be my next step? Plus some questions if so. Sorry in advance. This will probably be a bit drawn out and strange. Also, I'm autistic, so word things weirdly at times. I've read this over (and re-written it about 5 times now) but feel free to ask me to clarify anything I've written if I just didn't notice that something was off. Nearly 20 years ago I found out how big a problem world hunger is. To combat it, I made an on-paper greenhouse that will grow any plant-based crop in any climate or season and aimed to make it need as little outside resources as possible (aside from future repairs/replacement equipment). I wanted to build a prototype with a small farm on the side (to pay the bills, essentially) and once it proved to work make the plans open source while giving them directly to various charities that fundraise to help people in food deserts. I've been striking out ever since. The current plan is to try to find someone to partner with who can help me access grant money (as that seems to be one of the many problems for me who barely makes enough money to get to/from work) give them the data, and let them claim the plans as their own. Hopefully with a contract in place that will make them put at least a few in food deserts, since it was the whole idea. I've been told by a professor where I work (he does some life coaching) that I should quit looking for ways to fund it first and instead find an engineer to draw up a technical schematic. He said once I have that in hand, I'll be more likely to find someone who is willing to help. Essentially it'll look more polished vs. me being some silly little autistic girl who has read too many sci-fi novels (she says after having gotten that exact line before, keeping seeing little ways her ideas are creeping into mainstream ag while also seeing things like demanding people give up traditional diets or make everyone just eat bugs to solve the issue, and the day after seeing an article about scientists planning to find ways to dim the sun. . .). Does it sound like this should be my next step? If so: I'll get the rude question out of the way first. How trustworthy is someone I find going to be? I've had ideas stolen in the past (like the teacher in high school who submitted some of my art as his own in a competition and claimed the prize) and since my pets plus the hope that this'll eventually pan out/pay me enough I can finally support myself are basically all I've got keeping me going at the moment, I'd rather hate to find out that since I don't have the cash to build it right away they "helped" me by building it themselves, making a profit, and asking since I wanted to donate the plans anyway, why I am I complaining? For the *not* rude questions (I hope?) What sort of engineer would I need? It'll have electrical and structural aspects, plus things like plumbing and the floor plan that I'll need to work out. Where do I even find a place that would do this? The professor suggested I crowdfund the cost of an engineer as I am assuming such a thing will not be. . . well, even within what I make in a year. Would I be able to get an estimate of what it should take to get the plans sketched up, and if so, how long are those estimates usually good for? It'd be great if the crowdfunding could do it in a few days, but if it took a few months, would I have to get a new estimate and hope it was the same amount? Are there any places out there that do this sort of thing pro-bono so long as they get credit when (and again, I've been trying to get this for nearly 20 years. It might not happen soon or ever.) the system gets built? He said one of the local universities might be interested since they've got a big engineering program and are doing some work with sustainability. Someone/a few people might be able to use it as a capstone project. I'd have no issue with that except that I'd ideally like to move from the country I'm living in to start this (assuming they'll have me. Also, yes, I've tried where I want to move. I can find "once you've got it running, we'll help you expand!" which. . . isn't what I'm looking for, but is better than here, I suppose.) If I say that, would they still be likely to look at it seriously, or just say "beat it, loser" since I don't want to do it here? I know to a certain extent how it'd be set up. I was careful in my original planning to use existing technology that'd just have to be altered for the space vs. coming up with an idea that'd need something 100% new. (I'm not, for example, suggesting we just build Star Trek-esque transporters to beam the food into peoples' cupboards, despite what most of the people I've spoken to about this seem to think.) Is saying "I want this and this, and this thing is based off of this, just on a different scale" and furnishing a basic sketch going to be seen as me being a rude/overbearing client, or would it likely help whoever was working on it with the schematic? And lastly (I think.) This is why I was thinking of waiting on the engineer until I had someone to help me find funding. The system itself should be scalable. A place with 100,000 people would obviously need more growing capability than a place with 1,000 people. I figured whatever charity was putting systems out would have an engineer on staff/a firm they'd made a contract with. For me, though? I could probably figure out what I'd need for my own table, but I had also wanted to have a tie-in with my business (currently thinking farmhouse cheese with a bit of soapmaking on the side. The system would grow the soaping oils and perhaps something like fresh herbs for a grocery contract.) and I'd need a business planner in the area to figure out what I'd need for that. Would I need to have an exact space requirement in mind? At this point it'd most likely be a semi-educated guess (especially since I've got 2 growing questions that would affect space requirements left), and I'd hate to either seriously underestimate my needs or seriously overestimate and continue to not be able to find anything because of cost requirements for something that would wind up being mostly empty space if it was ever built. If you've made it this far, thank you. I still want to figure this out, and any ideas anyone has would be very much appreciated. Assistant:My specialty is in the design world for indoor agriculture/vertical farming, and I'd be happy to try and answer some questions for you if you'd like. I will start out by saying that this statement sticks out out to me a bit: >I made an on-paper greenhouse that will grow any plant-based crop in any climate or season and aimed to make it need as little outside resources as possible I've worked with quite a few greenhouse designs and this would be *extremely* difficult to pull off. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I've seen a lot of firms pour a lot of R&D money into trying to just grow 2 or 3 crops in a single space and have limited success. The fact is that plant biology is just wildly different between something like bananas and something like kale. On top of that, growing in any climate means accounting for any conditions from -15 deg F to 115 deg F and anywhere form 10-85% RH to cover most of the habitable USA alone. That means that at minimum you're going to need a heating system (potential root warming) and some level of cooling. Evaporative cooling is popular with greenhouses now but it requires water and fans and water is becoming a more scarce resource. That's one of the reasons that full CEA is a lot of times a better choice in my opinion, because you can reclaim 60-80% of the water used and potential partially offset energy usage with PV arrays. As for cost, I can tell you that a simple design for just the mechanical, electrical and plumbing components of a greenhouse would probably run you 15-20K at my firm. A full engineering design/analysis including prototyping, structural and civil items? That could easily run you 80-100k USD.

Human: Should finding an engineer for a greenhouse project I'm trying to start be my next step? Plus some questions if so. Sorry in advance. This will probably be a bit drawn out and strange. Also, I'm autistic, so word things weirdly at times. I've read this over (and re-written it about 5 times now) but feel free to ask me to clarify anything I've written if I just didn't notice that something was off. Nearly 20 years ago I found out how big a problem world hunger is. To combat it, I made an on-paper greenhouse that will grow any plant-based crop in any climate or season and aimed to make it need as little outside resources as possible (aside from future repairs/replacement equipment). I wanted to build a prototype with a small farm on the side (to pay the bills, essentially) and once it proved to work make the plans open source while giving them directly to various charities that fundraise to help people in food deserts. I've been striking out ever since. The current plan is to try to find someone to partner with who can help me access grant money (as that seems to be one of the many problems for me who barely makes enough money to get to/from work) give them the data, and let them claim the plans as their own. Hopefully with a contract in place that will make them put at least a few in food deserts, since it was the whole idea. I've been told by a professor where I work (he does some life coaching) that I should quit looking for ways to fund it first and instead find an engineer to draw up a technical schematic. He said once I have that in hand, I'll be more likely to find someone who is willing to help. Essentially it'll look more polished vs. me being some silly little autistic girl who has read too many sci-fi novels (she says after having gotten that exact line before, keeping seeing little ways her ideas are creeping into mainstream ag while also seeing things like demanding people give up traditional diets or make everyone just eat bugs to solve the issue, and the day after seeing an article about scientists planning to find ways to dim the sun. . .). Does it sound like this should be my next step? If so: I'll get the rude question out of the way first. How trustworthy is someone I find going to be? I've had ideas stolen in the past (like the teacher in high school who submitted some of my art as his own in a competition and claimed the prize) and since my pets plus the hope that this'll eventually pan out/pay me enough I can finally support myself are basically all I've got keeping me going at the moment, I'd rather hate to find out that since I don't have the cash to build it right away they "helped" me by building it themselves, making a profit, and asking since I wanted to donate the plans anyway, why I am I complaining? For the *not* rude questions (I hope?) What sort of engineer would I need? It'll have electrical and structural aspects, plus things like plumbing and the floor plan that I'll need to work out. Where do I even find a place that would do this? The professor suggested I crowdfund the cost of an engineer as I am assuming such a thing will not be. . . well, even within what I make in a year. Would I be able to get an estimate of what it should take to get the plans sketched up, and if so, how long are those estimates usually good for? It'd be great if the crowdfunding could do it in a few days, but if it took a few months, would I have to get a new estimate and hope it was the same amount? Are there any places out there that do this sort of thing pro-bono so long as they get credit when (and again, I've been trying to get this for nearly 20 years. It might not happen soon or ever.) the system gets built? He said one of the local universities might be interested since they've got a big engineering program and are doing some work with sustainability. Someone/a few people might be able to use it as a capstone project. I'd have no issue with that except that I'd ideally like to move from the country I'm living in to start this (assuming they'll have me. Also, yes, I've tried where I want to move. I can find "once you've got it running, we'll help you expand!" which. . . isn't what I'm looking for, but is better than here, I suppose.) If I say that, would they still be likely to look at it seriously, or just say "beat it, loser" since I don't want to do it here? I know to a certain extent how it'd be set up. I was careful in my original planning to use existing technology that'd just have to be altered for the space vs. coming up with an idea that'd need something 100% new. (I'm not, for example, suggesting we just build Star Trek-esque transporters to beam the food into peoples' cupboards, despite what most of the people I've spoken to about this seem to think.) Is saying "I want this and this, and this thing is based off of this, just on a different scale" and furnishing a basic sketch going to be seen as me being a rude/overbearing client, or would it likely help whoever was working on it with the schematic? And lastly (I think.) This is why I was thinking of waiting on the engineer until I had someone to help me find funding. The system itself should be scalable. A place with 100,000 people would obviously need more growing capability than a place with 1,000 people. I figured whatever charity was putting systems out would have an engineer on staff/a firm they'd made a contract with. For me, though? I could probably figure out what I'd need for my own table, but I had also wanted to have a tie-in with my business (currently thinking farmhouse cheese with a bit of soapmaking on the side. The system would grow the soaping oils and perhaps something like fresh herbs for a grocery contract.) and I'd need a business planner in the area to figure out what I'd need for that. Would I need to have an exact space requirement in mind? At this point it'd most likely be a semi-educated guess (especially since I've got 2 growing questions that would affect space requirements left), and I'd hate to either seriously underestimate my needs or seriously overestimate and continue to not be able to find anything because of cost requirements for something that would wind up being mostly empty space if it was ever built. If you've made it this far, thank you. I still want to figure this out, and any ideas anyone has would be very much appreciated. Assistant:Honestly if you’ve been working on this for twenty years and haven’t got past finding an answer to this, I doubt one exists. You state you have an “on paper” idea. In 20 years you couldn’t find a local farm to volunteer at to test it out? Harsh truth that no one is telling you: your idea most likely will not work in reality. If you believe it will, risk your own funds? 20 years is a long time to have saved even a small enough amount OR go to engineering school and get a degree to design it yourself.

Human: Monday Methods: Holocaust Denial and how to combat it Welcome to Monday Methods! Today's post will be a bit longer than previous posts because of the topic: Holocaust Denial and how to combat it. It's a rather specific topic but in recent weeks, we have noticed a general uptick of Holocaust Denial and "JAQing" in this sub and with the apparently excellent movie Denial coming out soon, we expect further interest. We have previously and at length argued why we don't allow Holocaust denial or any other forms of revisionism under our civility rule but the reasons for doing so will – hopefully – also become more apparent in this post. At the same time, a post like this seemed necessary because we do get questions from people who don't ascribe to Holocaust Denial but have come in contact with their propaganda and talking points and want more information. As we understand this sub to have an educational mission and to be a space with the purpose of presenting informative, in-depth, and comprehensive information to people seeking it, we are necessarily dedicated to values such as the pursuit of of historical truth and imparting historical interpretations based on fact and good faith. With all that in mind, it felt appropriate to create a post like this where we discuss what Holocaust Denial is, what its methods and background are, what information we have so far comprised on some of its most frequent talking point, and how to combat it further as well as invite our user to share their knowledge and perspective, ask questions, and discuss further. So, without further ado, let's dive into the topic. # Part 1: Definitions ## What is the Holocaust? As a starting point, it is important to define what is talked about here. Within the relevant scholarly literature and for the purpose of this post, the term Holocaust is defined as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews and up to half a million Roma, Sinti, and other groups persecuted as "gypsies" by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. It took place at the same time as other atrocities and crimes such as the Nazis targeting other groups on grounds of their perceived "inferiority", like the disabled and Slavs, and on grounds of their religion, ideology or behavior among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals. During their 12-year reign, the conservative estimate of victims of Nazi oppression and murder numbers 11 million people, though newer studies put that number at somewhere between 15 and 20 million people. ## What is Holocaust Denial? Holocaust Denial is the attempt and effort to negate, distort, and/or minimize and trivialize the established facts about the Nazi genocides against Jews, Roma, and others with the goal to rehabilitate Nazism as an ideology. Because of the staggering numbers given above, the fact that the Nazi regime applied the tools at the disposal of the modern state to genocidal ends, their sheer brutality, and a variety of other factors, the ideology of Nazism and the broader historical phenomenon of Fascism in which Nazism is often placed, have become – rightfully so – politically tainted. As and ideology that is at its core racist, anti-Semitic, and genocidal, Nazism and Fascism have become politically discredited throughout most of the world. Holocaust Deniers seek to remove this taint from the ideology of Nazism by distorting, ignoring, and misrepresenting historical fact and thereby make Nazism and Fascism socially acceptable again. In other words, Holocaust Denial is a form of political agitation in the service of bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism. In his book *Lying about Hitler* Richard Evans summarizes the following points as the most frequently held beliefs of Holocaust Deniers: > (a) The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than 6 million; it amounted to only a few hundred thousand, and was thus similar to, or less than, the number of German civilians killed in Allied bombing raids. > > (b) Gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time. > > (c) Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leaderhsip in general had a program of exterminating Europe's Jews; all they wished to do was to deport them to Eastern Europe. > > (d) "The Holocaust" was a myth invented by Allied propaganda during the war and sustained since then by Jews who wished to use it for political and financial support for the state of Israel or for themselves. The supposed evidence for the Nazis' wartime mass murder of millions of Jews by gassing and other means was fabricated after the war. Richard Evans: *Lying about Hitler. History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial*, New York 2001, p. 110] ## Part 2: What are the methods of Holocaust Denial? The methods of how Holocaust Deniers try to achieve their goal to distort, minimize, or outright deny historical fact vary. One thing though that needs to be stressed from the very start is that Holocaust Deniers are not legitimate historians. Historians engage in interpretation of historical events and phenomena based on the facts found in sources. Holocaust Deniers on the other hand seek to bend, obfuscate, and explain away facts to fight their politically motivated interpretation. Since the late 70s and early 80s, Holocaust Deniers have sought to give themselves an air of legitimacy in the public eye. This includes copying the format and techniques used by legitimate historians and in that process label themselves not as deniers but as "revisionists". This is not a label they deserve. As Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman point out in their book *Denying History*: > Historians are the ones who should be described as revisionists. To receive a Ph.D. and become a professional historian, one must write an original work with research based on primary documents and new sources, reexamining or reinterpreting some historical event—in other words, revising knowledge about that event only. This is not to say, however, that revision is done for revision’s sake; it is done when new evidence or new interpretations call for a revision. > > Historians have revised and continue to revise what we know about the Holocaust. But their revision entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the cumulation of events known as the Holocaust. > > Holocaust deniers claim that there is a force field of dogma around the Holocaust—set up and run by the Jews themselves—shielding it from any change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not the public is aware of the academic debates that take place in any field of study, Holocaust scholars discuss and argue over any number of points as research continues. Deniers do know this. Rather, the Holocaust Deniers' modus operandi is to use arguments based on half-truths, falsification of the historical record, and innuendo to misrepresent the historical record and sow doubt among their audience. They resort to fabricating evidence, the use of pseudo-academic argumentation, cherry-picking of sources, outrageous and not supported interpretation of sources, and emotional claims of far-reaching conspiracy masterminded by Jews. Let me give you an example of how this works that is also used by Evans in *Lying about Hitler*, p. 78ff.: David Irving, probably one of the world's most prominent Holocaust Deniers, has argued for a long time that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust, even going so far as to claim that Hitler did not know about Jews being killed. This has been the central argument of his book *Hitler's War* published in 1977 and 1990 (with distinct differences, as in the 1990 edition going even further in its Holocaust Denial). In the 1977 edition on page 332, Irving writes that Himmler > was summoned to the Wolf's Lair for a secret conference with Hitler, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly raised. At 1.30 PM Himmler was obliged to telephone from Hitler's bunker to Heydrich the explicit order that Jews were *not to be liquidated* [Italics in the original] Throughout the rest of the book in its 1977 edition and even more so in its 1990s edition, Iriving kept referring to Hitler's "November 1941 order forbidding the liquidation of Jews" and in his introduction to the book wrote that this was "incontrovertible evidence" that "Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be ‚no liquidation‘ of the Jews." [*Hitler's War*, 1977, p. xiv]. Let's look at what the phone log actually says. Kept in the German Bundesarchiv under the signature NS 19/1438, Telefonnotiz Himmler v. 30.11.1941: > Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius (Arrest of Dr. Jekelius) > > Angebl. Sohn Molotov; (Supposed son of Molotov) > > Judentransport aus Berlin. (Jew-transport from Berlin.) > > keine Liquidierung (no liquidation) Richard Evans remarks about this [p. 79] that it is clear to him as well as any reasonable person reading this document that the order to not liquidate refers to one transport, not – as Irving contends – all Jews. This is a reasonable interpretation of this document backed up further when we apply basic historiographical methods as historians are taught to do. On November 27, we know from documents by the Deutsche Reichsbahn (the national German railway), that there was indeed a deportation train of Berlin Jews to Riga. We know this, not just because the fact that this was a deportation train is backed up by the files of the Berlin Jewish community but because the Reichsbahn labels it as such and the Berlin Gestapo had given an order for it. We also know that the order for no liquidation for this transport arrived too late. The same day as this telephone conversation took place, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Latvia, Friedrich Jeckeln, reported that the Ghetto of Riga had been cleared of Latvian Jews and also that about one thousand German Jews from this transport had been shot along with them. This lead to a lengthy correspondence between Jeckeln and Himmler with Himmler reprimanding Jeckeln for shooting the German Jews. A few days earlier, on November 27, German Jews also had been shot in great numbers in Kaunas after having been deported there. Furthermore, neither the timeline nor the logic asserted by Irving match up when it comes to this document. We know from Himmler's itinerary that he met Hitler after this phone conversation took place, not before as Irving asserts. Also, if Hitler – as Irving posits – was not aware of the murder of the Jews, how could he order their liquidation to be stopped? Now, what can be gleaned from this example are how Holocaust Deniers like Irving operate: * In his discussion and interpretation of the document, Irving takes one fragment of the document that fits his interpretation: "no liquidation". * He leaves out another fragments preceding it that is crucial to understand the meaning of this phrase: "Jew-transport from Berlin." * He does not place the document within the relevant historical context: That there was a transport from Berlin, whose passengers were not to be shot in contradiction to passengers of an earlier transport and to later acts of murder against German Jews. * He lies about what little context he gave for the document: Himmler met Hitler after the telephone conversation rather than before. * And based on all that, he puts forth a historical interpretation that while it does not match the historical facts, it matches his ideological conclusions: Hitler ordered the murder of Jews halted – a conclusion that does not even fit his logic that Hitler didn't know about the murder of Jews. A reasonable and legitimate interpretation of this document and the ongoings surrounding it is put forth by Christian Gerlach in his book *Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord*. p. 94f. Gerlach argues that the first mass shooting of German Jews on November 27, 1941 had caused fear among the Nazi leadership that details concerning the murder of German Jews might become public. In order to avoid a public outcry similar to that against the T4 killing program of the handicapped. For this reason, they needed more time to figure out what to do with the German Jews and arrived at the ultimate conclusion to kill them under greater secrecy in camps such as Maly Trostinecz and others. ## Part 3: How do I recognize and combat Holocaust Denial # Recognizing Denial From the above given example, not only the methods of Holocaust Deniers become clear but also, that it can be very difficult for a person not familiar with the minutiae of the history of the Holocaust to engage or even recognize Holocaust Denial. This is exactly a fact, Holocaust Deniers are counting on when spreading their lies and propaganda. So how can one as a lay person recognize Holocaust Denial? Aside from an immediate red flag that should go up as soon as people start talking about Jewish conspiracies, winner's justice, and supposed "truth" suppressed by the mainstream, any of the four points mentioned about Holocaust Denier's beliefs above should also ring alarm bells immediately. Additionally, there is a number of authors and organizations that are well known as Holocaust Deniers. Reading their names or them being quoted in an affirmative manner are also sure fire signs of Holocaust Denial. The authors and organizations include but are not limited to: The Institute for Historical Review, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, David Irving, Arthur Butz, Paul Rassinier, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Zündel, and William Carto. Aside all these, anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric are an integral part of almost all Holocaust Denial literature. I previously mentioned the Jewish conspiracy trope but when you suddenly find racist, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and white supremacists rhetoric in a media that otherwise projects historical reliability it is a sign that it is a Holocaust Denier publication. Similarly, there are are certain argumentative strategies Holocaust Deniers use. Next to the obvious of trying to minimize the numbers of people killed et. al., these include casting doubt on eyewitness testimony while relying on eyewitness testimony that helps their position, asserting that post-war confessions of Nazis were forced by torture, or some numbers magic that might seem legit at first but becomes really unconvincing once you take a closer look at it. In short, recognizing Holocaust Denial can be achieved the best way if one approaches it like one should approach many things read: By engaging its content and assertions critically and by taking a closer look at the arguments presented and how they are presented. If someone like Irving writes that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, yet ordered it stopped in 1941, as a reader one should quickly arrive at the conclusion that he has some explaining to do. # How do we combat Holocaust Denial Given how Holocaust denial is part of a political agenda pandering bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism, combating it needs to take into account this context and any effective fight against Holocaust Denial needs to be a general fight against bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism. At the same time, it is important to know that the most effective way of fighting them and their agenda is by engaging their arguments rather than them. This is important because any debate with a Holocaust Denier is a debate not taking place on the same level. As Deborah Lipstadt once wrote: "[T]hey are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall. (...) We must educate the broader public and academe about this threat and its historical and ideological roots. We must expose these people for what they are." In essence, someone who for ideological reasons rejects the validity of established facts is someone with whom direct debates will never bear any constructive fruits. Because when you do not even share a premise – that facts are facts – arguing indeed becomes like nailing a pudding to the wall. So, what can we do? Educate ourselves, educate others, and expose Holocaust Deniers as the racist, bigots and anti-Semites they are. There is a good reason Nazism is not socially acceptable as an ideology – and there is good reason it should stay that way. Because it is wrong in its very essence. The same way Holocaust Denial is wrong at its very core. Morally as well as simply factually. Thankfully, there are scores of resources out there, where anybody interested is able to educate and inform themselves. The [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has resources as well as a whole encyclopedia dedicated to spread information about the Holocaust. Emory University Digital Resource Center has its The Holocaust on Trial Website directly addressing many of the myths and lies spread by Holocaust Deniers and providing a collection of material used in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial. The Jewish Virtual Library as well as the – somewhat 90s in their aesthetics – Nizkor Project also provide easily accessible online resources to inform oneself about claims of Holocaust Deniers. (And there is us too! Doing our best to answer the questions you have!) Another very important part of fighting Holocaust Denial is to reject the notion that this is a story "that has two sides". This is often used to give these people a forum or argue that they should be able to somehow present their views to the public. It is imperative to not walk into this fallacious trap. There are no two sides to one story here. There are people engaging in the serious study of history who try to find a variety of perspectives and interpretation based on facts conveyed to us through sources. And then there are Holocaust Deniers who use lies, distortion, and the charge of conspiracy. These are not two sides of a conversation with equal or even slightly skewed legitimacy. This is people engaging in serious conversations and arguments vs. people whose whole argument boils down to "nuh-uh", "it's that way because of the Jews" and "lalalala I can't hear you". When one "side" rejects facts en gros not because they can disprove them, not because they can argue that they aren't relevant or valid but rather because they don't fit their bigoted world-view, they cease to be a legitimate side in a conversation and become the equivalent of a drunk person yelling "No, you!" but in a slightly more sophisticated and much more nefarious way. For further information on Holocaust Denial as well as refuting denialist claims, you can use the resources abvove, our FAQ, our FAQ Section on Holocaust Denial and especially * /u/elm11 's post on Holocaust Denial * This previous thread on how to deal with Holocaust Denial * and as an example, this thread where /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov and I engage a couple of denialist talking points. Assistant:/u/commiespaceinvader you never disappoint in your knowledge and eloquence around WWII/Holocaust issues. Thank you for this Monday Method. I think it's also important to know that Holocaust deniers can rely on "experts" who have no special credentials. For example, one "expert" used is Fred A. Leuchter Jr., a man who helped revolutionize capital punishment in the United States. Because he has this knowledge about "humanely" executing others, he was asked to provide his opinion on the "legitimacy" of Auschwitz as an extermination site. He damaged the site "in the name of research" (research which actual experts have said was flawed for various reasons). Even though this man was not a historian, a scientist with experience testing for chemicals, or even a medical doctor, he became embraced by deniers as an "expert" for no reason other than he knew how to "humanely" gas an individual prisoner. For more on this watch the documentary Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr.

Human: Monday Methods: Holocaust Denial and how to combat it Welcome to Monday Methods! Today's post will be a bit longer than previous posts because of the topic: Holocaust Denial and how to combat it. It's a rather specific topic but in recent weeks, we have noticed a general uptick of Holocaust Denial and "JAQing" in this sub and with the apparently excellent movie Denial coming out soon, we expect further interest. We have previously and at length argued why we don't allow Holocaust denial or any other forms of revisionism under our civility rule but the reasons for doing so will – hopefully – also become more apparent in this post. At the same time, a post like this seemed necessary because we do get questions from people who don't ascribe to Holocaust Denial but have come in contact with their propaganda and talking points and want more information. As we understand this sub to have an educational mission and to be a space with the purpose of presenting informative, in-depth, and comprehensive information to people seeking it, we are necessarily dedicated to values such as the pursuit of of historical truth and imparting historical interpretations based on fact and good faith. With all that in mind, it felt appropriate to create a post like this where we discuss what Holocaust Denial is, what its methods and background are, what information we have so far comprised on some of its most frequent talking point, and how to combat it further as well as invite our user to share their knowledge and perspective, ask questions, and discuss further. So, without further ado, let's dive into the topic. # Part 1: Definitions ## What is the Holocaust? As a starting point, it is important to define what is talked about here. Within the relevant scholarly literature and for the purpose of this post, the term Holocaust is defined as the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews and up to half a million Roma, Sinti, and other groups persecuted as "gypsies" by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. It took place at the same time as other atrocities and crimes such as the Nazis targeting other groups on grounds of their perceived "inferiority", like the disabled and Slavs, and on grounds of their religion, ideology or behavior among them Communists, Socialists, Jehovah's Witnesses and homosexuals. During their 12-year reign, the conservative estimate of victims of Nazi oppression and murder numbers 11 million people, though newer studies put that number at somewhere between 15 and 20 million people. ## What is Holocaust Denial? Holocaust Denial is the attempt and effort to negate, distort, and/or minimize and trivialize the established facts about the Nazi genocides against Jews, Roma, and others with the goal to rehabilitate Nazism as an ideology. Because of the staggering numbers given above, the fact that the Nazi regime applied the tools at the disposal of the modern state to genocidal ends, their sheer brutality, and a variety of other factors, the ideology of Nazism and the broader historical phenomenon of Fascism in which Nazism is often placed, have become – rightfully so – politically tainted. As and ideology that is at its core racist, anti-Semitic, and genocidal, Nazism and Fascism have become politically discredited throughout most of the world. Holocaust Deniers seek to remove this taint from the ideology of Nazism by distorting, ignoring, and misrepresenting historical fact and thereby make Nazism and Fascism socially acceptable again. In other words, Holocaust Denial is a form of political agitation in the service of bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism. In his book *Lying about Hitler* Richard Evans summarizes the following points as the most frequently held beliefs of Holocaust Deniers: > (a) The number of Jews killed by the Nazis was far less than 6 million; it amounted to only a few hundred thousand, and was thus similar to, or less than, the number of German civilians killed in Allied bombing raids. > > (b) Gas chambers were not used to kill large numbers of Jews at any time. > > (c) Neither Hitler nor the Nazi leaderhsip in general had a program of exterminating Europe's Jews; all they wished to do was to deport them to Eastern Europe. > > (d) "The Holocaust" was a myth invented by Allied propaganda during the war and sustained since then by Jews who wished to use it for political and financial support for the state of Israel or for themselves. The supposed evidence for the Nazis' wartime mass murder of millions of Jews by gassing and other means was fabricated after the war. Richard Evans: *Lying about Hitler. History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial*, New York 2001, p. 110] ## Part 2: What are the methods of Holocaust Denial? The methods of how Holocaust Deniers try to achieve their goal to distort, minimize, or outright deny historical fact vary. One thing though that needs to be stressed from the very start is that Holocaust Deniers are not legitimate historians. Historians engage in interpretation of historical events and phenomena based on the facts found in sources. Holocaust Deniers on the other hand seek to bend, obfuscate, and explain away facts to fight their politically motivated interpretation. Since the late 70s and early 80s, Holocaust Deniers have sought to give themselves an air of legitimacy in the public eye. This includes copying the format and techniques used by legitimate historians and in that process label themselves not as deniers but as "revisionists". This is not a label they deserve. As Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman point out in their book *Denying History*: > Historians are the ones who should be described as revisionists. To receive a Ph.D. and become a professional historian, one must write an original work with research based on primary documents and new sources, reexamining or reinterpreting some historical event—in other words, revising knowledge about that event only. This is not to say, however, that revision is done for revision’s sake; it is done when new evidence or new interpretations call for a revision. > > Historians have revised and continue to revise what we know about the Holocaust. But their revision entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the cumulation of events known as the Holocaust. > > Holocaust deniers claim that there is a force field of dogma around the Holocaust—set up and run by the Jews themselves—shielding it from any change. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether or not the public is aware of the academic debates that take place in any field of study, Holocaust scholars discuss and argue over any number of points as research continues. Deniers do know this. Rather, the Holocaust Deniers' modus operandi is to use arguments based on half-truths, falsification of the historical record, and innuendo to misrepresent the historical record and sow doubt among their audience. They resort to fabricating evidence, the use of pseudo-academic argumentation, cherry-picking of sources, outrageous and not supported interpretation of sources, and emotional claims of far-reaching conspiracy masterminded by Jews. Let me give you an example of how this works that is also used by Evans in *Lying about Hitler*, p. 78ff.: David Irving, probably one of the world's most prominent Holocaust Deniers, has argued for a long time that Hitler was not responsible for the Holocaust, even going so far as to claim that Hitler did not know about Jews being killed. This has been the central argument of his book *Hitler's War* published in 1977 and 1990 (with distinct differences, as in the 1990 edition going even further in its Holocaust Denial). In the 1977 edition on page 332, Irving writes that Himmler > was summoned to the Wolf's Lair for a secret conference with Hitler, at which the fate of Berlin's Jews was clearly raised. At 1.30 PM Himmler was obliged to telephone from Hitler's bunker to Heydrich the explicit order that Jews were *not to be liquidated* [Italics in the original] Throughout the rest of the book in its 1977 edition and even more so in its 1990s edition, Iriving kept referring to Hitler's "November 1941 order forbidding the liquidation of Jews" and in his introduction to the book wrote that this was "incontrovertible evidence" that "Hitler ordered on November 30, 1941, that there was to be ‚no liquidation‘ of the Jews." [*Hitler's War*, 1977, p. xiv]. Let's look at what the phone log actually says. Kept in the German Bundesarchiv under the signature NS 19/1438, Telefonnotiz Himmler v. 30.11.1941: > Verhaftung Dr. Jekelius (Arrest of Dr. Jekelius) > > Angebl. Sohn Molotov; (Supposed son of Molotov) > > Judentransport aus Berlin. (Jew-transport from Berlin.) > > keine Liquidierung (no liquidation) Richard Evans remarks about this [p. 79] that it is clear to him as well as any reasonable person reading this document that the order to not liquidate refers to one transport, not – as Irving contends – all Jews. This is a reasonable interpretation of this document backed up further when we apply basic historiographical methods as historians are taught to do. On November 27, we know from documents by the Deutsche Reichsbahn (the national German railway), that there was indeed a deportation train of Berlin Jews to Riga. We know this, not just because the fact that this was a deportation train is backed up by the files of the Berlin Jewish community but because the Reichsbahn labels it as such and the Berlin Gestapo had given an order for it. We also know that the order for no liquidation for this transport arrived too late. The same day as this telephone conversation took place, the Higher SS and Police Leader of Latvia, Friedrich Jeckeln, reported that the Ghetto of Riga had been cleared of Latvian Jews and also that about one thousand German Jews from this transport had been shot along with them. This lead to a lengthy correspondence between Jeckeln and Himmler with Himmler reprimanding Jeckeln for shooting the German Jews. A few days earlier, on November 27, German Jews also had been shot in great numbers in Kaunas after having been deported there. Furthermore, neither the timeline nor the logic asserted by Irving match up when it comes to this document. We know from Himmler's itinerary that he met Hitler after this phone conversation took place, not before as Irving asserts. Also, if Hitler – as Irving posits – was not aware of the murder of the Jews, how could he order their liquidation to be stopped? Now, what can be gleaned from this example are how Holocaust Deniers like Irving operate: * In his discussion and interpretation of the document, Irving takes one fragment of the document that fits his interpretation: "no liquidation". * He leaves out another fragments preceding it that is crucial to understand the meaning of this phrase: "Jew-transport from Berlin." * He does not place the document within the relevant historical context: That there was a transport from Berlin, whose passengers were not to be shot in contradiction to passengers of an earlier transport and to later acts of murder against German Jews. * He lies about what little context he gave for the document: Himmler met Hitler after the telephone conversation rather than before. * And based on all that, he puts forth a historical interpretation that while it does not match the historical facts, it matches his ideological conclusions: Hitler ordered the murder of Jews halted – a conclusion that does not even fit his logic that Hitler didn't know about the murder of Jews. A reasonable and legitimate interpretation of this document and the ongoings surrounding it is put forth by Christian Gerlach in his book *Krieg, Ernährung, Völkermord*. p. 94f. Gerlach argues that the first mass shooting of German Jews on November 27, 1941 had caused fear among the Nazi leadership that details concerning the murder of German Jews might become public. In order to avoid a public outcry similar to that against the T4 killing program of the handicapped. For this reason, they needed more time to figure out what to do with the German Jews and arrived at the ultimate conclusion to kill them under greater secrecy in camps such as Maly Trostinecz and others. ## Part 3: How do I recognize and combat Holocaust Denial # Recognizing Denial From the above given example, not only the methods of Holocaust Deniers become clear but also, that it can be very difficult for a person not familiar with the minutiae of the history of the Holocaust to engage or even recognize Holocaust Denial. This is exactly a fact, Holocaust Deniers are counting on when spreading their lies and propaganda. So how can one as a lay person recognize Holocaust Denial? Aside from an immediate red flag that should go up as soon as people start talking about Jewish conspiracies, winner's justice, and supposed "truth" suppressed by the mainstream, any of the four points mentioned about Holocaust Denier's beliefs above should also ring alarm bells immediately. Additionally, there is a number of authors and organizations that are well known as Holocaust Deniers. Reading their names or them being quoted in an affirmative manner are also sure fire signs of Holocaust Denial. The authors and organizations include but are not limited to: The Institute for Historical Review, the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust, David Irving, Arthur Butz, Paul Rassinier, Fred Leuchter, Ernst Zündel, and William Carto. Aside all these, anti-Semitic and racist rhetoric are an integral part of almost all Holocaust Denial literature. I previously mentioned the Jewish conspiracy trope but when you suddenly find racist, anti-Semitic, anti-immigrant, and white supremacists rhetoric in a media that otherwise projects historical reliability it is a sign that it is a Holocaust Denier publication. Similarly, there are are certain argumentative strategies Holocaust Deniers use. Next to the obvious of trying to minimize the numbers of people killed et. al., these include casting doubt on eyewitness testimony while relying on eyewitness testimony that helps their position, asserting that post-war confessions of Nazis were forced by torture, or some numbers magic that might seem legit at first but becomes really unconvincing once you take a closer look at it. In short, recognizing Holocaust Denial can be achieved the best way if one approaches it like one should approach many things read: By engaging its content and assertions critically and by taking a closer look at the arguments presented and how they are presented. If someone like Irving writes that Hitler didn't know about the Holocaust, yet ordered it stopped in 1941, as a reader one should quickly arrive at the conclusion that he has some explaining to do. # How do we combat Holocaust Denial Given how Holocaust denial is part of a political agenda pandering bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism, combating it needs to take into account this context and any effective fight against Holocaust Denial needs to be a general fight against bigotry, racism, and anti-Semitism. At the same time, it is important to know that the most effective way of fighting them and their agenda is by engaging their arguments rather than them. This is important because any debate with a Holocaust Denier is a debate not taking place on the same level. As Deborah Lipstadt once wrote: "[T]hey are contemptuous of the very tools that shape any honest debate: truth and reason. Debating them would be like trying to nail a glob of jelly to the wall. (...) We must educate the broader public and academe about this threat and its historical and ideological roots. We must expose these people for what they are." In essence, someone who for ideological reasons rejects the validity of established facts is someone with whom direct debates will never bear any constructive fruits. Because when you do not even share a premise – that facts are facts – arguing indeed becomes like nailing a pudding to the wall. So, what can we do? Educate ourselves, educate others, and expose Holocaust Deniers as the racist, bigots and anti-Semites they are. There is a good reason Nazism is not socially acceptable as an ideology – and there is good reason it should stay that way. Because it is wrong in its very essence. The same way Holocaust Denial is wrong at its very core. Morally as well as simply factually. Thankfully, there are scores of resources out there, where anybody interested is able to educate and inform themselves. The [United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has resources as well as a whole encyclopedia dedicated to spread information about the Holocaust. Emory University Digital Resource Center has its The Holocaust on Trial Website directly addressing many of the myths and lies spread by Holocaust Deniers and providing a collection of material used in the Irving v. Lipstadt trial. The Jewish Virtual Library as well as the – somewhat 90s in their aesthetics – Nizkor Project also provide easily accessible online resources to inform oneself about claims of Holocaust Deniers. (And there is us too! Doing our best to answer the questions you have!) Another very important part of fighting Holocaust Denial is to reject the notion that this is a story "that has two sides". This is often used to give these people a forum or argue that they should be able to somehow present their views to the public. It is imperative to not walk into this fallacious trap. There are no two sides to one story here. There are people engaging in the serious study of history who try to find a variety of perspectives and interpretation based on facts conveyed to us through sources. And then there are Holocaust Deniers who use lies, distortion, and the charge of conspiracy. These are not two sides of a conversation with equal or even slightly skewed legitimacy. This is people engaging in serious conversations and arguments vs. people whose whole argument boils down to "nuh-uh", "it's that way because of the Jews" and "lalalala I can't hear you". When one "side" rejects facts en gros not because they can disprove them, not because they can argue that they aren't relevant or valid but rather because they don't fit their bigoted world-view, they cease to be a legitimate side in a conversation and become the equivalent of a drunk person yelling "No, you!" but in a slightly more sophisticated and much more nefarious way. For further information on Holocaust Denial as well as refuting denialist claims, you can use the resources abvove, our FAQ, our FAQ Section on Holocaust Denial and especially * /u/elm11 's post on Holocaust Denial * This previous thread on how to deal with Holocaust Denial * and as an example, this thread where /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov and I engage a couple of denialist talking points. Assistant:The thread where you engage with the holocaust denier is certainly fascinating reading, and I think it rather eloquently reveals the misuse of statistics to support politically motivated historical claims. On the subject of your post I would just like to seek clarification on a few points: >the ideology of Nazism and the broader historical phenomenon of Fascism in which Nazism is often placed, have become – rightfully so – politically tainted. As and ideology that is at its core racist, anti-Semitic, and genocidal, Nazism and Fascism have become politically discredited throughout most of the world. 1. You imply that fascism is inherently anti-Semitic. While national socialism is obviously anti-Semitic and I could see how fascism may be tainted by association, I don't see how it is inherently anti-Semitic in itself. An argument could certainly be made that the exhalation of the nation prominent in fascism necessitates racism or at least xenophobia but I don't see how this focuses in any way, specifically on Jewish people. 2. When you state fascism has been largely discredited what specifically do you mean. Are you referring to the fact that main stream politics avoids the 'fascist' label for fear of association to nazis and Hitler? Is it about the way in which fascism has become a shorthand for totalitarianism?

Human: CMV: The US is actually a pretty good place to live, with a decent welfare state I see a lot of people call the United States a bad place to live, and they bring up rich European countries as alternatives. Now, undoubtedly, the United States is not the #1 country on a number of metrics, but it is still a very good place to live, and easily in, say, the top 25 of countries in the world, which means it is actually a very very good place to live. **What Problems Do People Talk About** First, I think it is important to take a step back, and look at the issues that are often talked about in the United States. I hear a lot of complaints about health care, about the stagnation of wages, the shrinking of the middle class, unequal policing, structural racism, etc. What do all of these have in common? None of them are signs of basic failure of a state. We talk about "food insecurity", not hunger. We talk about "lack of health insurance", not a lack of hospitals, doctors or medicine. We talk about "aging and insufficient infrastructure" and not a lack of infrastructure altogether. We talk about "structural racism" and "racist police policies" not usually about individual, interpersonal racism. America has the problems of a developed nation that has done a lot of things right, not the problems of a failed state that has been unable to provide for the basic needs of most of its citizens. Now lets talk about a few: **Healthcare** In 2020, 91.4% of people had health insurance. According to Wikipedia, of the 27.2 million uninsured under age 65: * 4.5 million had an employer's insurance offer (making them ineligible for ACA/Obamacare coverage) but declined it; * 6.4 million were eligible for Medicaid or other public healthcare program but did not pursue it * 5.3 million were eligible for ACA/Obamacare tax credits but did not enroll in the program. * Nearly 12 million (43%) of persons were eligible for financial assistance (Medicaid or ACA subsidies) but did not enroll to obtain it. So almost half of the uninsured have programs that are designed to help them obtain insurance, but they do not pursue it. This is barely a failure of US policy, and more a failure of individuals taking advantage of the options available to them. As for all the bankruptcies supposedly caused by medical debt. This paper examined that, and found that: > we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above of it causing 60% of all bankruptcies] Now don't get me wrong, we should try to make those 4% of bankruptcies not happen, but healthcare is much less of a problem than it would be if it caused 60% of all bankruptcies. It's also worth pointing out that [EMTALA is the law of the land. If you go to an emergency room with a serious problem in the United States, you will be treated for it, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, we have universal emergency health care already. We just lack universal preventative health care. That would certainly be a good thing to pursue in the long term, but it's worth pointing out that, whatever disadvantages having employer-provided health insurance as our core form of health insurance might have (less ability to quit, be self-employed, etc.) we actually have a very good system overall. **Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class** This post talks about the problem with the shrinking middle class narrative: > Using the “0.5-1.5 of median wage” definition, the middle class has indeed decreased from 53% in 1967 to 51% in 1979 to 45% in 2012. > > In ’67, the 24-87th percentiles earned middle class incomes. In ’79 it was 24-85. In 2012 it was 24-79. The percent of households earning below half of the median wage has not changed one iota in half a century. The median wage itself could be dropping, which would be an actual problem, but the entire “decline” in the middle class is entirely caused by middle class people achieving escape velocity and becoming rich. Imagine the horror! So, far from the American dream being over, more people are richer than ever before, and the middle class has not been shrinking due to more people being poor, but due to more people being rich. Now look at this chart of disposable income by country. Quoting again: > Despite wildly varying social expenditures, income-wise the US looks remarkably like a Finland or a Norway except with a bunch of millionaires added on top of everyone else (it’s true that this chart doesn’t account for quality of public services). Is having a bunch of millionaires in your country a good or a bad thing? Whatever it is, it’s the single issue everyone in the US seems obsessed with. The other aspect is that a lot of statistics making arguments about the American poor fail to take welfare and other cash transfers into account. When you factor those in, you get the following: > After accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest. People underestimate how rich the United States is. Look at this Wikipedia page comparing the GDP per capita of US states vs. sovereign states. Even a poor state like Mississippi is almost as rich as the *countries* of France and the United Kingdom, and richer than Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and Russia. And if you take PPP into account) things look even more favorable. The United States is not a bad place to live by global standards, or even by Western European standards. Assistant:Compared to the poorest places on the planet? sure. Compared to the top 10 economic powers in the world? For the average person - not really. While the USA GDP per capita is $65k, while the other 9 of the top 10 economic powers average only $29.96 between them -- in NONE of those other 9 do bankruptcies due to medical bills happen, because in all of them there exists universal health care as a human right. All of the others have REQUIRED maternity and paternity leave for parents. Now, you may think that doesn't matter much, but it does. Study after study shows that paternity leave increases wage parity, increases paternal bonding with children, increases a husband's participation in household chores -- and those changes last a lifetime! Further, increased paternal bonding decreases divorce rates and decrease child delinquency rates. All of the others besides China have minimum wage laws that create livable wages. They have guaranteed paid vacations. The quality of life is better. Because insurance isn't tied to having a job, people can afford to leave a job they don't like to find a better one without fear of not having their medical bills paid. Moreover, because the welfare systems are just functionally more robust, almost every developed nation (except Canada) has more entrepreneurs than the USA (and quite a few places that aren't that developed - like Brazil and Mexico): https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/mt/business/assets\_c/2012/10/OECD\_Enterprise\_Birthrate-thumb-615x289-100458.png US entrepreneurship and small businesses have been on a steady decline for decades -- and that's in no small part because our welfare and health care and social programs don't support risk-taking: https://www.inc.com/magazine/201505/leigh-buchanan/the-vanishing-startups-in-decline.html And that is a HUGE problem because, as that article points out, small businesses is where innovation happens. Europe and Asia aren't going to beat us because they are wealthy than we are. They are going to beat us because they will easily out-innovate us because they have many, many, many more small businesses per capita than we do, and are thus able to and willing to take more risks and be more innovative than we will. And that is all because our welfare state sucks rocks compared to the rest of the developed world. Yes, we're not a bad place to be compared to, say, Ethiopia. But we are a bad place to be compared to Italy, and France, and Brittain, and many other developed nations. And as a result, we are going to lose the innovation war, and thus will lose the economic battle for the 21st century and beyond. And that will be the end of American economic supremacy. Not population growth, not military might, not anything more than a simple failure to give a damn about ourselves enough to pay for a social safety net that works well enough to allow for real entrepreneurs to flourish. Our poor economic policies around social programs -- thinking in terms of welfare instead of human rights and collective good -- is going to be our economic death. And that is, I think, a reason to consider it a bad place to be compared to countries where that won't happen.

Human: CMV: The US is actually a pretty good place to live, with a decent welfare state I see a lot of people call the United States a bad place to live, and they bring up rich European countries as alternatives. Now, undoubtedly, the United States is not the #1 country on a number of metrics, but it is still a very good place to live, and easily in, say, the top 25 of countries in the world, which means it is actually a very very good place to live. **What Problems Do People Talk About** First, I think it is important to take a step back, and look at the issues that are often talked about in the United States. I hear a lot of complaints about health care, about the stagnation of wages, the shrinking of the middle class, unequal policing, structural racism, etc. What do all of these have in common? None of them are signs of basic failure of a state. We talk about "food insecurity", not hunger. We talk about "lack of health insurance", not a lack of hospitals, doctors or medicine. We talk about "aging and insufficient infrastructure" and not a lack of infrastructure altogether. We talk about "structural racism" and "racist police policies" not usually about individual, interpersonal racism. America has the problems of a developed nation that has done a lot of things right, not the problems of a failed state that has been unable to provide for the basic needs of most of its citizens. Now lets talk about a few: **Healthcare** In 2020, 91.4% of people had health insurance. According to Wikipedia, of the 27.2 million uninsured under age 65: * 4.5 million had an employer's insurance offer (making them ineligible for ACA/Obamacare coverage) but declined it; * 6.4 million were eligible for Medicaid or other public healthcare program but did not pursue it * 5.3 million were eligible for ACA/Obamacare tax credits but did not enroll in the program. * Nearly 12 million (43%) of persons were eligible for financial assistance (Medicaid or ACA subsidies) but did not enroll to obtain it. So almost half of the uninsured have programs that are designed to help them obtain insurance, but they do not pursue it. This is barely a failure of US policy, and more a failure of individuals taking advantage of the options available to them. As for all the bankruptcies supposedly caused by medical debt. This paper examined that, and found that: > we estimate that hospitalizations cause only 4% of personal bankruptcies among nonelderly U.S. adults, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the previous estimates described above of it causing 60% of all bankruptcies] Now don't get me wrong, we should try to make those 4% of bankruptcies not happen, but healthcare is much less of a problem than it would be if it caused 60% of all bankruptcies. It's also worth pointing out that [EMTALA is the law of the land. If you go to an emergency room with a serious problem in the United States, you will be treated for it, regardless of ability to pay. Therefore, we have universal emergency health care already. We just lack universal preventative health care. That would certainly be a good thing to pursue in the long term, but it's worth pointing out that, whatever disadvantages having employer-provided health insurance as our core form of health insurance might have (less ability to quit, be self-employed, etc.) we actually have a very good system overall. **Inequality, and the Shrinking Middle Class** This post talks about the problem with the shrinking middle class narrative: > Using the “0.5-1.5 of median wage” definition, the middle class has indeed decreased from 53% in 1967 to 51% in 1979 to 45% in 2012. > > In ’67, the 24-87th percentiles earned middle class incomes. In ’79 it was 24-85. In 2012 it was 24-79. The percent of households earning below half of the median wage has not changed one iota in half a century. The median wage itself could be dropping, which would be an actual problem, but the entire “decline” in the middle class is entirely caused by middle class people achieving escape velocity and becoming rich. Imagine the horror! So, far from the American dream being over, more people are richer than ever before, and the middle class has not been shrinking due to more people being poor, but due to more people being rich. Now look at this chart of disposable income by country. Quoting again: > Despite wildly varying social expenditures, income-wise the US looks remarkably like a Finland or a Norway except with a bunch of millionaires added on top of everyone else (it’s true that this chart doesn’t account for quality of public services). Is having a bunch of millionaires in your country a good or a bad thing? Whatever it is, it’s the single issue everyone in the US seems obsessed with. The other aspect is that a lot of statistics making arguments about the American poor fail to take welfare and other cash transfers into account. When you factor those in, you get the following: > After accounting for all income, charity, and non-cash welfare benefits like subsidized housing and food stamps, the poorest 20 percent of Americans consume more goods and services than the national averages for all people in most affluent countries. This includes the majority of countries in the prestigious Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including its European members. In other words, if the US “poor” were a nation, it would be one of the world’s richest. People underestimate how rich the United States is. Look at this Wikipedia page comparing the GDP per capita of US states vs. sovereign states. Even a poor state like Mississippi is almost as rich as the *countries* of France and the United Kingdom, and richer than Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and Russia. And if you take PPP into account) things look even more favorable. The United States is not a bad place to live by global standards, or even by Western European standards. Assistant:No one thinks the USA is a bad place to live compared to the global average. The point, really is that - as you point out - the USA is the richest country on the planet: >People underestimate how rich the United States is. Look at this Wikipedia page comparing the GDP per capita of US states vs. sovereign states. Even a poor state like Mississippi is almost as rich as the countries of France and the United Kingdom, and richer than Spain, Italy, Slovakia, Hungary and Russia But, even by your estimates, there are more than 13 million people without access to basic healthcare. And the routine fact (as well as the threat) of medical bankruptcy hanging over the heads of the non-rich. The USA is a great place to live, compared to global averages. And it's a great place to live if you have money compared to pretty much anywhere. The criticism that people tend to make is that, given how much wealth the country has, a huge number of the less advantaged are effectively abandoned and that this is a morally abhorrent thing.

Human: CMV: The terrorism, violence and extremism in the Middle East today is not (primarily) a product of Islam. I believe that the perspective that citizens in Western nations have with regard to the Middle East is not a product of critical analysis, but rather one of xenophobia, Islamophobia, and a general lack of understanding of history and how civilizations develop and progress. I'm by no means an expert on this matter, which is why I'm curious to hear other opinions. It feels pretty cut and dry to me, but nothing is ever cut and dry, so I'd like to expand my perspective a bit. I struggle to understand how what is happening in the Middle East today is any different from what Europe underwent when it was developing and becoming "modern." Unspeakable atrocities have been committed by Western Civilization, and the Bible was often used to justify them. Manifest Destiny and the genocide of indigenous people, for example, or the development of chattel slavery. The Holocaust, indiscriminate firebombing of civilians, and the dropping of nuclear bombs were all Western Civilization at its worst. Views on women were hardly more progressive either. I think the only difference is the way in which we portray and discuss these things. When we learn about white Christian nations doing the very same things (or worse) that we criticize the Middle Eastern nations for doing, we do not speak of it in the same manner. We do not call Christopher Columbus, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, the Founding Fathers or Harry Truman terrorists or uncivilized savages. We actually tend to glorify and make heroes of these people. Likewise, we do not blame the Christian faith for the atrocities committed in its name, but rather recognize the atrocities for what they are - growing pains, an apparently necessary process that most civilizations undergo on their way to becoming more developed, more moral, more progressive. Why can we not view the Middle East through this very same lens? I think that the citizens of Western nations have no right to feel any sense of moral superiority over any nation committing similar atrocities to those committed by their own nations in the past. Nations do not develop at the same pace, and while we are justified in criticizing certain actions and behaviors, it must be done with an understanding that it is not at all out of the ordinary. There should also be an acknowledgement that many nations struggling today might be further ahead in their development if not for the imperialist actions of the very nations we place on a moral pedestal today. I do not deny that there are harmful doctrines within the Islamic faith that bad actors use to justify the atrocities they commit. That being said, I believe these atrocities would be committed regardless, as they have been historically in virtually every nation regardless of culture or religion. I apologize for the long-winded post, but I wanted to make sure to express how I came to this conclusion as clearly as possible. What it would take to change my view is any evidence that the actions of Islamic extremists today are somehow unique to Islam, and more immoral or extreme than what has been committed by other white Christian nations in the past. I'm happy to discuss any particular points I've made as well, but that is the crux of the view I'm interested in changing, or at least having a more nuanced view of. Assistant:What the Middle East is going through right now is (quite likely) not a product of westernized culture at all, but something a very long time in the making. Up until the start of the 15th century, the Islamic Empire, through its many evolutions, dominated Europe. The loss of critical learning centers in Baghdad (Mongols), Palermo (Italy recaptured) and Toledo (Spanish Reconquest) proved to be critical losses, and the Ottomans fell into decline, as it coincided with other events. Until that time, the Ottomans had been the primary aggressors, though it's not always correctly remembered nowadays. They raided into Europe as far as Vienna in Austria, they controlled the Mediterranean, and they took tens of thousands of Europeans as slaves. The Crusades, though we look at them now as Christian events bent upon attacking the peaceful Ottomans, were actually political events trying to curb their power. When the three inventions came about in short order of the compass, then gunpowder, then the printing press, the Ottomans only adopted the first two. This is CRITICAL. The compass allowed them to navigate better with their ocean raiders. Gunpowder made them more effective in battle. Those were adopted. However, the ulamas, the religious leader councils, rejected the printing press, as the Word of Allah canonly be handwritten. This set about critical events in Europe that rapidly pushed their culture ahead of the Ottomans. In Europe, the first book translated was the Bible. This led to the 'every man is his own priest' understanding. The Catholic church started losing its overall control. In short order, Martin Luther nails the 95 theses to the church door, bringing about protestantism. During the Reformation, Religious wars dominate Germany and much of Europe for 150 years, roughly. It took time to build to, but the modern, secular nation-state system arises out of this. Now, the Ottomans, in a centuries long decline, don't adopt the printing press until 1727, and don't begin printing the Quran until almost 1800. It's not even widely printed via printing press for another 60 years or so. Right now, to me, Islam is quite possibly going through their own version of the Reformation. However, they're at a disadvantage now, as the world passed them by a long time ago. But it's the same pattern of religious violence, non-ordaoned religious leaders declaring violence to protect their religion, a rise in secular Muslims and the beginnings of more secular governments. It's the same pattern. If you read all of it, you get a cracker. It's just my $.02 that I got from a couple exceptional Middle Eastern history professors in college.

Human: CMV: The terrorism, violence and extremism in the Middle East today is not (primarily) a product of Islam. I believe that the perspective that citizens in Western nations have with regard to the Middle East is not a product of critical analysis, but rather one of xenophobia, Islamophobia, and a general lack of understanding of history and how civilizations develop and progress. I'm by no means an expert on this matter, which is why I'm curious to hear other opinions. It feels pretty cut and dry to me, but nothing is ever cut and dry, so I'd like to expand my perspective a bit. I struggle to understand how what is happening in the Middle East today is any different from what Europe underwent when it was developing and becoming "modern." Unspeakable atrocities have been committed by Western Civilization, and the Bible was often used to justify them. Manifest Destiny and the genocide of indigenous people, for example, or the development of chattel slavery. The Holocaust, indiscriminate firebombing of civilians, and the dropping of nuclear bombs were all Western Civilization at its worst. Views on women were hardly more progressive either. I think the only difference is the way in which we portray and discuss these things. When we learn about white Christian nations doing the very same things (or worse) that we criticize the Middle Eastern nations for doing, we do not speak of it in the same manner. We do not call Christopher Columbus, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, the Founding Fathers or Harry Truman terrorists or uncivilized savages. We actually tend to glorify and make heroes of these people. Likewise, we do not blame the Christian faith for the atrocities committed in its name, but rather recognize the atrocities for what they are - growing pains, an apparently necessary process that most civilizations undergo on their way to becoming more developed, more moral, more progressive. Why can we not view the Middle East through this very same lens? I think that the citizens of Western nations have no right to feel any sense of moral superiority over any nation committing similar atrocities to those committed by their own nations in the past. Nations do not develop at the same pace, and while we are justified in criticizing certain actions and behaviors, it must be done with an understanding that it is not at all out of the ordinary. There should also be an acknowledgement that many nations struggling today might be further ahead in their development if not for the imperialist actions of the very nations we place on a moral pedestal today. I do not deny that there are harmful doctrines within the Islamic faith that bad actors use to justify the atrocities they commit. That being said, I believe these atrocities would be committed regardless, as they have been historically in virtually every nation regardless of culture or religion. I apologize for the long-winded post, but I wanted to make sure to express how I came to this conclusion as clearly as possible. What it would take to change my view is any evidence that the actions of Islamic extremists today are somehow unique to Islam, and more immoral or extreme than what has been committed by other white Christian nations in the past. I'm happy to discuss any particular points I've made as well, but that is the crux of the view I'm interested in changing, or at least having a more nuanced view of. Assistant:I think one of the main issues is collective experience and forward progression. Yes cultures develop over time, but we should be able to learn from what has come before us. Western cultures have spent years and countless wars moving towards equality and removing religion from decision making in government. The fact that the middle east refuses to learn from our painful history is a tragedy for many of the people living there. And they aren't moving forward either, many of the countries in the middle east have become more religious and Islam has more control over people's day to day lives because it has been made law in some places. Its like that old reddit thread of the guy who tried heroin for the first time and did an AMA and everyone warned him very explicitly that it could mess up his life, and he didn't listen and it did. Ignoring the history of other people and their experiences isn't wise, and in your post you use the west's past as a justification/excuse for middle eastern actions, they should be able to learn from our mistakes, not make them again. The west has some brutal moments in it's past, but developing nations and cultures should be able to learn from that. As the classic saying goes, "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Human: CMV: We are all being played by Russian bots and trolls…and the trans issue is a great example I recall former CIA officer Mike Baker telling listeners on a podcast that there is an extensive network of Russian trolls and bot farms trying to create chaos and sew division in the USA. Hearing him talk gave me some solace since I always felt that something seemed majorly “off” between debates online and debates in the real world. I will probably get skewered for bringing a hot button issue like trans rights into this, but it is an area where I think it is applicable. Leading up to the 2016 election, trans people and their rights/issues weren’t even on my radar. Almost overnight, the question of which bathroom they should use was debated on every corner of the internet - and people sure had some strong views. I live in a very liberal town and have always voted Democrat, yet I remember thinking “How have you all formed opinions on this so quickly?” I think it was trolls/bots. Their strategy is to find an issue that can be divisive….and then magnify it. This isn’t to say that our country didn’t need to have dialogue around trans rights, and I’m certainly not saying that life is easy for a trans person. Rather, I think these bots and trolls magnified the most extreme viewpoints on the issue - and most of us bought into it. I’m liberal but have a lot of conservative friends and acquaintances. The vast majority of people I know - on both sides of the political aisle - have opinions that range from support/allies to “you do you, I’ll do me”. The only issue where there’s some heated debate among my friends is the trans sports issue. And frankly, that is an issue that definitely needs some debate and reflection. I’m currently camping at a campground that is 90%+ Republicans. Yet it’s the only place where I’ve knowingly hung out with a trans person. She was treated great by this conservative crowd. The campground has a gay pride weekend, as well as a hippy themed weekend that brings out a diverse group. It is nothing like you’d expect if your view of conservatives was formed by social media. I still think there are too many intolerant butt heads out there, but I definitely think the trolls and bots are making us all think that the fringe extremists are a much bigger group than they are….and they are successfully stopping us from having rational conversation about issues. Assistant:I think the influence of Russian trolls and bot farms is a bit exaggerated. They do exist. But, fomenting discord in a foreign country isn't that easy. I think some Republicans saw falling trust in the US public in Democrats on education (partially due to school shutdowns over covid-19). Some strategists for the Republicans have decided that focusing on some wedge issues within education is the best way for Republicans to capitalize on that. So, state legislatures have started banning teaching "critical race theory" and passed laws restricting how teachers can talk about LBGTQ and banning transgender kids from sports. I'm sure that Russian trolls have tried to amplify disagreement. But, when political divisiveness is an effective political strategy, domestic political organizations are likely to be more effective at pushing those buttons than foreign ones.

Human: CMV: We are all being played by Russian bots and trolls…and the trans issue is a great example I recall former CIA officer Mike Baker telling listeners on a podcast that there is an extensive network of Russian trolls and bot farms trying to create chaos and sew division in the USA. Hearing him talk gave me some solace since I always felt that something seemed majorly “off” between debates online and debates in the real world. I will probably get skewered for bringing a hot button issue like trans rights into this, but it is an area where I think it is applicable. Leading up to the 2016 election, trans people and their rights/issues weren’t even on my radar. Almost overnight, the question of which bathroom they should use was debated on every corner of the internet - and people sure had some strong views. I live in a very liberal town and have always voted Democrat, yet I remember thinking “How have you all formed opinions on this so quickly?” I think it was trolls/bots. Their strategy is to find an issue that can be divisive….and then magnify it. This isn’t to say that our country didn’t need to have dialogue around trans rights, and I’m certainly not saying that life is easy for a trans person. Rather, I think these bots and trolls magnified the most extreme viewpoints on the issue - and most of us bought into it. I’m liberal but have a lot of conservative friends and acquaintances. The vast majority of people I know - on both sides of the political aisle - have opinions that range from support/allies to “you do you, I’ll do me”. The only issue where there’s some heated debate among my friends is the trans sports issue. And frankly, that is an issue that definitely needs some debate and reflection. I’m currently camping at a campground that is 90%+ Republicans. Yet it’s the only place where I’ve knowingly hung out with a trans person. She was treated great by this conservative crowd. The campground has a gay pride weekend, as well as a hippy themed weekend that brings out a diverse group. It is nothing like you’d expect if your view of conservatives was formed by social media. I still think there are too many intolerant butt heads out there, but I definitely think the trolls and bots are making us all think that the fringe extremists are a much bigger group than they are….and they are successfully stopping us from having rational conversation about issues. Assistant:Why does it always have to be Russian bots and trolls? Like, why can't it be American bots and trolls? I spend a lot of time on Facebook and twitter spreading misinformation and creating animosity between political groups and I live in Montana lol Also I have a personally been accused of being a Russian bot, which is just annoying because I hate Russia.

Human: I swear a hair grew out of my tongue once but everyone thinks I'm insane 36f USA 5'7 not sure how much I weigh. No relevant medications or medical conditions. This is really just a question I never thought to bring here until right now, when my phone decided a news byte I needed was someone growing hair out of their gums. Which reminded me of something that happened ages ago that I've never found an answer for. When I was a kid, a hair fucking grew out of my tongue. Towards the back, too far for me to really reach. I discovered it when it got tugged by my back teeth. Screamed my head off; still remember how much it hurt. My grandparents were watching me at the time and they were just like "...what the fuck is this child's damage?" I reached far back enough to try and feel around, and the end broke off (you know how it does when you use tweezers, and you don't get the root, but the hair breaks off?) just a bit, but enough to confirm that yes, this was a hair. However, I realized that convincing people that there was a hair growing out of my fucking tongue was going to be an uphill battle, so I resolved to deal with it. I have no memory of what happened after that, but I assume it didn't bother me again because I surely would've lost my resolve if it had; the pain was intense. I also remember the explanation I came up with as a kid: I must have eaten something that cut my tongue and somehow it scabbed over and trapped a hair I'd accidentally gotten in my mouth. In hindsight that seems only slightly more likely than a hair actually growing out of my tongue, but it was far less terrifying, so I went with it. Except it happened again. Not sure if it was when I was a teen or a young adult; old enough to take the pain of it without losing my shit, but long enough ago that I can't place it on any sort of timeline. Same thing happened; enough of the end broke off that it stopped getting snagged and never bothered me again. Honestly? While I always remembered it, I'd assumed for a while that it was just one of those weird kid memories you eventually realize didn't actually happen. Sure I could remember it clearly but I can also clearly remember things I know I'm not remembering correctly. And hair just...doesn't grow out of the back of someone's tongue. But the second time I was well past the age for that. No matter how much I google, I only get results for the disgusting but irrelevant condition colloquially known as "hairy tongue." And one site that claims to have medical photos of hair growing out of tongues, but one looks photoshopped and the other one looks like a dog with stitches in its tongue. And a lot of dream interpretation sites. I'm fully expecting any responses I get to accuse me of making shit up (to what end, I don't know) or misremembering, and I get it. I'm just hoping someone here will say "Oh I heard of that happening to a guy" or whatever. Hell, at this point I'll take "Sometimes people with X disorder have vivid hallucinations of hair growing out of their tongue." This has been bothering me for 30 years. Assistant:If you somehow got a hair in your mouth, it could get caught/tied around a taste bud and get stuck. It would definitely hurt to pull it out, because you’re gonna be pulling the taste bud off along with the hair. Your tongue can’t grow hair. I suppose it is possible that you could have something weird going on with different cells on your tongue, but that would be very unusual, and I think in that case this would have happen more than twice in your life.

Human: I swear a hair grew out of my tongue once but everyone thinks I'm insane 36f USA 5'7 not sure how much I weigh. No relevant medications or medical conditions. This is really just a question I never thought to bring here until right now, when my phone decided a news byte I needed was someone growing hair out of their gums. Which reminded me of something that happened ages ago that I've never found an answer for. When I was a kid, a hair fucking grew out of my tongue. Towards the back, too far for me to really reach. I discovered it when it got tugged by my back teeth. Screamed my head off; still remember how much it hurt. My grandparents were watching me at the time and they were just like "...what the fuck is this child's damage?" I reached far back enough to try and feel around, and the end broke off (you know how it does when you use tweezers, and you don't get the root, but the hair breaks off?) just a bit, but enough to confirm that yes, this was a hair. However, I realized that convincing people that there was a hair growing out of my fucking tongue was going to be an uphill battle, so I resolved to deal with it. I have no memory of what happened after that, but I assume it didn't bother me again because I surely would've lost my resolve if it had; the pain was intense. I also remember the explanation I came up with as a kid: I must have eaten something that cut my tongue and somehow it scabbed over and trapped a hair I'd accidentally gotten in my mouth. In hindsight that seems only slightly more likely than a hair actually growing out of my tongue, but it was far less terrifying, so I went with it. Except it happened again. Not sure if it was when I was a teen or a young adult; old enough to take the pain of it without losing my shit, but long enough ago that I can't place it on any sort of timeline. Same thing happened; enough of the end broke off that it stopped getting snagged and never bothered me again. Honestly? While I always remembered it, I'd assumed for a while that it was just one of those weird kid memories you eventually realize didn't actually happen. Sure I could remember it clearly but I can also clearly remember things I know I'm not remembering correctly. And hair just...doesn't grow out of the back of someone's tongue. But the second time I was well past the age for that. No matter how much I google, I only get results for the disgusting but irrelevant condition colloquially known as "hairy tongue." And one site that claims to have medical photos of hair growing out of tongues, but one looks photoshopped and the other one looks like a dog with stitches in its tongue. And a lot of dream interpretation sites. I'm fully expecting any responses I get to accuse me of making shit up (to what end, I don't know) or misremembering, and I get it. I'm just hoping someone here will say "Oh I heard of that happening to a guy" or whatever. Hell, at this point I'll take "Sometimes people with X disorder have vivid hallucinations of hair growing out of their tongue." This has been bothering me for 30 years. Assistant:Not a doctor. Hairy tongue is completely different. It sounds like you have some different cell types on your tongue. Sort of like a teratoma.

Human: Censorship in AskSocial Science Today user xrxx wrote me concerned that the post, "Why do white have higher IQ than other races" was removed by the mods. I wasn't the person who removed it, but I support the decision. Below is my response to his message. I thought it might be a productive line of discussion regarding the nature of the sub. Perhaps the other mods or community members see things differently. What is your opinion regarding the censorship of "sensitive" subjects? Where do you draw the line between politically correct and intellectually honest? Maybe I'm approaching things from the wrong angle. What do you think? **User xrxx wrote:** Hey I know you are prbly a super open-minded enlighted tolerant librul and everything but maybe you could stop censoring posts from this subreddit just because they disagree with your ideology. **Response:** A statement like "you never see a smart black" isn't a matter of politics or left or right leaning ideology. It is a statement of fact and not opinion, and it is a demonstrably false one. It might be true that *you* have never seen a "smart black" because you have not been looking very hard. Perhaps you should do some reading on Nobel Laureate Sir Williams Lewis or Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or maybe engineering and super computing are more your style? Then you should look into computational fluid dynamics and a fellow named Philip Emeagwali. Maybe your more of a statistics person (a personal favorite). Then you should check out David Blackwell. He was, after all, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, so he can't be too dull witted. I don't mean to knock those who responded to your post, but Obama is decidedly *not* the person to cite regarding "smart blacks". If you want to find smarts, look at mathematics, engineering, economics, programming, and the whole rest of science and design. There are plenty of examples in all of these fields. Take your pick. If you want to pretend that you understand stellar and galactic mechanics better than N D Tyson then be my guest, but I suspect that neither of us do or probably ever will. If you have any mathematical theorems named after you, then I'd certainly be interested to discuss them, otherwise you are not quite on equal footing with Dr Blackwell. It is important for science to be open minded. Scientists should never let things like politics or tradition limit their thinking, because you can't find answers to questions if you are afraid to ask them. In this spirit a question like "Are there IQ differences between races" is a perfectly legitimate one. The validity and scope of "IQ" is still not a completely settled question by any means. But this wasn't the question; it was **why** there are differences. This tells me that you have already found the answer to your question and are simply looking for others to find reasons to back up your preconceptions. That's not how science works. It's inappropriate in the same way that the question "**Why** is Spearman's Rho the best method of statistical analysis?" is, when the correct question is "**When** is Spearman's Rho the best method?". The former is trying to find reasons for *their answer*. The latter is trying to find *the answer*. I don't have any problems discussing scientific questions of a sensitive political or social nature and neither should the other mods so long as they're worth their salt. Racial inequality, gender differences, abortion, gun ownership, fiscal conservatism, social welfare, free market capitalism, so on and so forth... are all real issues that have real impact on ourselves and our society. As such, they are quite worthy of study and discussion. But that discussion has to start with the right questions. Not that they can't be questions that are controversial or that make us uncomfortable; that's perfectly fine. But they have to be honest questions looking for honest answers, and not looking for a pseudo-scientific circle jerk about conclusions we've already reached. That isn't science, it isn't how science works, and it's not what this subreddit is for. Assistant:I'm a moderator at r/AskHistorians. <*waves*> Hi! We get questions like this occasionally. Sometimes they're innocent; sometimes they're not. But, more often than not, questions like this are the Trojan Horse of scientific racism. The racist asks an innocent-seeming question about the "scientific" differences between "races" in order to: * Get you to support and legimitise their point of view. * Start a discussion about scientific racism. Be warned: these people rarely travel alone. That one racist asking that one question will attract other racists, giving their racist answers. They've used this Trojan Horse question to create a platform for their views. Suddenly, you're not just having to answer a question, you're having to discredit bad answers. And if you start arguing or even removing those answers, the drama starts: cross-posts to right-wing and scientific racism subreddits, calls to stand against "censorship", brigading, invading. I used to be of the naive opinion, as others have said here, that we should allow these questions to stand because it gives us the opportunity to refute the faulty assumptions behind these questions and to educate people - racists and novices alike - about the right way to approach these. However, sometimes it's not about education. Sometimes it's just about keeping shit out of your subreddit. Because shit attracts flies.

Human: Censorship in AskSocial Science Today user xrxx wrote me concerned that the post, "Why do white have higher IQ than other races" was removed by the mods. I wasn't the person who removed it, but I support the decision. Below is my response to his message. I thought it might be a productive line of discussion regarding the nature of the sub. Perhaps the other mods or community members see things differently. What is your opinion regarding the censorship of "sensitive" subjects? Where do you draw the line between politically correct and intellectually honest? Maybe I'm approaching things from the wrong angle. What do you think? **User xrxx wrote:** Hey I know you are prbly a super open-minded enlighted tolerant librul and everything but maybe you could stop censoring posts from this subreddit just because they disagree with your ideology. **Response:** A statement like "you never see a smart black" isn't a matter of politics or left or right leaning ideology. It is a statement of fact and not opinion, and it is a demonstrably false one. It might be true that *you* have never seen a "smart black" because you have not been looking very hard. Perhaps you should do some reading on Nobel Laureate Sir Williams Lewis or Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or maybe engineering and super computing are more your style? Then you should look into computational fluid dynamics and a fellow named Philip Emeagwali. Maybe your more of a statistics person (a personal favorite). Then you should check out David Blackwell. He was, after all, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, so he can't be too dull witted. I don't mean to knock those who responded to your post, but Obama is decidedly *not* the person to cite regarding "smart blacks". If you want to find smarts, look at mathematics, engineering, economics, programming, and the whole rest of science and design. There are plenty of examples in all of these fields. Take your pick. If you want to pretend that you understand stellar and galactic mechanics better than N D Tyson then be my guest, but I suspect that neither of us do or probably ever will. If you have any mathematical theorems named after you, then I'd certainly be interested to discuss them, otherwise you are not quite on equal footing with Dr Blackwell. It is important for science to be open minded. Scientists should never let things like politics or tradition limit their thinking, because you can't find answers to questions if you are afraid to ask them. In this spirit a question like "Are there IQ differences between races" is a perfectly legitimate one. The validity and scope of "IQ" is still not a completely settled question by any means. But this wasn't the question; it was **why** there are differences. This tells me that you have already found the answer to your question and are simply looking for others to find reasons to back up your preconceptions. That's not how science works. It's inappropriate in the same way that the question "**Why** is Spearman's Rho the best method of statistical analysis?" is, when the correct question is "**When** is Spearman's Rho the best method?". The former is trying to find reasons for *their answer*. The latter is trying to find *the answer*. I don't have any problems discussing scientific questions of a sensitive political or social nature and neither should the other mods so long as they're worth their salt. Racial inequality, gender differences, abortion, gun ownership, fiscal conservatism, social welfare, free market capitalism, so on and so forth... are all real issues that have real impact on ourselves and our society. As such, they are quite worthy of study and discussion. But that discussion has to start with the right questions. Not that they can't be questions that are controversial or that make us uncomfortable; that's perfectly fine. But they have to be honest questions looking for honest answers, and not looking for a pseudo-scientific circle jerk about conclusions we've already reached. That isn't science, it isn't how science works, and it's not what this subreddit is for. Assistant:I'm not convinced the question should be deleted. Isn't it our job to try to correct the problems with the questions when we answer them? People ask ignorant questions all the time on this sub, and anywhere science is concerned. This one just happened to be ignorant in an inflammatory way. In my naive and religious youth, I asked a biology professor why she didn't teach intelligent design. I was looking for an argument, I knew what I believed about evolution (I thought it was crap...how embarrassing in retrospect). She gave me a patient, well-reasoned answer about why intelligent design was not scientific material, and then explained why scientists study evolution. If she and experts like her had dismissed my question as ignorant and biased without answering it, I would still be that person. Educating people is about meeting them where they are, not expecting them to accept what you know to be true without evidence. At some point, it must be true that you have to stop arguing with someone who's just looking for support for their own views, and not engaging in honest inquiry. But I don't think that point is the moment they ask an inflammatory question.

Human: CMV: The American school system is designed to filter out the lazy from the hard-workers, disguised as places where people go to learn. It's common knowledge that the better someone does in school, the more likely they are to have a successful life. Many people assume that employers value people with lots of knowledge in a particular field. However, I believe there is a deeper reason behind why doing well in school increases one's chance of becoming successful. Employers like to hire people that work hard. Employees that work hard will make money for their higher-ups while slackers don't contribute to anything. Employers need a good way to see if someone is able to put in the necessary work. And that's what I believe the American school system does. People that work hard in school will earn good grades while lazy people will get mediocre or bad grades. People that are hiring for an organization can see how hard-working someone is by simply looking at the grades they got in highschool/college. While I do believe that people learn in schools, there are better ways to assess someone's knowledge of a subject. For example, the homework problem. Working on homework for 3+ hours a day is a bad way to get someone to learn something. In fact, there have been studies that say homework doesn't even improve knowledge. Here's an article that explains this pretty well. It's just busy work that gives students credit for hard work. At the end of the day, getting good grades depends on how much work one is willing to put in. Good grades aren't based solely on intelligence; the smartest individual still has to commit a good chunk of their day on schoolwork. Employers like to see that willingness to work. _____ > *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:When I was in school, I knew people who would take several hours a day for a few weeks just to research and write a 5 page essay only to get a B. I would take about 10 hours in one night to both research and write an essay for the same assignment and get an A for it. The only reason I did it in one night was because I was lazy and didn't bother with it until the night before. I knew people who would spend an hour reading several chapters in a book for an English class just so they could be prepared for the quiz for the class the next day and get a C. I spent ten minutes skimming over the material in the lunch period before the class and got an A. I knew people who would do all of their homework in algebra and get by on the test and managed to get a B. I skipped most assignments and did very well on the test without studying, many times sleeping in class, and managed to do the same or better. Grades are horribly inefficient in determining if a person is lazy or hard working. A person could be extremely hard working and study all the time and manage to get similar grades to someone who, like me, was lazy and found efficient ways of perpetuating their laziness with minimal cost to their grades. This is because the way a class is graded is heavily slanted and does not take into account all of the various things a person might do which can show if they are hard working or lazy. There is nothing which measures the amount of time you spend studying, so it is presumed your grades do. There are plenty of people though who don't study and don't need to because the way they learn is different from those who study. For example, I took a sociology 101 class in college my first semester. The class was set up so that your grade was dependent on 3 tests and a final exam. The class itself otherwise was a simple lecture class. I learn extremely efficiently from lectures, so I never studied, never took notes, and spent 50 minutes three times a week in the classroom and aced every test and the exam. I put hardly any work into it other than just sitting there and listening.

Human: CMV: The American school system is designed to filter out the lazy from the hard-workers, disguised as places where people go to learn. It's common knowledge that the better someone does in school, the more likely they are to have a successful life. Many people assume that employers value people with lots of knowledge in a particular field. However, I believe there is a deeper reason behind why doing well in school increases one's chance of becoming successful. Employers like to hire people that work hard. Employees that work hard will make money for their higher-ups while slackers don't contribute to anything. Employers need a good way to see if someone is able to put in the necessary work. And that's what I believe the American school system does. People that work hard in school will earn good grades while lazy people will get mediocre or bad grades. People that are hiring for an organization can see how hard-working someone is by simply looking at the grades they got in highschool/college. While I do believe that people learn in schools, there are better ways to assess someone's knowledge of a subject. For example, the homework problem. Working on homework for 3+ hours a day is a bad way to get someone to learn something. In fact, there have been studies that say homework doesn't even improve knowledge. Here's an article that explains this pretty well. It's just busy work that gives students credit for hard work. At the end of the day, getting good grades depends on how much work one is willing to put in. Good grades aren't based solely on intelligence; the smartest individual still has to commit a good chunk of their day on schoolwork. Employers like to see that willingness to work. _____ > *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:I think you should consider that you may be over thinking this. High school grades have almost no value on the job market. If you are 1st or 2nd in your class, that might mean something, but employers really don't care about, and have no legitimate way to confirm, your grades. High school grades are a means to an end. They get you a degree and if they are good enough, they can get you in a great university. The story is really pretty similar for college. For the vast majority of students passing is enough and it's all that any employer will ever notice. For some people college grades are a means to an end of getting into graduate school but that's a minority. There are some specific degrees, like law school, where ranking among students can be extremely important, but that is not true for most programs. Hard work is important and is often weeded out in school, but it isn't represented by grades. The best students have honors theses, internships, and awards. These things are most certainly noticed by employers. Doing extra things in schools is critical for building your resume and network, but grades aren't a big part of that.

Human: Media Mondays: Religion in Medieval Fantasy Games If you were to sit and play any fantasy video game inspirations from medieval history would be obvious from the outset. Medieval fantasy games today and their interactions with religion have a long history. As in almost all things fantasy related, this is partly a reaction to JRR Tolkien's works. While much more prominent in his materials such as the Unfinished Tales and the Silmarillion Tolkien's work is infused with religious ideas, but in his most famous and popular works, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings religions features rather sparingly. Despite his reputation as a master world builder, religion and religious expression in the cultures of Middle Earth is nearly non-existent in his two most popular works, instead being reserved for his own mythologies, where it still takes a back seat in many of the stories. However Tolkien is not the only influence on modern fantasy. The modern fantasy video games got their start as essentially D&D simulators, and the influence of Dungeons and Dragons is still felt. Religion in D&D is far more of a fact of life that barely warrants intellectual debate or dispute. The gods just simply are, and followers of them align themselves based on the forces/ideas that these indisputably existing figures embody. These past influences are easily seen in modern fantasy games today, which draw both from historical examples as well as incorporating or reacting against prior entries into fantasy canon. The Norse and Roman art styles at work in The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim, the Slavic folklore and monsters of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, or the Gothic architecture of the Dark Souls series. Many game series borrow heavily from historical styles of art, architecture, armor, clothing, and folklore for their own purposes, and fantasy video games are no exception. Many these games and series have become adept at using history for artistic and narrative inspiration, often incorporating historically inspired events as a part of the games plot or backstory. For example, Skyrim references both the First World War and the collapse of the Roman Empire in its own “Great War” and The Witcher 3 draws upon the witch hunts of the early modern period. However, there is one area of medieval history and life has been neglected by most medieval fantasy games, religion. This might seem counter intuitive at first, for no fantasy game would dare not include some form of religion. Dark Souls has a plethora of cathedral locations and its own pantheon, and both the Elder Scrolls and Witcher franchises feature institutional churches, with their own doctrines, practices, and hierarchy, but in many fantasy games the approach to religion is ultimately superficial. For example, in The Witcher 3 the Church of the Eternal Fire is set up purely as an antagonistic element to the player. There is no nuance in the game’s depiction of this organization. The members of its hierarchy are at best cynical manipulators using their position within the church as a means for greater power and wealth, or more often, the figures of the church are zealots using their authority as a cudgel against marginal groups who are violently persecuted. In other game series such as the Elder Scrolls, deities such as the Aedra and Daedra are utterly mundane features of the world, and this is equally unnuanced. The Daedra in particular are relatively easy to contact, and they are ingrained into the setting, with each race and culture having their own particular preferences for worship. Games in The Witcher and Elder Scrolls series have attained critical and commercial acclaim, but they do not help their audience reach a better understanding of medieval religion, instead they perpetuate myths about the Middle Ages that scholars have long struggled against. Despite invoking the effects of medieval religion, such as elaborate vestments, gothic temples, papal stand ins, and so on, the depiction of religion in these games is decidedly non-medieval. I am not here to deride these games for their lack of “medieval accuracy”, but instead to call attention to a series that I think successfully manages to capture a more accurate depiction of medieval religion, by drawing directly from medieval religious debate. The series that I am referring to is BioWare’s Dragon Age series. The first game in the franchise, Dragon Age: Origins, centers around fighting off a horde of very Tolkien-esque orcs led by an evil dragon. The second game, Dragon Age 2, is a rags to riches story that combines dungeon crawling with examinations of systemic injustice and persecution. The most recent title, Dragon Age: Inquisition places the player at the head of a multinational organization seeking to root out the sources of chaos and instability across a continent. At first glance it might appear to a casual observer that the series is little better off than many of the other medieval inspired fantasy series. Dragon Age’s nation of Orlais is as unambiguously based off of France as Skyrim is inspired by medieval Scandinavia, and the heavy-handed medieval antecedents do not stop there. The Tevinter Imperium is heavily colored by the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire being an empire that once spanned the continent now reduced to a much smaller realm dominated by an unconquerable city, its slave economy and names such as Calpernia, Livius, and Danarius, the Kingdom of Ferelden is derived from England with its own proto-parliament and conflicts with Orlais, the Anderfells region contains German names such as Weisshaupt and Hossberg and is extremely de-centralized in rule, mimicking the Holy Roman Empire, and the list goes on. However, I am most interested in the history of the Chantry, the main religious institution of the Dragon Age world. Now the important distinction that separates the Chantry from other medieval fantasy churches is the clear inspiration from medieval history that permeates much of the lore and history surrounding the Chantry within the universe and how this is reflected in the games themselves. Any series can have an organization with vestmented clerics, Curia politics, knightly religious orders, and Dragon Age has all of these as well, but few other medieval fantasy games engage with medieval religious history on such a deep level as Dragon Age does. Not all game series can get away with adapting rather esoteric arguments about theology into their lore as seamlessly as Dragon Age can. Inside the Dragon Age universe real-life theological debate is the inspiration for the religious division between the southern nations, such as Orlais and Ferelden, inspired by medieval western Europe, and the northern, Byzantine inspired, Tevinter Imperium. Within the game’s lore for The Chant, the central text for the Chantry as an institution, there is the line “Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him”, and this is a flashpoint for tensions between the two spheres of the Andrastian world. The Tevinter Imperium is far friendlier to magic users wielding power, having historically been dominated by them, whereas the South interprets the line as a need to lock magic away from positions of political power. Consequently, the people of Tevinter take this to mean that magic should serve to the benefit of all, and thus mage rule is on theologically safe grounds. Whereas in the south, mages are restricted from participating in public life and often subject to persecution by the Chantry. Now why is this a particularly noteworthy addition to the game? Plenty of games borrow historical events for inspiration as a part of their world building. However, in the majority of cases these historical examples are skin deep. In Dragon Age this one example of inspiration, this one line of scripture, forms the basis not only for background lore, but conflicts that the player has to engage with over the course of several games and consequently there is an understanding of medieval religion in Dragon Age that is not present in other series; an experience that is deeply rooted in both medieval history and the history of the games themselves. The Dragon Age series rises above its competition in depicting how medieval religion both shaped the world around it and was shaped by the world in turn. Through these moments our characters, and thus the players themselves, see the effect that religion and religious debates had in the Middle Ages through the lens of the issues raised by magic in Dragon Age. Perhaps more importantly, players see that religious issues in the Middle Ages were not simple with single causes and single solutions. We see that there were many causes behind conflicts including different beliefs between members of the same religion. The Dragon Age series breaks down the monolithic conception of the Medieval Church and challenges the player to see the nuances that Medieval religion contained. We see in the various Dragon Age games many different characters who are shaped by their understanding of what seems a simple line of scripture. The characters within the world attempt to impart their own understanding of scripture on the world around them, and players see these efforts play out. We see hardliners for the words as written in the Chant, such as Knight Commander Meredith in Dragon Age 2, whose paranoia about mages drives her to insanity and murder. Issues such as the impropriety of spreading religion through violence and syncretism are raised by characters like Mother Giselle and Inquisitor Ameridan. We see other characters attempt to forge a better future for mages and non-mages alike through Chantry figures campaigning for the clergy to be extended to elves and dwarves. In Dragon Age: Inquisition the mages of Southern Thedas rise up in rebellion against the Chantry and the templars. The player character can choose to ally with them, bring them into a new religious movement, or ignore their plight and ally with the templars instead. Our characters hear how the Tevinter system sidesteps the issue of mage rule in theory but ignores it in practice. In Dragon Age: Origins we see a mother try to hide her son’s magical talent, knowing that if his ability is found out her son will be taken from her. Players see and play out these scenarios that combine religious belief, politics, warfare, and culture in a way that no other game series is able to. These are the moments of the game that are the most exciting to me, showing that religion and the broader world do not exist independently of each other. None of these moments in the series that I mentioned would be possible without the grounding in medieval history that the series has. These moments allow the player to experience medieval religion in a way that is more authentic than other gaming series, and you get to kill a few dragons along the way. Assistant:I think one reason why many games and settings fail to represent just how prevalent religion was in day to day life is modern understanding if religion. I see often in games how various institutions seem to be modernized for audiences, like how instead of showing how deeply divided and informal law enforcement was in the era many games give us a “guard” that functions more like a modern police force. Religion isn’t as important in day to day lives as it used to be, most of our media doesn’t give us regular bible stories, church isn’t the place for community gatherings like it used to be and we don’t expect our politicians to be exceptionally pious. Religion is now more of a personal characteristic of ones identity than a means of existing within a community.

Human: Media Mondays: Religion in Medieval Fantasy Games If you were to sit and play any fantasy video game inspirations from medieval history would be obvious from the outset. Medieval fantasy games today and their interactions with religion have a long history. As in almost all things fantasy related, this is partly a reaction to JRR Tolkien's works. While much more prominent in his materials such as the Unfinished Tales and the Silmarillion Tolkien's work is infused with religious ideas, but in his most famous and popular works, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings religions features rather sparingly. Despite his reputation as a master world builder, religion and religious expression in the cultures of Middle Earth is nearly non-existent in his two most popular works, instead being reserved for his own mythologies, where it still takes a back seat in many of the stories. However Tolkien is not the only influence on modern fantasy. The modern fantasy video games got their start as essentially D&D simulators, and the influence of Dungeons and Dragons is still felt. Religion in D&D is far more of a fact of life that barely warrants intellectual debate or dispute. The gods just simply are, and followers of them align themselves based on the forces/ideas that these indisputably existing figures embody. These past influences are easily seen in modern fantasy games today, which draw both from historical examples as well as incorporating or reacting against prior entries into fantasy canon. The Norse and Roman art styles at work in The Elder Scrolls V Skyrim, the Slavic folklore and monsters of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, or the Gothic architecture of the Dark Souls series. Many game series borrow heavily from historical styles of art, architecture, armor, clothing, and folklore for their own purposes, and fantasy video games are no exception. Many these games and series have become adept at using history for artistic and narrative inspiration, often incorporating historically inspired events as a part of the games plot or backstory. For example, Skyrim references both the First World War and the collapse of the Roman Empire in its own “Great War” and The Witcher 3 draws upon the witch hunts of the early modern period. However, there is one area of medieval history and life has been neglected by most medieval fantasy games, religion. This might seem counter intuitive at first, for no fantasy game would dare not include some form of religion. Dark Souls has a plethora of cathedral locations and its own pantheon, and both the Elder Scrolls and Witcher franchises feature institutional churches, with their own doctrines, practices, and hierarchy, but in many fantasy games the approach to religion is ultimately superficial. For example, in The Witcher 3 the Church of the Eternal Fire is set up purely as an antagonistic element to the player. There is no nuance in the game’s depiction of this organization. The members of its hierarchy are at best cynical manipulators using their position within the church as a means for greater power and wealth, or more often, the figures of the church are zealots using their authority as a cudgel against marginal groups who are violently persecuted. In other game series such as the Elder Scrolls, deities such as the Aedra and Daedra are utterly mundane features of the world, and this is equally unnuanced. The Daedra in particular are relatively easy to contact, and they are ingrained into the setting, with each race and culture having their own particular preferences for worship. Games in The Witcher and Elder Scrolls series have attained critical and commercial acclaim, but they do not help their audience reach a better understanding of medieval religion, instead they perpetuate myths about the Middle Ages that scholars have long struggled against. Despite invoking the effects of medieval religion, such as elaborate vestments, gothic temples, papal stand ins, and so on, the depiction of religion in these games is decidedly non-medieval. I am not here to deride these games for their lack of “medieval accuracy”, but instead to call attention to a series that I think successfully manages to capture a more accurate depiction of medieval religion, by drawing directly from medieval religious debate. The series that I am referring to is BioWare’s Dragon Age series. The first game in the franchise, Dragon Age: Origins, centers around fighting off a horde of very Tolkien-esque orcs led by an evil dragon. The second game, Dragon Age 2, is a rags to riches story that combines dungeon crawling with examinations of systemic injustice and persecution. The most recent title, Dragon Age: Inquisition places the player at the head of a multinational organization seeking to root out the sources of chaos and instability across a continent. At first glance it might appear to a casual observer that the series is little better off than many of the other medieval inspired fantasy series. Dragon Age’s nation of Orlais is as unambiguously based off of France as Skyrim is inspired by medieval Scandinavia, and the heavy-handed medieval antecedents do not stop there. The Tevinter Imperium is heavily colored by the Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire being an empire that once spanned the continent now reduced to a much smaller realm dominated by an unconquerable city, its slave economy and names such as Calpernia, Livius, and Danarius, the Kingdom of Ferelden is derived from England with its own proto-parliament and conflicts with Orlais, the Anderfells region contains German names such as Weisshaupt and Hossberg and is extremely de-centralized in rule, mimicking the Holy Roman Empire, and the list goes on. However, I am most interested in the history of the Chantry, the main religious institution of the Dragon Age world. Now the important distinction that separates the Chantry from other medieval fantasy churches is the clear inspiration from medieval history that permeates much of the lore and history surrounding the Chantry within the universe and how this is reflected in the games themselves. Any series can have an organization with vestmented clerics, Curia politics, knightly religious orders, and Dragon Age has all of these as well, but few other medieval fantasy games engage with medieval religious history on such a deep level as Dragon Age does. Not all game series can get away with adapting rather esoteric arguments about theology into their lore as seamlessly as Dragon Age can. Inside the Dragon Age universe real-life theological debate is the inspiration for the religious division between the southern nations, such as Orlais and Ferelden, inspired by medieval western Europe, and the northern, Byzantine inspired, Tevinter Imperium. Within the game’s lore for The Chant, the central text for the Chantry as an institution, there is the line “Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him”, and this is a flashpoint for tensions between the two spheres of the Andrastian world. The Tevinter Imperium is far friendlier to magic users wielding power, having historically been dominated by them, whereas the South interprets the line as a need to lock magic away from positions of political power. Consequently, the people of Tevinter take this to mean that magic should serve to the benefit of all, and thus mage rule is on theologically safe grounds. Whereas in the south, mages are restricted from participating in public life and often subject to persecution by the Chantry. Now why is this a particularly noteworthy addition to the game? Plenty of games borrow historical events for inspiration as a part of their world building. However, in the majority of cases these historical examples are skin deep. In Dragon Age this one example of inspiration, this one line of scripture, forms the basis not only for background lore, but conflicts that the player has to engage with over the course of several games and consequently there is an understanding of medieval religion in Dragon Age that is not present in other series; an experience that is deeply rooted in both medieval history and the history of the games themselves. The Dragon Age series rises above its competition in depicting how medieval religion both shaped the world around it and was shaped by the world in turn. Through these moments our characters, and thus the players themselves, see the effect that religion and religious debates had in the Middle Ages through the lens of the issues raised by magic in Dragon Age. Perhaps more importantly, players see that religious issues in the Middle Ages were not simple with single causes and single solutions. We see that there were many causes behind conflicts including different beliefs between members of the same religion. The Dragon Age series breaks down the monolithic conception of the Medieval Church and challenges the player to see the nuances that Medieval religion contained. We see in the various Dragon Age games many different characters who are shaped by their understanding of what seems a simple line of scripture. The characters within the world attempt to impart their own understanding of scripture on the world around them, and players see these efforts play out. We see hardliners for the words as written in the Chant, such as Knight Commander Meredith in Dragon Age 2, whose paranoia about mages drives her to insanity and murder. Issues such as the impropriety of spreading religion through violence and syncretism are raised by characters like Mother Giselle and Inquisitor Ameridan. We see other characters attempt to forge a better future for mages and non-mages alike through Chantry figures campaigning for the clergy to be extended to elves and dwarves. In Dragon Age: Inquisition the mages of Southern Thedas rise up in rebellion against the Chantry and the templars. The player character can choose to ally with them, bring them into a new religious movement, or ignore their plight and ally with the templars instead. Our characters hear how the Tevinter system sidesteps the issue of mage rule in theory but ignores it in practice. In Dragon Age: Origins we see a mother try to hide her son’s magical talent, knowing that if his ability is found out her son will be taken from her. Players see and play out these scenarios that combine religious belief, politics, warfare, and culture in a way that no other game series is able to. These are the moments of the game that are the most exciting to me, showing that religion and the broader world do not exist independently of each other. None of these moments in the series that I mentioned would be possible without the grounding in medieval history that the series has. These moments allow the player to experience medieval religion in a way that is more authentic than other gaming series, and you get to kill a few dragons along the way. Assistant:What do you think of the presence/absence of 'popular' religion and participation in religion by common people in Thedas [it's been years since I played DAI so not much has stuck]? Obviously the middle ages were suffused top to bottom by religion in all aspects of life, from popular theatre to art to childrens' play; it was definitely not restricted to matters of doctrine and ritual which we normally associate with religion. Is that something well represented in Dragon Age?

Human: My department is downsizing and others' responsibilities are being dumped on me. My workload is now insurmountable and management doesn't seem to care. Thinking of blowing the whistle. How do I handle this? Throwaway and vagueness for privacy. Yes, I really do need it. I work for a large corporation involved with critical infrastructure in several states. I hold a security clearance. I've been there for a number of years at the Engineer III level. I am part of a group which is the "system owner" of a significant part of this infrastructure, meaning that we handle conditional assessments, documentation, project support, research, incident investigations, and some high-level management of construction and maintenance work. When I started out, the group consisted of around 10 engineers and managers, each with their own skillsets and the appropriate formal qualifications. Around 2018, there was a shakeup in upper management, and the new guard (a bunch of "gotta pump those numbers up" perpetual fratboys) decided that O&M costs are to be reduced as much as possible, and so they put a "temporary" restriction on backfilling all positions. For a variety of reasons, a number of group members were transferred out or left the company to work elsewhere. We went down from 10 to 5, with two of those assuming managerial duties and one of them being an assistant, but the overall workload has not decreased. I found myself having to pick up a ton of responsibilities outside of my formal skillset, but because I could code somewhat passably, I automated as much of my work as possible and things remained on the bleeding edge of manageable. Recently, I learned that my coworker is quitting. This leaves me as the only functioning engineer remaining in the group. This guy was doing minimum 60 hour weeks and was the SME in the majority of work with which I am completely unfamiliar. It would require years of training for me to perform competently, let alone have an otherwise empty Outlook calendar. Upper management is completely seriously assuming that the assistant and I can handle what he left behind. My direct management is aware of the ridiculousness, but won't stick their necks out to defend us. Meanwhile, the guy who's leaving is rushing us through a bunch of training sessions that only result in wasting our time, as we're out of mental bandwidth to pick up anything of value. In response, I've sent a rather lengthy email to upper management, detailing the situation we're being put in, as well as the consequences to the infrastructure should the situation not be resolved, and cc'd everyone remotely involved. I explained that I am not capable of assuming the additional workload under any circumstances. The reply I received was essentially "we understand your concern, maybe think of hiring an outside temp worker or something, but full-time hires are off limits". I'm staring down a cliff of impossibility. I can let a part of the system fail, which could result in significant regulatory and/or legal consequences for the company, or I can resist and probably be fired. I can also request a formal hearing with our regulating government agency, i.e. blow the whistle, which could ruin my professional reputation to future employers. Has anyone been placed in such a position? How did it turn out? Any tips in handling this sort of minefield? Assistant:Be very clear at the beginning of each week: We have 200 hours worth of assigned work, and only 80 hours of manpower: These are the things we will be accomplishing. These other 120 hours worth of things will not be addressed in any manner. Document it at the beginning of every week. And clearly state what regulatory items will not be in compliance because the work is not being completed. And when people start asking about it, you make it very clear: We don't have the manpower to cover everything you want covered. If you want that thing covered, something else is not going to get done. Be very clear: there are not enough hours in the day or the week for you to get everything done, so something is not going to get done. Given that circumstance, you are going to pick what isn't going to get done (and is going to fail). And be clear on that point as well. Focus manpower on making sure a couple of things stay completely afloat and couple of things don't. Don't go for the "try to juggle everything" approach because everything is going to sink. And they are going to scream to high heaven that *all of this needs to be done*. And you are going to keep replying: Given the manpower, it isn't going to happen. You need to hire more people, about six months ago. And with the last person who actually understands what is going on leaving, things are going to be really rough. In the meantime: Job hunt. Job hunt like you know there is going to be a lawsuit. Document all of your actions and why you took those actions and make sure you keep copies of all of your emails offsite (if need be BCC your emails to an offsite account, assuming you can do that without drawing some other regulators baleful eye).

Human: My department is downsizing and others' responsibilities are being dumped on me. My workload is now insurmountable and management doesn't seem to care. Thinking of blowing the whistle. How do I handle this? Throwaway and vagueness for privacy. Yes, I really do need it. I work for a large corporation involved with critical infrastructure in several states. I hold a security clearance. I've been there for a number of years at the Engineer III level. I am part of a group which is the "system owner" of a significant part of this infrastructure, meaning that we handle conditional assessments, documentation, project support, research, incident investigations, and some high-level management of construction and maintenance work. When I started out, the group consisted of around 10 engineers and managers, each with their own skillsets and the appropriate formal qualifications. Around 2018, there was a shakeup in upper management, and the new guard (a bunch of "gotta pump those numbers up" perpetual fratboys) decided that O&M costs are to be reduced as much as possible, and so they put a "temporary" restriction on backfilling all positions. For a variety of reasons, a number of group members were transferred out or left the company to work elsewhere. We went down from 10 to 5, with two of those assuming managerial duties and one of them being an assistant, but the overall workload has not decreased. I found myself having to pick up a ton of responsibilities outside of my formal skillset, but because I could code somewhat passably, I automated as much of my work as possible and things remained on the bleeding edge of manageable. Recently, I learned that my coworker is quitting. This leaves me as the only functioning engineer remaining in the group. This guy was doing minimum 60 hour weeks and was the SME in the majority of work with which I am completely unfamiliar. It would require years of training for me to perform competently, let alone have an otherwise empty Outlook calendar. Upper management is completely seriously assuming that the assistant and I can handle what he left behind. My direct management is aware of the ridiculousness, but won't stick their necks out to defend us. Meanwhile, the guy who's leaving is rushing us through a bunch of training sessions that only result in wasting our time, as we're out of mental bandwidth to pick up anything of value. In response, I've sent a rather lengthy email to upper management, detailing the situation we're being put in, as well as the consequences to the infrastructure should the situation not be resolved, and cc'd everyone remotely involved. I explained that I am not capable of assuming the additional workload under any circumstances. The reply I received was essentially "we understand your concern, maybe think of hiring an outside temp worker or something, but full-time hires are off limits". I'm staring down a cliff of impossibility. I can let a part of the system fail, which could result in significant regulatory and/or legal consequences for the company, or I can resist and probably be fired. I can also request a formal hearing with our regulating government agency, i.e. blow the whistle, which could ruin my professional reputation to future employers. Has anyone been placed in such a position? How did it turn out? Any tips in handling this sort of minefield? Assistant:Find a new job as fast as you can. Is there a public safety issue created by the the work not getting done? If not, no need to stick your neck out. Anything you could be personally liable for? Document all your efforts to get it done correctly and the company's refusal, to cover yourself. But otherwise get out like everyone else has.

Human: We are in our most natural state as children. It is the job of educators, parents, governments, and other authority figures to beat the shit out of your inner child, so they can turn you into a mindless zombie who acts out some absurd idea of "this is what an adult is supposed to do." CMV. Why are children so joyful and carefree, while adults are often such miserable sacks of anxiety, depression, or some other form of psychosis? I believe that decades of learned repression are responsible. It all starts in the classroom with "Sit down Johnny, stop throwing that pencil at Suzy!" But after being told over and over that acting on your desires is unacceptable, you need to shut up and do your work, you learn to repress those desires. "Yes, yes, I do really want to do this work. I want to get this A." In a sense, you learn to create in your mind a little teacher that is yelling at you to stop being an immature brat and instead be "responsible." "Growing up" is the process of fully identifying with that little teacher you've created, so that you do the "responsible" thing without the need for an actual teacher threatening to send you to the Principle's office. Your conception of what it means to be an adult is not purely determined by teachers and parents either - this is bigger than that. It's also your culture (or subculture): how as a man/woman you are "supposed" to behave, or what is cool/uncool, for example. I believe that kind of pressure is equally (or more) powerful, and it also serves to repress your natural childlike state. We could say that in addition to the little teacher you created in your mind, you create an equivalent figure for the group of peers you're trying to fit into, and it yells at you whenever you do something uncool. Ground between these two rocks, authority and peer pressure, I believe that little is left of your inner child by age 20 or so. Its kind of still there, but it's been badly abused, shoved into the basement and chained to the wall. Many people have forgotten its even there. They're too busy trying to act out some script that was given to them, that really has nothing to do with who they truly are. Who doesn't want to be accepted? If anything, that's the only part of the inner child still left intact: this desperate desire to fit in. No one represses that desire, because it is so essential for being a zombie. Yes, you have to learn how to be responsible and how to interact with your peers. You have to learn how to function in the adult world. But is functioning living? I'd argue that you can only truly live by being in touch with your authentic desires, by stubbornly insisting on your right to be a child - that is, to be a natural development of the person you were when you were a child. This is probably one of the most difficult things you can attempt - a zombified adult insists that everyone around him be a zombie as well, so most likely you will have to go around pretending you are a zombie too most of the time. The only way to make this bearable is if you find some non-zombie companions, around whom you are free to be your true, 100% self around. I welcome any challenge to my viewpoint. Assistant:What you're basing this post on is called an "appeal to nature" and in short is a fallacious valuing of the undeveloped over the developed. The "untouched" nature of childlike consciousness is often misperceived as a type of heavenly state, where spiny defenses and general malevolence are not necessary because of the inherent goodness of the child's soul. In reality, those defense mechanisms have simply not yet developed in response to the real dangers that the world actually poses to the child. >Why are children so joyful and carefree, while adults are often such miserable sacks of anxiety, depression, or some other form of psychosis? because they don't know any better yet, and this is a very scary, hellish thing. This is why children get into vans with strangers and jump off roofs with superman capes on. we shold not desire to be more like children. Instead, we shold desire to grow out of the naivete of childhood and into our various neuroses and psychoses, and then out of those and into a more flowing, harmonious unity with the dual nature of the world (dangerous/not dangerous). This is absolutely by no means a regression backward into childhood, but rather a massive leap forward into the kind of fluid, adaptive self-determination and resilience that exactly 0 children possess.

Human: We are in our most natural state as children. It is the job of educators, parents, governments, and other authority figures to beat the shit out of your inner child, so they can turn you into a mindless zombie who acts out some absurd idea of "this is what an adult is supposed to do." CMV. Why are children so joyful and carefree, while adults are often such miserable sacks of anxiety, depression, or some other form of psychosis? I believe that decades of learned repression are responsible. It all starts in the classroom with "Sit down Johnny, stop throwing that pencil at Suzy!" But after being told over and over that acting on your desires is unacceptable, you need to shut up and do your work, you learn to repress those desires. "Yes, yes, I do really want to do this work. I want to get this A." In a sense, you learn to create in your mind a little teacher that is yelling at you to stop being an immature brat and instead be "responsible." "Growing up" is the process of fully identifying with that little teacher you've created, so that you do the "responsible" thing without the need for an actual teacher threatening to send you to the Principle's office. Your conception of what it means to be an adult is not purely determined by teachers and parents either - this is bigger than that. It's also your culture (or subculture): how as a man/woman you are "supposed" to behave, or what is cool/uncool, for example. I believe that kind of pressure is equally (or more) powerful, and it also serves to repress your natural childlike state. We could say that in addition to the little teacher you created in your mind, you create an equivalent figure for the group of peers you're trying to fit into, and it yells at you whenever you do something uncool. Ground between these two rocks, authority and peer pressure, I believe that little is left of your inner child by age 20 or so. Its kind of still there, but it's been badly abused, shoved into the basement and chained to the wall. Many people have forgotten its even there. They're too busy trying to act out some script that was given to them, that really has nothing to do with who they truly are. Who doesn't want to be accepted? If anything, that's the only part of the inner child still left intact: this desperate desire to fit in. No one represses that desire, because it is so essential for being a zombie. Yes, you have to learn how to be responsible and how to interact with your peers. You have to learn how to function in the adult world. But is functioning living? I'd argue that you can only truly live by being in touch with your authentic desires, by stubbornly insisting on your right to be a child - that is, to be a natural development of the person you were when you were a child. This is probably one of the most difficult things you can attempt - a zombified adult insists that everyone around him be a zombie as well, so most likely you will have to go around pretending you are a zombie too most of the time. The only way to make this bearable is if you find some non-zombie companions, around whom you are free to be your true, 100% self around. I welcome any challenge to my viewpoint. Assistant:Telling that little brat to stop throwing things that can poke eyes out seems like wonderful advice. As a father, I can say that the inner child needs some tempering. That carefree nature comes from a lack of responsibility. That food isn't going to work itself onto the table. I would love to have a totally carefree existence, but my body also has basic needs that must be met.

Human: I need a "Cake Doctor" to help me fix my recipe! Hi, Expert Bakers! I have been baking the same chocolate cake for years for every kid birthday in my entire extended family. It tastes delicious ... But it is a pain in the rear with more problems in need of correction than things that work right. Here are some: * I use magic cooling strips on the sides, yet the sides still bake faster than the middle, which ends up soupy and won't set. * It often domes and then sinks into a heap * The finished product is very dense, like a brownie. This also makes layers not very tall, so rather than even try to torte them, **I always double the recipe and bake two separate versions in the same pans, so that I can have "layers" with frosting in the middle.** That wouldn't be such a bad thing, but in combination with the first problem, it means it is always half crumbling apart and half mush glued together with cream cheese frosting. (This despite me carefully weighing the batter to make sure each pan has exactly the same amount of batter.) * All of this makes this thing difficult to bake into character-shape pans, next to impossible to torte, heartbreaking to level (since parts are "crusty" and whole pieces will crumble and fall apart) and only capable of doing anything with lots of frosting and more patience than anyone should have to have for a cake. So why do I continue to make this @#$!@#% thing? Because the kids are OBSESSED with it and won't settle for anything else. In truth, I love it, too, but curse myself every time I have to make it -- just because it is so difficult to work with. I would do anything to fix this thing and have it come out clean and easy. I would pay a cake doctor to fix the recipe if anyone knows someone willing to take on my challenge! Here it is: **A's Family Birthday Cake** 2 cups sifted all-purpose flour 1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda 1/4 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg 4 ounces unsweetened chocolate 1 cup unsalted butter at room temperature 1 3/4 cups sugar 4 large eggs 1 1/3 cups buttermilk 1 teaspoon vanilla 1 bag mini semisweet chocolate chips &#x200B; Preheat oven to 325\* (F) Spread solid shortening on bottom and sides of two 9-inch layer pans, or one 9x13x1 1/2 inch sheet pan. Dust evenly with unsweetened cocoa or flour; tap out excess. Sift together flour, baking soda, salt, and nutmeg. Set aside. Melt chocolate in top pan of double boiler. Remove chocolate from heat after completely melted, and set aside to cool until comfortable to touch. In large mixing bowl, cream butter and sugar together. Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition. Add flour mixture, alternating with buttermilk, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Add vanilla and cooled chocolate. Add Chocolate Chips. Mix Gently Pour mixture into prepared pan (s). Bake in lower third of oven for 40-50 minutes for sheet cake, or 35-45 minutes for layer pans, or until toothpick comes out clean. Leave cake in layer pans for 10 minutes; remove to wire rack and cool completely. Cool sheet cake completely in pan. Split cake layers with serrated knife-- fill and frost the layers with chocolate buttercream icing or flavored whipped cream. I would be so grateful if anyone could help me fix this! Assistant:As others have pointed out, the ratios between your tougheners and tenderizers appear to be balanced when compared to each other. For example, you have 200g of eggs and 227g of butter, which is near equivalence and the ratio checks out. However, the recipe must be examined as a whole. Let's convert your recipe into rough baker's percentages: * Flour : 2 cups - 240g - 100% * Eggs: 4 large eggs - 200g - 83.3% * Butter: 1 cup - 227g - 94.6% * Sugar: 1.75 cup - 346.5g - 144% When compared to each other, that is a shockingly high percentage for eggs and butter. By mass, the cake is almost as much butter as it is flour! Per Shirley Corriher, the weight of the fat should be around only 30 to 70% of the weight of the flour. So let's reduce the butter to 8 tablespoons or 113g. Here's what our table looks like now: * Flour 240g - 100% * Eggs 200g - 83.3% * Butter: 113g - 47.1% * Sugar: 346.5g - 144% Because the weight of the eggs should be nearly equal to the weight of the fat, that means that the weight of the eggs should also only be around 30% to 70% the weight of the flour. Reduce the amount of eggs to 2. * Flour 240g - 100% * Eggs 100g - 41.7% * Butter 113g - 47.1% * Sugar 346.5g - 144% Now as whole, that's looking like a much more balanced recipe. Here's the kicker though: I strongly suspect that the current recipe you are using is not meant to be a layer cake. It's supposed to be a bundt cake. The sinking in the middle is not an issue for a bundt since it's flipped upside down anyways. The center not setting? Again not an issue for a bundt, -the center ring cooks the center the same rate as the sides. If you truly love the taste and texture of this recipe, I suggest to you to make no changes and to cook it as a bundt instead.

Human: I need a "Cake Doctor" to help me fix my recipe! Hi, Expert Bakers! I have been baking the same chocolate cake for years for every kid birthday in my entire extended family. It tastes delicious ... But it is a pain in the rear with more problems in need of correction than things that work right. Here are some: * I use magic cooling strips on the sides, yet the sides still bake faster than the middle, which ends up soupy and won't set. * It often domes and then sinks into a heap * The finished product is very dense, like a brownie. This also makes layers not very tall, so rather than even try to torte them, **I always double the recipe and bake two separate versions in the same pans, so that I can have "layers" with frosting in the middle.** That wouldn't be such a bad thing, but in combination with the first problem, it means it is always half crumbling apart and half mush glued together with cream cheese frosting. (This despite me carefully weighing the batter to make sure each pan has exactly the same amount of batter.) * All of this makes this thing difficult to bake into character-shape pans, next to impossible to torte, heartbreaking to level (since parts are "crusty" and whole pieces will crumble and fall apart) and only capable of doing anything with lots of frosting and more patience than anyone should have to have for a cake. So why do I continue to make this @#$!@#% thing? Because the kids are OBSESSED with it and won't settle for anything else. In truth, I love it, too, but curse myself every time I have to make it -- just because it is so difficult to work with. I would do anything to fix this thing and have it come out clean and easy. I would pay a cake doctor to fix the recipe if anyone knows someone willing to take on my challenge! Here it is: **A's Family Birthday Cake** 2 cups sifted all-purpose flour 1 1/2 teaspoons baking soda 1/4 teaspoon salt 1/4 teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg 4 ounces unsweetened chocolate 1 cup unsalted butter at room temperature 1 3/4 cups sugar 4 large eggs 1 1/3 cups buttermilk 1 teaspoon vanilla 1 bag mini semisweet chocolate chips &#x200B; Preheat oven to 325\* (F) Spread solid shortening on bottom and sides of two 9-inch layer pans, or one 9x13x1 1/2 inch sheet pan. Dust evenly with unsweetened cocoa or flour; tap out excess. Sift together flour, baking soda, salt, and nutmeg. Set aside. Melt chocolate in top pan of double boiler. Remove chocolate from heat after completely melted, and set aside to cool until comfortable to touch. In large mixing bowl, cream butter and sugar together. Add eggs one at a time, beating well after each addition. Add flour mixture, alternating with buttermilk, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Add vanilla and cooled chocolate. Add Chocolate Chips. Mix Gently Pour mixture into prepared pan (s). Bake in lower third of oven for 40-50 minutes for sheet cake, or 35-45 minutes for layer pans, or until toothpick comes out clean. Leave cake in layer pans for 10 minutes; remove to wire rack and cool completely. Cool sheet cake completely in pan. Split cake layers with serrated knife-- fill and frost the layers with chocolate buttercream icing or flavored whipped cream. I would be so grateful if anyone could help me fix this! Assistant:i'd check a couple of things. first off, how sure are you that your oven gives you a constant, even temperature? that can cause some of the uneven baking issues you have. additionally if the recipe is too dense, one thing to try without changing ingredients is to split your eggs, add yolks as normal, then whip the whites into a meringue and fold it into your batter.

Human: My 16 y/o daughter is at my home after her mother kicked her out of the house. What do I need to do? (CA and AZ) Long story and I have been stressed to my eyeballs the last couple days, so I may be a little disjointed, but I will try to be as clear as I can; My ex-wife and I have two kids, an 18 y/o son and 16 y/o daughter. According to our original custody arrangement, put in place at the time of our divorce in 2010, she had primary custody of the kids, while they spent summers and longer school breaks with me. This arrangement has never been modified. My son chose to come live with me full time almost immediately after turning 18, but of course my daughter was still with her mother, in Arizona. Late Wednesday night I got a frantic call from my daughter. She was very upset and told me over the phone that she got into a fight with her mother, and her mother told her to leave the house and "just go to your dad's." At the time she first called me it was around 9 pm Arizona time and she was walking by herself in Tucson. There is a lot of story here, but I don't think it is relevant, so I'll sum it up that after a great deal of work in the middle of the night I was able to arrange a hotel room for her to stay in for the evening, and bought her plane tickets for yesterday. I am sure the more legally correct thing to do there would have been calling the local police, and I came close to it several times, but I was really worried if I did that they would take her to a shelter or something and I really felt that getting her a hotel room was the safer option. It was a ton of work, stress, and money spent in a short time, but worth it in the end and I picked her up from the airport and she is now at my home in California and safe. For whatever it is worth she expressed to me and her brother that she wants to stay here and does not want to go back to her mother's. Also yesterday morning I received a call from my ex, who asked me if I had spoken with our daughter. I told her that I had talked to her, she was safe, and I had arranged travel for her to get to California. Ex claims she got into an argument and "overreacted," and she initially asked me to let our daughter send a couple days here and then send her back. I told her that I will not be sending our daughter back after ex kicked her out of the house. My ex claimed I had to due to our custody agreement, and I lost my temper on her and told her to take me to court on it. I hung up on her and have not heard from her since. Daughter's phone has received calls and texts from her, but daughter is refusing to answer. That is more or less the current situation. Daughter is here, 12 year old custody arrangement says she is supposed to be at her mother's. At this point I am planning on keeping her here and will be trying to work out how to get her into school and whatnot today. I will also be going to speak to an attorney about what I need to do now, but I can't sleep at the moment anyway, so if anyone is awake I would really appreciate some advice about what I should be doing in the next few hours and days until I can get real advice from the attorney. &#x200B; TL;DR: Ex-wife kicked our 16 y/o daughter out of the house and I arranged for her to come to my home. Mother briefly threatened legal action over it. What should I be doing now? Assistant:The proper course of action is to modify the child custody order. This would require hiring a lawyer in Arizona (or wherever the divorce agreement was finalized) and petitioning the court. Alternatively, you can work out a change of custody with the mother. I'd suggest you get this in writing, such as a text message or email. The less expensive option is to handle this outside of court; particularly as the court (as others have pointed out) is going to pretty much go with whatever Daughter wants at her age. But usually a custody fight isn't really about custody.

Human: My 16 y/o daughter is at my home after her mother kicked her out of the house. What do I need to do? (CA and AZ) Long story and I have been stressed to my eyeballs the last couple days, so I may be a little disjointed, but I will try to be as clear as I can; My ex-wife and I have two kids, an 18 y/o son and 16 y/o daughter. According to our original custody arrangement, put in place at the time of our divorce in 2010, she had primary custody of the kids, while they spent summers and longer school breaks with me. This arrangement has never been modified. My son chose to come live with me full time almost immediately after turning 18, but of course my daughter was still with her mother, in Arizona. Late Wednesday night I got a frantic call from my daughter. She was very upset and told me over the phone that she got into a fight with her mother, and her mother told her to leave the house and "just go to your dad's." At the time she first called me it was around 9 pm Arizona time and she was walking by herself in Tucson. There is a lot of story here, but I don't think it is relevant, so I'll sum it up that after a great deal of work in the middle of the night I was able to arrange a hotel room for her to stay in for the evening, and bought her plane tickets for yesterday. I am sure the more legally correct thing to do there would have been calling the local police, and I came close to it several times, but I was really worried if I did that they would take her to a shelter or something and I really felt that getting her a hotel room was the safer option. It was a ton of work, stress, and money spent in a short time, but worth it in the end and I picked her up from the airport and she is now at my home in California and safe. For whatever it is worth she expressed to me and her brother that she wants to stay here and does not want to go back to her mother's. Also yesterday morning I received a call from my ex, who asked me if I had spoken with our daughter. I told her that I had talked to her, she was safe, and I had arranged travel for her to get to California. Ex claims she got into an argument and "overreacted," and she initially asked me to let our daughter send a couple days here and then send her back. I told her that I will not be sending our daughter back after ex kicked her out of the house. My ex claimed I had to due to our custody agreement, and I lost my temper on her and told her to take me to court on it. I hung up on her and have not heard from her since. Daughter's phone has received calls and texts from her, but daughter is refusing to answer. That is more or less the current situation. Daughter is here, 12 year old custody arrangement says she is supposed to be at her mother's. At this point I am planning on keeping her here and will be trying to work out how to get her into school and whatnot today. I will also be going to speak to an attorney about what I need to do now, but I can't sleep at the moment anyway, so if anyone is awake I would really appreciate some advice about what I should be doing in the next few hours and days until I can get real advice from the attorney. &#x200B; TL;DR: Ex-wife kicked our 16 y/o daughter out of the house and I arranged for her to come to my home. Mother briefly threatened legal action over it. What should I be doing now? Assistant:I know teenagers can overreact occasionally but it sounds to me that there has been an ongoing issue in AZ. I’d find a family law attorney and have the ex investigated. Also, keep any text messages that daughter may have sent you saying she wants to come to CA, the ex may try kidnapping charges.

Human: My grandma was thought to have Late Stage Alzheimer's for years. Yesterday, she suddenly "snapped out of it". What happened? Are there illnesses that mimic Alzheimer's? Age: 89 Weight: 120 lbs Previous health problems: minor UTI Location: USA Duration: 5 years (for Alzheimer's) So, I am just perplexed and I have no idea what is going on. My grandmother (who is 89) was thought to have Alzheimer's.My cousin who is a doctor, aunt who is Psychiatrist, mom who is a nurse, and myself (not a medical doctor, but a doctorate in the biological sciences and work in environmental health) all swore by this. Her behavior (inability to have a deep conversation, or respond to her environment, walk to places on her own, mostly reflected this). I say mostly because there was something (in hindsight) that I noticed. When she would see me, she would call me by the pet name that she gave me. In addition, my ex is a nurse who specifically worked with patents with Alzheimers and dementia, and while she said she believed she (my grandmother) had Alzheimer's, she also swore that "she was there more than we thought she was". Anyways, three days ago she went to the hospital due to a UTI infection....and yesterday, I swear it was like none of this happened. She was entirely "here". She spoke and had normal conversations like before her diagnosis, she read (like before her diagnosis), she knew about everything happening in the world at this time (her family fled the Iron Curtain so she was interested in Ukraine. She also remembered everything my family would talk with her about when she "had" Alzheimer's. Perhaps the strangest thing, is that before, she was a pianist and had a grand piano and would play every night. She played piano...and she played beautifully. Look, I may not be a medical doctor, but I am a scientist so I am not going to use the word "miracle" but it felt miraculous. At the same time...there has to be an explanation. Obviously in the next few days my family are going to try to figure this out. But in the meantime, I am just left wondering what happened? What did she have beforehand? And why is she suddenly better? It feels like a strange restart in life, like another chance to get to know her and I am simply perplexed. Thank you Assistant:What I’m going to say might be a little hard to take. It’s true that it could be one of many things, one more likely than the other: misdiagnosis, some sort of environmental factor, a change in medication etc. It is however also quite likely that this is what’s called Terminal Lucidity. A sort of “second wind” patients get in the days before they die. They suddenly seem a lot more present and functional, it seems as though their symptoms are clearing up. But then eventually they die shortly after. I think this may be what your grandmother is experiencing. I’m sorry. I encourage you to spend as much time with her as possible, she might not have long. Good luck OP.

Human: My grandma was thought to have Late Stage Alzheimer's for years. Yesterday, she suddenly "snapped out of it". What happened? Are there illnesses that mimic Alzheimer's? Age: 89 Weight: 120 lbs Previous health problems: minor UTI Location: USA Duration: 5 years (for Alzheimer's) So, I am just perplexed and I have no idea what is going on. My grandmother (who is 89) was thought to have Alzheimer's.My cousin who is a doctor, aunt who is Psychiatrist, mom who is a nurse, and myself (not a medical doctor, but a doctorate in the biological sciences and work in environmental health) all swore by this. Her behavior (inability to have a deep conversation, or respond to her environment, walk to places on her own, mostly reflected this). I say mostly because there was something (in hindsight) that I noticed. When she would see me, she would call me by the pet name that she gave me. In addition, my ex is a nurse who specifically worked with patents with Alzheimers and dementia, and while she said she believed she (my grandmother) had Alzheimer's, she also swore that "she was there more than we thought she was". Anyways, three days ago she went to the hospital due to a UTI infection....and yesterday, I swear it was like none of this happened. She was entirely "here". She spoke and had normal conversations like before her diagnosis, she read (like before her diagnosis), she knew about everything happening in the world at this time (her family fled the Iron Curtain so she was interested in Ukraine. She also remembered everything my family would talk with her about when she "had" Alzheimer's. Perhaps the strangest thing, is that before, she was a pianist and had a grand piano and would play every night. She played piano...and she played beautifully. Look, I may not be a medical doctor, but I am a scientist so I am not going to use the word "miracle" but it felt miraculous. At the same time...there has to be an explanation. Obviously in the next few days my family are going to try to figure this out. But in the meantime, I am just left wondering what happened? What did she have beforehand? And why is she suddenly better? It feels like a strange restart in life, like another chance to get to know her and I am simply perplexed. Thank you Assistant:There are other illnesses that can mimic dementia, and part of the workup should be looking for the “reversible causes.” Had she seen a psychiatrist or neurologist for assessment of Alzheimer’s or was it a family assumption that her changes were part of a dementia? What medications was she on before or now? Medications are certainly a potential contributor. While UTIs are known to cause delirium (with some controversy), that’s not quite the same as dementia and would not normally last or progress slowly for years.

Human: CMV: There was no single person who had more power to prevent Roe v Wade from being overturned than Ruth Bader Ginsburg I’ll preface this with saying I think RBG was a brilliant legal mind who broke barriers and inspired many in the legal field. This is not to discount here record of impeccable service to the country. But I can no longer think of her or see a “Notorious RBG” tote bag without seeing the image of someone I feel bears more responsibility than any single person in (the pro-choice community) for Roe v Wade’s downfall. My argument is had everything else held equal on history - Republicans winning the Senate in 2014, McConnell blocking Garland’s nomination, Trump’s presidency and appointments, and Biden’s subsequent election - Roe v Wade would likely not have been overturned had RBG decided to retire by 2014. Reason being is it would be a 5-4 conservative Court today, with Roberts as the swing vote. In the leaked draft, Roberts is reportedly dissenting. Roberts is conservative, but he also cares about the public image and legitimacy of the Court, and has drawn lines when the legal thinking of the cases seen in the Court drifted rightward. He famously voted to uphold the individual mandate in Obamacare, during an election year. I could see him taking a middle ground that guts aspects of Roe, but not overturning it in its entirety. Up until January 2015, Democrats had both the Senate and the presidency. The voting threshold at the time was still 60 votes for SCOTUS nominees, but that was and always has been an arbitrary number. Majority Leader Reid could have scrapped it with the nuclear option, and lowered the threshold to a simple majority as McConnell did in 2017. McConnell would not have been able to block a nomination from Obama in 2014 like he did with Garland in 2016. He didn’t have the Senate yet. In other words, had RBG - then 81 at the time - decided to retire in 2014 or earlier, she would have been replaced with an ideological equivalent who would have ruled no differently than her on any case of consequence in the years since. But her refusal to retire at an opportune time was devastating to Roe’s survival. Do I feel McConnell, Trump, Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are more responsible in the sense that they’re actually proactively trying to overturn Roe/voting against it? Sure. But that was always the case. We can’t control what they do. Trump campaigned absolutely explicitly on appointing judges that will overturn Roe. And the ones he appointed prior to nominating Barrett were replacing retiring conservatives, so it did not tip the balance of the Court in any meaningful way. Do I fault voters on the left who showed up to vote in 2008 and 2012 but couldn’t be bothered in 2016, or voted 3rd party? Or Hillary Clinton for managing to lose to Donald Trump, who in my view was the most heinously unqualified individual ever nominated for that office? Sure. But to cast blame on them is putting the onus on tens of thousands of people, who would have had to do something differently to prevent that. The election result could have been the same and RBG would have still been able to make a difference by retiring in 2014. To CMV, convince me that there was some factor or person with more unilateral power than RBG to sway the result, and would have realistically done so. Or that even if she had retired, the Dobbs case would have the same result. Assistant:> In other words, had RBG - then 81 at the time - decided to retire in 2014 or earlier, she would have been replaced with an ideological equivalent who would have ruled no differently than her on any case of consequence in the years since. But her refusal to retire at an opportune time was devastating to Roe’s survival. Your argument only works if one assumes that she would have wanted to save Roe in the first place. The thing was that she wasn't motivated to save Roe, as she disagreed with it. She never liked the fact that the right to abortion was merely based on a right to privacy, while it should have instead been based on women's rights. https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit

Human: CMV: There was no single person who had more power to prevent Roe v Wade from being overturned than Ruth Bader Ginsburg I’ll preface this with saying I think RBG was a brilliant legal mind who broke barriers and inspired many in the legal field. This is not to discount here record of impeccable service to the country. But I can no longer think of her or see a “Notorious RBG” tote bag without seeing the image of someone I feel bears more responsibility than any single person in (the pro-choice community) for Roe v Wade’s downfall. My argument is had everything else held equal on history - Republicans winning the Senate in 2014, McConnell blocking Garland’s nomination, Trump’s presidency and appointments, and Biden’s subsequent election - Roe v Wade would likely not have been overturned had RBG decided to retire by 2014. Reason being is it would be a 5-4 conservative Court today, with Roberts as the swing vote. In the leaked draft, Roberts is reportedly dissenting. Roberts is conservative, but he also cares about the public image and legitimacy of the Court, and has drawn lines when the legal thinking of the cases seen in the Court drifted rightward. He famously voted to uphold the individual mandate in Obamacare, during an election year. I could see him taking a middle ground that guts aspects of Roe, but not overturning it in its entirety. Up until January 2015, Democrats had both the Senate and the presidency. The voting threshold at the time was still 60 votes for SCOTUS nominees, but that was and always has been an arbitrary number. Majority Leader Reid could have scrapped it with the nuclear option, and lowered the threshold to a simple majority as McConnell did in 2017. McConnell would not have been able to block a nomination from Obama in 2014 like he did with Garland in 2016. He didn’t have the Senate yet. In other words, had RBG - then 81 at the time - decided to retire in 2014 or earlier, she would have been replaced with an ideological equivalent who would have ruled no differently than her on any case of consequence in the years since. But her refusal to retire at an opportune time was devastating to Roe’s survival. Do I feel McConnell, Trump, Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are more responsible in the sense that they’re actually proactively trying to overturn Roe/voting against it? Sure. But that was always the case. We can’t control what they do. Trump campaigned absolutely explicitly on appointing judges that will overturn Roe. And the ones he appointed prior to nominating Barrett were replacing retiring conservatives, so it did not tip the balance of the Court in any meaningful way. Do I fault voters on the left who showed up to vote in 2008 and 2012 but couldn’t be bothered in 2016, or voted 3rd party? Or Hillary Clinton for managing to lose to Donald Trump, who in my view was the most heinously unqualified individual ever nominated for that office? Sure. But to cast blame on them is putting the onus on tens of thousands of people, who would have had to do something differently to prevent that. The election result could have been the same and RBG would have still been able to make a difference by retiring in 2014. To CMV, convince me that there was some factor or person with more unilateral power than RBG to sway the result, and would have realistically done so. Or that even if she had retired, the Dobbs case would have the same result. Assistant:Blaming individuals is always going to be a red herring. Even if RBG was some saint and foresaw all that would happen after her and made perfect decisions, that would only have bought everyone a decade or two at most. By all means go take a shit on her grave or whatever if it is emotionally fulfilling for you, but ultimately it's pointless to blame individuals (or celebrate them, for that matter) when the system wouldn't have fundamentally changed anyway Because the problem isn't just the individuals involved and the choices they made. It's the whole system; the whole socio-political structure that allows for these fights in the first place and blocks any real, substantive gains on them. Only a tiny minority of people actually support making all abortions illegal - but because we do not live in a democracy, those people have power over the majority and there just isn't a lot that RBG or anybody else could do about that which doesn't involve a radical restructuring of the socio-political order, a thing which RBG and people like her believed and continue to believe is fundamentally bad. "The system works fine, it just produces horrifically bad results 50% or more of the time" these people would say, and blaming individuals for failing to cut that percentage down is a red herring they would love for you to believe in

Human: CMV: Believing that people should not be clinically obese is not fatphobic. Fatphobia is a real thing, but it is often misused and has gained traction as a term to end arguments against obesity without having to hear the other persons point. Fatphobia is discrimination and hatred towards fat people, the way homophobia is towards gay people. While believing that people shouldn't be gay is homophobic, believing someone should lose some weight or that being excessively overweight is unhealthy for them isn't the same. I understand there are still some people who believe that being gay is a choice or something the individual can change, but in my experience and understanding, who you like is who you like. Contrary to that, your bodyfat percentage is a result of your diet intake against your activity level. In this the two are very different, as judging someone over something that they cannot change is not fair, and telling someone without judging them the benefits of a change that they could make is not wrong. Harassment and mistreatment of someone who is obese, because they are obese is fatphobic, and unwanted diet or exercise advice is actually a well meaning form of harassment, but still harassment. That being clarified, someone posting on a diet or exercise post, that is intended for people who actively want change, is not fatphobic propaganda. Additionally when someone brings up the health benefits of weight loss or diet and exercise, it is more commonly than not, not being used as an attack. Furthermore, it is medically backed fact. I want to being this back to the sexuality parallel from earlier. Sexuality being a choice is only an opinion, and the drawbacks of obesity and the benefits of weight loss are facts. They aren't forcing an opinion on someone but rather using truth to back their side of a discussion. As I have repeatedly stated, the line comes down to having a belief vs forcing your belief on others. Inherently having the belief that being obese is bad, is in itself ok. Forcing that belief on others and shaming them for being obese, and calling them names is fatphobic, which is wrong. It's like religion. Its fine to have one, but don't start preaching unless you have a clear indication the other person wants to hear it. Speaking about the benefits and drawbacks of a status vs going into a situation is isn't suited and trying to force its relevance is a major issue. Circiling back to preferences, someone who isn't attracted to someone who is fat is the same as someone who isn't attracted to someone who is skinny. It isn't phobic, it is a preference. I personally enjoy most sizes of women, but for men prefer more fit individuals. That is just what I like, and what I don't like isn't a form of hate, but more a lack of interest. I am 6ft tall, which is well above average height. When I get told that by someone that they like taller guys, I don't assume they are being phobic, they have a preference for really tall individuals, and I don't hold it against them. Even if I am disappointed, it is no excuse to stoop to accusing someone of discriminatory bigotry. Assistant:Believing? i don't think anyone thinks that. It's communicating and talking about it that can certainly be a sign of fatphobia. If I go into a room of gay people and start telling them being homosexual makes them more likely to get AIDS I'm doing two things: 1. I'm implying that they don't know something they absolutely know and 2. i'm saying that this dimension of their life is the the one that matters to me. You have to think that the person you're talking to is a fucking moron to dwell on this piece of information. The "phobias" aren't just "i hate this person because of X" it's "i don't see them as fully regular people". If at anypoint you feel the need to tell an obsese person that it's not healthy you're almost certainly failing to see them as a whole person. They know this, you're speaking to hear yourself talk if you think it contributes to a conversation. It's a bit like walking into a sky diving convention and telling everyone that they should wear a parachute. if you think you're adding something you're focused more on wanting to talk and on your experience of the topic then you are on the topic or the person you're talking to.

Human: CMV: Believing that people should not be clinically obese is not fatphobic. Fatphobia is a real thing, but it is often misused and has gained traction as a term to end arguments against obesity without having to hear the other persons point. Fatphobia is discrimination and hatred towards fat people, the way homophobia is towards gay people. While believing that people shouldn't be gay is homophobic, believing someone should lose some weight or that being excessively overweight is unhealthy for them isn't the same. I understand there are still some people who believe that being gay is a choice or something the individual can change, but in my experience and understanding, who you like is who you like. Contrary to that, your bodyfat percentage is a result of your diet intake against your activity level. In this the two are very different, as judging someone over something that they cannot change is not fair, and telling someone without judging them the benefits of a change that they could make is not wrong. Harassment and mistreatment of someone who is obese, because they are obese is fatphobic, and unwanted diet or exercise advice is actually a well meaning form of harassment, but still harassment. That being clarified, someone posting on a diet or exercise post, that is intended for people who actively want change, is not fatphobic propaganda. Additionally when someone brings up the health benefits of weight loss or diet and exercise, it is more commonly than not, not being used as an attack. Furthermore, it is medically backed fact. I want to being this back to the sexuality parallel from earlier. Sexuality being a choice is only an opinion, and the drawbacks of obesity and the benefits of weight loss are facts. They aren't forcing an opinion on someone but rather using truth to back their side of a discussion. As I have repeatedly stated, the line comes down to having a belief vs forcing your belief on others. Inherently having the belief that being obese is bad, is in itself ok. Forcing that belief on others and shaming them for being obese, and calling them names is fatphobic, which is wrong. It's like religion. Its fine to have one, but don't start preaching unless you have a clear indication the other person wants to hear it. Speaking about the benefits and drawbacks of a status vs going into a situation is isn't suited and trying to force its relevance is a major issue. Circiling back to preferences, someone who isn't attracted to someone who is fat is the same as someone who isn't attracted to someone who is skinny. It isn't phobic, it is a preference. I personally enjoy most sizes of women, but for men prefer more fit individuals. That is just what I like, and what I don't like isn't a form of hate, but more a lack of interest. I am 6ft tall, which is well above average height. When I get told that by someone that they like taller guys, I don't assume they are being phobic, they have a preference for really tall individuals, and I don't hold it against them. Even if I am disappointed, it is no excuse to stoop to accusing someone of discriminatory bigotry. Assistant:>believing someone should lose some weight or that being excessively overweight is unhealthy for them isn't the same. Here is the ultimate problem with your view. You can observe that someone is not in optimal health. But let's look at your language: "Believing someone should lose some weight." This is none of your concern. Holding a belief on how someone should live their life, is never going to be appropriate that's why it's their life to live and not yours. The entire issue of fat phobia has nothing to do with health and has everything to do with people minding their own business. Because EVERYONE, every single person has some aspect of their health that is not optimal. Obesity is just one of the most readily visible health issues people face. I for example think that allowing children to play sports like Football, and leave high school with life long chronic injuries from aggressive over training, and being struck repeatedly during play, never mind the incidence rate of concussions is immensely problematic. Yet we aren't having a discussion about "Footballphobic" people. Because we accept that their injuries are none of our fucking business. Same thing with being overweight. It's just more acceptable to harp on fat people because it's easily visible. That's the only reason. You would never tell anyone else how to lead their life except for overweight people. That's why this entire conversation is fucked.

Human: CMV: Andrew Yang's Gun Reform Proposal is the best out of all the Democratic 2020 candidates. It is my view, that out of the gun control policies listed on the websites of the 2020 candidates, Andrew Yangs is the best. You can find it https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/ or below: As President, I will… * Promote a stringent, tiered licensing system for gun ownership (think a CDL vs. a regular driver’s license): * All tiers * Pass a federal background check, eliminating the gun show loophole. * Tier 1 – Basic hunting rifles and handguns * Pass a background check * Pass a basic hunting/firearm safety class * Provide a receipt for an appropriately-sized gun locker, or trigger lock per registered gun. * Tier 2 – Semi-automatic rifles * Have a Tier 1 license for at least 1 year * Be at least 21 years of age * Pass an advanced firearm safety class. * Tier 3 – Advanced and automatic weaponry * Maintain current restrictions and definitions (National Firearms Act of 1934) * Ban high-capacity magazines * Require submission of fingerprints and DNA to the FBI * Submit to a gun locker inspection to ensure it can house the weapons * Undergo yearly refresher trainings on the use of these firearms. * Anyone with a history of violence, domestic abuse, or violent mental illness would be restricted from receiving a license. * Those who currently own any firearms will: * Be grandfathered in with their current license, and for the 1-year requirement if they decide to apply for a Tier 2 license * Receive a one-time “Good Gun Owner” tax credit for adhering to the additional requirements implemented by the new system * Be allowed a tax write-off for the purchase of any equipment required to adhere to the new standards * Be allowed to register any currently unregistered firearm without facing any penalties. * Individual states will determine their concealed carry/open carry laws, and reciprocity will not be federally enforced. However, a concealed or open carry license in one state would satisfy all licensure requirements in all states. * Prohibit the manufacture and sale of bump stocks, suppressors, incendiary/exploding ammunition, and (yes, this is currently legal) grenade launcher attachments. * Create federal safety guidelines for gun manufacture and distribution, similar to federal car safety requirements, with strict penalties for the violation of these guidelines. * Encourage gun manufacturers to implement designs that prevent interchanging parts that alter the functionality of the firearm. * Implement a federal buyback program for anyone who wants to voluntarily give up their firearm. * Invest in innovative technology that would make firearms harder to fire for non-owners of the gun, and create a federal, bipartisan panel to determine when technological innovations are advanced and reliable enough to be included in manufacturing safety requirements. * As stated here, invest in a more robust mental health infrastructure. This will help to identify and treat people with mental health illnesses that make them prone to violence. * Increase funding to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and drastically increase funding to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Suicide Prevention efforts. * Initiate and fund mindfulness programs in schools and correctional facilities, which have been demonstrated to reduce violent behavior. * Invest heavily in law enforcement training to de-escalate situations involving firearms. &#x200B; Joe Biden https://joebiden.com Kamala Harris https://kamalaharris.org/issue/action-on-gun-violence/ Elizabeth Warren https://elizabethwarren.com/issues Pete Buttigieg https://peteforamerica.com/issues/#GunLaws Bernie Sanders https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/ Beto Orourke https://betoorourke.com/issues/ &#x200B; How I define best: totally subjective. have at it. What do you think? Who's proposal is better? Assistant:Alriight. lets go through this point by point: Pass a federal background check and eliminate the gun show loophole. The gun show loophole is a pretty blatant example of liberal fear mongering on guns. In 2016 only .8 percent of felons obtained their firearm from a gun show. (source table 5 page 7) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf There are a lot of misconsceptions about what goes on at a gun show. If you are a dealer you are required to conduct a background check whether you are at a gun show ore not. So what this loophole is about is private transfers. It should be noted that back when we got background checks the compromise that the NRA negotiated was that they wouldn't object to mandatory background checks from retailers if gun control advocates would leave private transfers alone. No sooner was the deal signed into law than democrats started screaming about the gun show loophole. What closing the gun show loophole really means is closing the private transfer loophole. A private transfer does not even have to necessitate the exchange of money. If I borrow a friend's shotgun to go out to the rifle range and he isn't going to be there, that is a transfer. If I lone a friend my hunting rifle for the week that is a transfer. What closing the gun show loophole would do is inject additional paperwork into that process. Pass a basic hunting/ firearm safety class I am actually ok with this on one condition; this firearm safety class needs to be available through the public school system at the very least to highschoolers. The right to keep and bear arms is exactly that: a right. Therefore if the government sees it necessary to put an additional barrier between an individual and that right they have an obligation to make sure that access to that right is still achievable by individuals of all social and economic statuses. That being said. This is also unecessary. upwards of a third of Americans report that they own guns. Furthermore whether they own them or not close to 70% of Americans have shot a gun (source)https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/. With that being said, in 2017 we had only 582 fatal accidental firearm injuries (source) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4700838/ Provide a receipt for a gun safe or trigger lock. So many problems with this. First of all, provide a receipt to who? Second of all how is that going to work with the massive number of people who are going to need to be grandfathered in? I do not still have the receipt for my gun safe. And furthermore, at what point do I legally need to get a new gun safe? Because I'm a cheap bastard. I am going to put as many guns in my safe as I can before I buy another one. Thirdly, clarify for me what exactly this is supposed to accomplish. Gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right. To accept a restriction on it I need to see a clear purpose behind that restriction. Walk me through the cause and effect of how this is justified logically. Tier two semi auto rifles. Have a tier one license for at least one year from my perspective a gun is a gun. I own a lever action rifle that holds 10 rounds with this nifty little thing on the side of it called a loading gate. What it does is allow me to load the rifle continuously while keeping it shouldered. I cannot keep up with a semi automatic rifle per rate of fire but i am not going to feel that much better if someone breaks into my home with a lever gun as opposed to a semi automatic rifle. If you can get a tier one rifle the bottom line is you are getting license to own a weapon that is not in any way unsuited to violence against your fellow man. Be 21 years of age The most common 22 caliber rifle on the market is the ruger 10 22. It is a semi automatic rifle that comes with a detachable 10 round magazine but that can also be fitted with 25 round magazines. It is ubiquitous and many kid's first small game hunting rifle. are we going to treat it like an assault rifle now? Pass an advanced gun safety class. What does this even mean? the rules for safe firearms handling do not substantially change whether or not you are shooting a musket or a machine gun. You treat every gun like it is loaded, you always keep it pointed in a safe direction, your finger stays off the trigger until you are ready to fire and you make sure you are ok with destroying whatever is behind it. What are you going to teach in an advanced firearm safety course? What is so fundamentally different about a semi automatic firearm that it requires its own safety course. Give me one concrete answer. I am assuming everything past maintaining current restrictions in tier three applies to all firearms. Ban high capacity magazines. I am going to assume you mean any magazine over 10 rounds because that is the definition I see in the public discourse. This solves very little the parkland school shooter only used 10 round magazines. This video does a good demonstration of why this will not make a substantial impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCSySuemiHU Secondly this would be hugely impact on the vast majority of gun owners. the vast majority of handguns on the market have a magazine size greater than 10. Require submission of fingerprints and DNA to the FBI. So I know that the patriot act already substantially undermined our right to be free from unreasonable searches but that doesn't mean we are right to go further down that road. Owning a gun is not a substantial predictor of predilection to criminality. Why should I have to give my fingerprint and DNA to the FBI. Submit to a gun locker inspection. Same as before. this is an unreasonable search. What makes a house capable or incapable of housing firearms especially considering that under this plan I already have to prove that I own a gun safe. Undergo a yearly refresher training. If I am shooting regularly, that is my yearly refresher. Contrary to popular belief we gun owners are not accidentally shooting ourselves in substantial number. What problem does this solve? Anyone with a history of violence. If you are guilty of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge it is already illegal for you to own a firearm and this will show up on a background check. Source https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1117-restrictions-possession-firearms-individuals-convicted I am not opposed to expanding that but this is not a new provision we have had it since the beginning. Im skipping over a few of them but what does this mean? "Individual states will determine their concealed carry/open carry laws, and reciprocity will not be federally enforced. However, a concealed or open carry license in one state would satisfy all licensure requirements in all states." This statement contradicts itself. It says that the states get to determine whether or not they have reciprocity but at the same time if you have a license in one state you automatically qualify for one in another state. This turns states like California, Hawaii and New York into "shall issue" states; which frankly I am all for but I'm not quite sure that is what Mr Yang meant. Please clarify. Prohibit the manufacture of bump stocks, suppressors, incendiary or exploding ammunition. So all of these are a little different. I take no issue with banning bump stocks but the suppressor ban is a problem. Suppressors are coming into widespread use. You have to get a tax stamp and wait 6 months for one. What evidence is there that these are being used inappropriately? silencers are an absolute rarity in violent crime. (source) http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v08n2/clark.pdf Create federal safety guidelines. To do what? This is vague what are we describing here? Encourage gun manufacturers to implement designs that prevent interchanging parts that alter the functionality of the firearm. Again what does this mean? does it mean I can's switch out the barrel on my AR-15 for a shorter one? This is vague and furthermore what is it supposed to accomplish? Most of the rest of that list I don't take issue with but I see a pretty clear pattern of buzzwords, fearmongering and a lack of critical though about what the actual effect of this legislation will be.

Human: CMV: Andrew Yang's Gun Reform Proposal is the best out of all the Democratic 2020 candidates. It is my view, that out of the gun control policies listed on the websites of the 2020 candidates, Andrew Yangs is the best. You can find it https://www.yang2020.com/policies/gun-safety/ or below: As President, I will… * Promote a stringent, tiered licensing system for gun ownership (think a CDL vs. a regular driver’s license): * All tiers * Pass a federal background check, eliminating the gun show loophole. * Tier 1 – Basic hunting rifles and handguns * Pass a background check * Pass a basic hunting/firearm safety class * Provide a receipt for an appropriately-sized gun locker, or trigger lock per registered gun. * Tier 2 – Semi-automatic rifles * Have a Tier 1 license for at least 1 year * Be at least 21 years of age * Pass an advanced firearm safety class. * Tier 3 – Advanced and automatic weaponry * Maintain current restrictions and definitions (National Firearms Act of 1934) * Ban high-capacity magazines * Require submission of fingerprints and DNA to the FBI * Submit to a gun locker inspection to ensure it can house the weapons * Undergo yearly refresher trainings on the use of these firearms. * Anyone with a history of violence, domestic abuse, or violent mental illness would be restricted from receiving a license. * Those who currently own any firearms will: * Be grandfathered in with their current license, and for the 1-year requirement if they decide to apply for a Tier 2 license * Receive a one-time “Good Gun Owner” tax credit for adhering to the additional requirements implemented by the new system * Be allowed a tax write-off for the purchase of any equipment required to adhere to the new standards * Be allowed to register any currently unregistered firearm without facing any penalties. * Individual states will determine their concealed carry/open carry laws, and reciprocity will not be federally enforced. However, a concealed or open carry license in one state would satisfy all licensure requirements in all states. * Prohibit the manufacture and sale of bump stocks, suppressors, incendiary/exploding ammunition, and (yes, this is currently legal) grenade launcher attachments. * Create federal safety guidelines for gun manufacture and distribution, similar to federal car safety requirements, with strict penalties for the violation of these guidelines. * Encourage gun manufacturers to implement designs that prevent interchanging parts that alter the functionality of the firearm. * Implement a federal buyback program for anyone who wants to voluntarily give up their firearm. * Invest in innovative technology that would make firearms harder to fire for non-owners of the gun, and create a federal, bipartisan panel to determine when technological innovations are advanced and reliable enough to be included in manufacturing safety requirements. * As stated here, invest in a more robust mental health infrastructure. This will help to identify and treat people with mental health illnesses that make them prone to violence. * Increase funding to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, and drastically increase funding to the US Department of Veterans Affairs Suicide Prevention efforts. * Initiate and fund mindfulness programs in schools and correctional facilities, which have been demonstrated to reduce violent behavior. * Invest heavily in law enforcement training to de-escalate situations involving firearms. &#x200B; Joe Biden https://joebiden.com Kamala Harris https://kamalaharris.org/issue/action-on-gun-violence/ Elizabeth Warren https://elizabethwarren.com/issues Pete Buttigieg https://peteforamerica.com/issues/#GunLaws Bernie Sanders https://berniesanders.com/issues/gun-safety/ Beto Orourke https://betoorourke.com/issues/ &#x200B; How I define best: totally subjective. have at it. What do you think? Who's proposal is better? Assistant:If you define best as completely subjective without any specific reason or evidence just a whim then how do you expect us to change your mind?

Human: I'm a new engineer. I'm addicted to learning better ways to do things and it's making me slow. I need an outside perspective. I've been an engineer for 6 months now. For the first few months, I was mostly doing paperwork stuff and creating documents. I was eventually given a much more open-ended and math-heavy assignment. I started learning some software to help with it, and before I knew it I was lost in lala land learning about all the new things I could do with this program. It was like a whole new endless world had opened up. I became obsessed. I started spending my nights and weekends learning this software and trying different approaches at this problem, as well as going off on less directly-related tangents just to experiment with features that I thought were interesting. I would get back to working directly on the problem, but before long I would discover a better way to solve it and I'd start all over with a new technique. I just can't stand doing something one way when I know there's a better way to do it. I told my manager what I was doing and about all the useful things I had learned and he seemed really interested and impressed. Eventually, though, he started to emphasize that I really needed to finish the assignment. I still wanted to keep learning and doing things my way, so I've started spending even more time on it at home and even going some nights without sleep so I can devote more time to it. It still isn't enough time though. The days and the weeks just fly by. I'm still taking forever on this thing despite literally spending between 80 and 100 hours a week working on it and learning new things. I also have another project i'm working on that was given to me by someone other than my manager, and I'm in the same situation with that one learning the features of a different program. This has been going on for 2 months and I can't stop. I don't want to stop. I thoroughly enjoy every second of it and I don't feel even close to being burned out. It just feels like I'm playing video games all day. This is just how I want to spend all of my time. I feel certain that what I'm doing is worth my time in the long run. I can do so much more than I could when I started on this and people continue to be impressed by what I'm learning how to do, but I'm aware that I'm doing the right thing at the wrong time and I really need to just get these projects done. I am making progress on them, though. I feel like I'm close to wrapping them up, but I've felt that way the entire time and it's like I walk into work Monday morning and sit down for two hours and suddenly it's Friday evening. Has anyone ever gone through this? Am I correct in thinking this is going to be beneficial in the long run or am I just completely fucking up right now? Assistant:>Am I correct in thinking this is going to be beneficial in the long run or am I just completely fucking up right now? You're correct in your thinking **and** you're completely fucking up right now. Management loves a go-getter, but a go-getter that can't get the job done is a bad employee. Separate your learning from your work. Finish your assignments, and use your own personal projects to explore the new software you're using. Separate your own personal work ethic from the things you need to do for your job. The boss doesn't care if you've improved efficiency in your procedure by 1%, the boss cares about the deadline they gave you. Good luck!

Human: I'm a new engineer. I'm addicted to learning better ways to do things and it's making me slow. I need an outside perspective. I've been an engineer for 6 months now. For the first few months, I was mostly doing paperwork stuff and creating documents. I was eventually given a much more open-ended and math-heavy assignment. I started learning some software to help with it, and before I knew it I was lost in lala land learning about all the new things I could do with this program. It was like a whole new endless world had opened up. I became obsessed. I started spending my nights and weekends learning this software and trying different approaches at this problem, as well as going off on less directly-related tangents just to experiment with features that I thought were interesting. I would get back to working directly on the problem, but before long I would discover a better way to solve it and I'd start all over with a new technique. I just can't stand doing something one way when I know there's a better way to do it. I told my manager what I was doing and about all the useful things I had learned and he seemed really interested and impressed. Eventually, though, he started to emphasize that I really needed to finish the assignment. I still wanted to keep learning and doing things my way, so I've started spending even more time on it at home and even going some nights without sleep so I can devote more time to it. It still isn't enough time though. The days and the weeks just fly by. I'm still taking forever on this thing despite literally spending between 80 and 100 hours a week working on it and learning new things. I also have another project i'm working on that was given to me by someone other than my manager, and I'm in the same situation with that one learning the features of a different program. This has been going on for 2 months and I can't stop. I don't want to stop. I thoroughly enjoy every second of it and I don't feel even close to being burned out. It just feels like I'm playing video games all day. This is just how I want to spend all of my time. I feel certain that what I'm doing is worth my time in the long run. I can do so much more than I could when I started on this and people continue to be impressed by what I'm learning how to do, but I'm aware that I'm doing the right thing at the wrong time and I really need to just get these projects done. I am making progress on them, though. I feel like I'm close to wrapping them up, but I've felt that way the entire time and it's like I walk into work Monday morning and sit down for two hours and suddenly it's Friday evening. Has anyone ever gone through this? Am I correct in thinking this is going to be beneficial in the long run or am I just completely fucking up right now? Assistant:It’ll be beneficial to do your work and keep your bosses happy while also learning this

Human: Senior Researchers with Questionable Integrity I am currently pursuing graduate studies and I have recently witnessed 2 situations that made me question the legitimacy of the peer-reviewing process and scientific publications. 1. A friend of mine is currently working on his thesis, and some results from the code developed at their lab are not so good, because the code is very young, made by one person with not much coding background, and hasn't been rigorously tested on many problem instances. My friend wanted to make a comment about this in his thesis/paper to explain that results still could be improved if the code was more adapted to this specific case, but his advisor was totally against it. The advisor, which is also an evaluator on the thesis jury, refused to validate the thesis/submit the paper as long as that small paragraph was not removed, saying that it is simply not true and that it would impact negatively future results published by students from the lab (even though they all agree with my friend, even the person who made the code). I am utterly shocked that an experienced researcher would suggest this, and IMO it is bad science. Most importantly, the department director does not want to intervene since he is also member of the jury, and said to my friend to go to the faculty if he wanted to contest this decision, a process that could eventually take months, just to get his diploma. 2. I assisted to a seminar given by a professor who did a literature review of over a hundred papers from medicine journals since the end of the 90's about Alzheimer disease modelization. He said that many of them had numerical experiments described by parameters, but that with those parameters, the simulations would often fail to reproduce the results presented in the papers, and after contacting the authors, they openly said that the parameters were not the right ones. Even with the new allegedly correct set of parameters, the simulations could sometimes not even be reproduced. The results were possibly fudged. I am surprised about the level of dishonesty that seems to emanate from the world of academic publication. Is it THAT common that numbers/results are fudged in papers/thesis just to make the authors look good? Do people do this to justify more funding? Is it just a coincidence that shortly after I begin my journey in academia I see many people lie/hide critical info in peer-reviewed papers, or is it very common? Has anyone had similar experiences about senior researchers encouraging them to hide stuff or censoring them if they don't hide some information? What did you do about it? Assistant:As someone who investigates academic misconduct (fortunately relatively infrequently) as part of my job, the first thing I would say to you is that these things are inevitably far more complex and nuanced than first appearances suggest. I've had people present me with scenarios that sound like a clear case of misconduct, open and shut case, and then when we've investigated it's gotten a whole lot murkier and complicated. With your first scenario, this is a tricky one. Your view that the coding is sub-par is highly subjective, not least because you only have this information secondhand. In addition, we don't know the wording of this paragraph. This could be a lot less about covering up poor work and much more about someone writing something that's either untrue or written in a way that is unfair (unintentionally) or damaging. You are getting a very distorted view of what's occurring in this lab because you're getting all of this from your friend and I think you should be wary of simply assuming the worst here. The PI could be trying to protect the other student from overly harsh criticism or from your friend effectively souring the well for this student. It is of course possible the PI is acting inappropriately and is covering up poor work. However, you don't have any evidence to support that. Your second scenario is a huge issue in the field. Reproducibility and lack thereof is plaguing science right now. While some of it absolutely comes from poor practice and lack of integrity, a lot of more comes from the lack of good models for disease and other limitations to the scientific process. And again here, you have one person telling you something and you're putting the worst possible spin on it. Are researchers perfect. Hell no. Academic misconduct happens more than it should, but more importantly bad practice happens way more than it should. Poor experimental design, use of inappropriate methods, analyses, or models, technological constraints, bad lab culture pushing people to get results, pressure on funding, pressure for tenure, it all contributes to a difficult environment where we're already on the edge of uncertain knowledge. But it's not necessarily people acting nefariously or maliciously with bad intent. Furthermore, every story has more than one side to it, don't rush to believe the most negative interpretation. Science is done by humans, with all the flaws of humans and like any other job you could do you'll find amazing people and shit people and most of us in the middle muddling along as best we can, trying our best but not always getting it right.

Human: Senior Researchers with Questionable Integrity I am currently pursuing graduate studies and I have recently witnessed 2 situations that made me question the legitimacy of the peer-reviewing process and scientific publications. 1. A friend of mine is currently working on his thesis, and some results from the code developed at their lab are not so good, because the code is very young, made by one person with not much coding background, and hasn't been rigorously tested on many problem instances. My friend wanted to make a comment about this in his thesis/paper to explain that results still could be improved if the code was more adapted to this specific case, but his advisor was totally against it. The advisor, which is also an evaluator on the thesis jury, refused to validate the thesis/submit the paper as long as that small paragraph was not removed, saying that it is simply not true and that it would impact negatively future results published by students from the lab (even though they all agree with my friend, even the person who made the code). I am utterly shocked that an experienced researcher would suggest this, and IMO it is bad science. Most importantly, the department director does not want to intervene since he is also member of the jury, and said to my friend to go to the faculty if he wanted to contest this decision, a process that could eventually take months, just to get his diploma. 2. I assisted to a seminar given by a professor who did a literature review of over a hundred papers from medicine journals since the end of the 90's about Alzheimer disease modelization. He said that many of them had numerical experiments described by parameters, but that with those parameters, the simulations would often fail to reproduce the results presented in the papers, and after contacting the authors, they openly said that the parameters were not the right ones. Even with the new allegedly correct set of parameters, the simulations could sometimes not even be reproduced. The results were possibly fudged. I am surprised about the level of dishonesty that seems to emanate from the world of academic publication. Is it THAT common that numbers/results are fudged in papers/thesis just to make the authors look good? Do people do this to justify more funding? Is it just a coincidence that shortly after I begin my journey in academia I see many people lie/hide critical info in peer-reviewed papers, or is it very common? Has anyone had similar experiences about senior researchers encouraging them to hide stuff or censoring them if they don't hide some information? What did you do about it? Assistant:RE: #1 - Navigating the art of criticism is hard. One of my PIs used to behave this way about the slightest suggestion that a work has limitations beyond boilerplate ones, such as "this is cross-sectional" or "we only sampled one population." To be honest, bosses in the private and public sectors do this, too. If you're working with a PI, they're human like everyone else. Unless there is a truly egregious error or limitation in a report (e.g., moving the decimal point to the right multiple spaces on the pill dosages you gave to human pharma subjects in your how-to manual for experimental drug researchers), there are some hills that you just don't want to die on with your boss. RE: #2 - I'm not in Psych, but they've discussed this issue in their field for a long time, https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2020/03/replication-crisis In my field, we have similar discussions about the need for better descriptions of clinical interventions, more rigorous assessment development, and adherence to reporting guidelines. There's lots of unreplicable and unverifiable stuff that goes out into the world.

Human: CMV: Australia's government (and in turn others) are right to be concerned about child sexualisation in anime. Change needs to happen. As much as I love to shit on the ignorance and xenophobia of Australian parliament, a recent meme-worthy case came up in the last couple of days in which senators discussed, in the middle of Australian parliament, the nature of paedophilic (yes, that's how we spell is) imagery and themes in the anime series *No Game No Life* and *Eromanga Sensei*. As much as the mention of anime in such a high place is funny, there really is no falsity in what is said. These series do sexualise young girls in ways adults (the target audience of many of these series) have absolutely no healthy reason to enjoy. I watch a significant amount of anime myself, but I and the people who I enjoy it with always feel significantly less okay with what we watch when a scene of a teenage boy being groped by his D-cup-sporting ten-year-old sister comes up. Nobody likes it (or at least I hope not), yet we put up with it because so few modern series are without this content in some form of another. If it's not misogyny, incest *and* paedophilia, it's usually at least one of the three. Anime is not small in Australia at all. Melbourne alone has four conventions (recently merged to create three) conventions per year centring on anime and manga. People like it here, and in a country where paedophilia has never not been an issue, there is good reason to be wary of this content. Now at risk of sounding like I'm backtracking, **I do not believe in censoring the content given**. People will always find ways around any restrictions placed, demonstrated well with the ban on the game *Hotline Miami 2*'s release (thanks Humble Bundle), however I do believe there needs to be an official, powerful effort made to reduce the acceptability of paedophilic content's acceptance in any respectful society. If other countries joined in, content of the anime and manga industries may care enough to be more respectful with their content - producers of One Punch Man relied on its western reception to justify a second season, and if American distributors had cared about the actual content of their media, changes may have been required to the series' concerning depiction of adolescent-appearing women. Even if you agree with me that fictional characters being exploited is not unethical, the acceptance of paedophilic, incestuous or misogynistic content is not okay and should be considered more than a bit taboo. Assistant:I think you're making the error of assuming non-censorship is equivalent to acceptance. Not censoring "Saw" does not mean the government, or society, agrees that those actions are acceptable in real life. It simply means that society believes it is an acceptable artistic expression. Should violent and gorey content also be censored because there's no "healthy reason" to enjoy it? Is there evidence that paedophilic, incestuous or misogynistic content encourages similar activity in real life? Does playing "GTA" cause people to beat up hookers? Does watching "Saw" cause people to kidnap strangers and play sadistic games with them? Of course not. For one, such art may provide an outlet for artists and fans who may otherwise have turned to exploiting actual children. Second, while this may not always be the case, the sexualization of children/pre-teens in animes that I've seen generally involves just making them "seem" young while also giving them sexual characteristics implying they've hit puberty. Post-pubescent sexuality of 12yr olds might be uncomfortable for us to think about but it is literally natural and is also, by definition, not paedophilic. Nonetheless, censorship of content always has unintended outcomes. Unless or until there is clear, convincing evidence that not censoring such content is a danger to the public, forcing it "underground" or out of the public view may only make the situation worse. It may eliminate a non-criminal outlet for those who suffer from such thoughts and, being out of the common public view, could become more extreme due to the smaller audience taking more social or legal risk in finding it.

Human: CMV: Australia's government (and in turn others) are right to be concerned about child sexualisation in anime. Change needs to happen. As much as I love to shit on the ignorance and xenophobia of Australian parliament, a recent meme-worthy case came up in the last couple of days in which senators discussed, in the middle of Australian parliament, the nature of paedophilic (yes, that's how we spell is) imagery and themes in the anime series *No Game No Life* and *Eromanga Sensei*. As much as the mention of anime in such a high place is funny, there really is no falsity in what is said. These series do sexualise young girls in ways adults (the target audience of many of these series) have absolutely no healthy reason to enjoy. I watch a significant amount of anime myself, but I and the people who I enjoy it with always feel significantly less okay with what we watch when a scene of a teenage boy being groped by his D-cup-sporting ten-year-old sister comes up. Nobody likes it (or at least I hope not), yet we put up with it because so few modern series are without this content in some form of another. If it's not misogyny, incest *and* paedophilia, it's usually at least one of the three. Anime is not small in Australia at all. Melbourne alone has four conventions (recently merged to create three) conventions per year centring on anime and manga. People like it here, and in a country where paedophilia has never not been an issue, there is good reason to be wary of this content. Now at risk of sounding like I'm backtracking, **I do not believe in censoring the content given**. People will always find ways around any restrictions placed, demonstrated well with the ban on the game *Hotline Miami 2*'s release (thanks Humble Bundle), however I do believe there needs to be an official, powerful effort made to reduce the acceptability of paedophilic content's acceptance in any respectful society. If other countries joined in, content of the anime and manga industries may care enough to be more respectful with their content - producers of One Punch Man relied on its western reception to justify a second season, and if American distributors had cared about the actual content of their media, changes may have been required to the series' concerning depiction of adolescent-appearing women. Even if you agree with me that fictional characters being exploited is not unethical, the acceptance of paedophilic, incestuous or misogynistic content is not okay and should be considered more than a bit taboo. Assistant:It comes down to can we censor art? It would not just be Anime but all works, that would make books like Lolita illegal Also banning things does not make them go away just underground where there are even less rules

Human: CMV: BDSM and the recent trend of its encouragement and normalisation is wrong, and it's not empowerment. It's gonna be long, lol. Over the years, there has been a wave of encouragement in mainstream media to engage in BDSM and my opinion is that, although what you do in your bedroom is your business as long as you are safe and have consented - it shouldn't be normalised to the extent it has been, now. (When I say BDSM, I don't just mean rough sex like a spank, or blindfolding, tying, etc. I mean hardcore BDSM and mainly the dom - sub, slave - owner, relationship.) (My post is coming from a woman's perspective, and I acknowledge I don't know enough about the other side of things, and I am aware BDSM isn't just men beating up women, it can be between same sexes or the other way around) Hear me out. The first argument I hear anytime I bring this up, the most popular argument - is "But they are consenting adults and it's none of your business." Well, I can still have an opinion. So, I am firstly going to address the data from the FetLife website (2014), where the number of women who wanted to be submissive was disproportionately larger than anything else, including being dominant. Let's dissect what consent actually is. Consent is not a free choice independent of everything. We, as women, are bought up as in the society where we are expected to be submissive to men. One of the reasons male subs are slightly lesser in numbers is because men are accepted to be masculine and it's frowned upon. So, that establishes that any choice we make is shaped by our social conditioning. When I say BDSM shouldn't be normalised to the extent it is now, I mean to say that people engaging in BDSM need to actually look into where their consent and need is coming from - instead of saying its empowerment and calling it a day. A woman who enjoys being degraded in bed, and engages in degradation with a safe partner she trusts. Okay. But how is it feminist / empowerment? Now, I'd get the argument that feminism is about giving women a choice. They should be able to choose to do and wear and be whatever they want. Let's dissect how that has ended up being over the years. For that I'd give an example : I am Indian and the Indian marriage structure is inherently beneficial for men and is a huge, huge social expectation. If I still want to marry and be a housewife (Me, as a woman who has other choices), I would not call it a feminist move. I'm making a choice, but I am not breaking barriers. I'm succumbing to them by choice and I am happy. But I am not special for that. I'd point out another flaw in this argument. 'Feminism is about giving women a choice'. Have you guys noticed how, over the years, this has to led to encouraging women to HAVE CASUAL SEX!!!! BE A COOL GIRLFRIEND!!!!! POST AS MANY NUDES AS YOU WANT!!!! (Disclaimer - I support all of this and have done a lot of it myself, and associate no shame to it.) How women empowerment has become more about catering to MALE NEEDS and doing these sort of things means a woman is brave and bold. Women owning their bodies has somehow ended up being for men, and they are disrespected by the same men who jerk off to them. I personally feel the same applies to BDSM. Because of Fifty Shades of Grey (haven't watched or read, but I'm aware that it's an inaccurate representation of BDSM and there are extremely clear boundaries irl) and porn, young girls have been conditioned to expect that they are supposed to like it "rough" and if they don't, they're vanilla. There is this societal expectation upon them that it's the new thing, it's the fun, cool, empowering thing - and they need to be okay with it because they literally see it everywhere. And I feel like everytime this conversation is started, it's shut down by people saying "You don't understand BDSM, it involves consent." Yeah. But like I said, where is that actually coming from? Porn affects us more than we would ever be willing to admit. Trigger warning : sexual abuse. I was sexually abused for a long while by a family member and although he was sick in the head, I also know porn contributed a lot to his fantasties being on the violent side. Another point I am given is, women who have been sexually assaulted using it as a coping mechanism to regain control. Firstly, just because it's a coping mechanism doesnt mean its healthy. Even though its valid. Doesnt mean healthy. Secondly, studies have shown that people engaging in BDSM don't have a history of childhood sexual trauma any more than any normal group of people. So, the point just doesn't stand. Also, as a woman, I do not understand why a man would get off from violently hurting his partner, even if the person consents. (And a man who ONLY gets off from that? Hmm.) I think dominant men really need to see where that comes from, instead of just using the above justifications. Because an inherent power dynamic exists between the two genders which is imprinted in our brain and honestly, it just doesn't sit right with me. I am aware there are submissive men, and dominant women - and I don't address them in my post because I don't understand enough (You're welcome to explain!), but I somehow am able to grasp their dynamic more. Men are expected to be strong and dominating and their bedroom can be their safe space to unwind. But I have seen men who get off from being financially degraded. Don't tell me that is just a harmless kink which people should just keep engaging in just because it makes them get off without seeing where it comes from. Another one of the reasons I have this opinion is because, though BDSM encourages boundaries - it is an extremely slippery slope lifestyle. (Although your sexual preference should never be the only / main determinant of your life style, another trend I've seen in BDSM, although that can be personal experience). There are a lot (A LOT) of chances to get seriously hurt, emotionally or physically. No sex should be so mentally draining that "aftercare" is necessity. And the way it's being promoted by main stream media and feminists, it puts a lot of pressure on vulnerable young people to engage in it and get taken advantage of. Of course BDSM isn't shameful, and shouldnt be associated with shame or guilt - but it shouldnt be treated like the norm or a symbol of empowerment. It should be what it is. A sexual preference which has the potential to go bad and should be really really thought about before engaging in it. And it's not. Everytime I have ever called it out, there's been a flood of messages accusing me of being a prude, or just "not understanding" BDSM with no context of that accusation. I've been ganged up against on social media with a flurry of strangers telling me I am wrong, but how? Also, a question - just because you enjoy it, does that make it healthy? At what point should a person engaging in BDSM call it quits, that yeah, THIS isnt healthy? At what point do the cons of BDSM trump sexual pleasure? Is willingly inflicting physical pain on you for no reason other than sexual pleasure healthy? Is sexual pleasure that important that boundaries of the outside society and the bedroom should be that distinct? Assistant:As an outsider to BDSM I can understand how at face value what you see might seem to be scary or simply abusive, and I think a lot of that is just lack of understanding about how most actual BDSM and the relationships within BDSM work. Consent is an interesting word that is kicked around by both vanilla and kinky people, and there is a misunderstanding (on both sides) that it means the same thing to both groups, and it doesn't. Within vanilla sex consent is broad and can mean "anything I understand to constitute sex", so if previous partners were rough or liked it rough then the assumption might be that rough sex is fine in general. Within BDSM consent is explicit, is largely lead by the submissive, and has accepted mechanisms for consent to be withdrawn at any moment without issue, "I am into rough sex but no pinning, I love my hair to be pulled and being verbally degraded but under no circumstances use language that degrades my weight or my intelligence. My safewords are green for go, yellow for I am at my comfortable limit and red is total stop, something has gone wrong" you will only find broad consent in long term partners and friends. There was a discussion a short while ago on one of the BDSM subreddits from a woman who went on a date with a vanilla guy and when it came to having sex he choked her, and she was outraged. She could not believe that someone would do such a thing without consent, and within BDSM she's right, it is outrageous, but within vanilla and its broad consent it's a mistake that can happen, despite its dangers. He understood her consent to sex covered that for some reason (presumably an ex was into it in his past). Specific consent is a much better, safer system, but isn't really a thing that would work in vanilla because people don't like to talk about sex so specifically, analytically or communicate to make things good for both parties. It also feels like your understanding is *largely* limited to the portrayal that all BDSM is whips, chains, bondage and beatings. That is one type of power exchange, but it's like saying I hate all music because all the music I've been told about is country music, country music isn't for everyone (or indeed most sensible people), but it isn't all music. I'm a dominant and the thing I love most, the thing that lights a fire within me is making women come, that's the power exchange I am interested in, making my girlfriend lose control, until she's a limp exhausted mess who's more relaxed than she's ever been before. I don't think that fits your model, and I think that's true of a lot of kinks. People are weird /u/justfightingdragons really fucking weird (people actually voted for Brexit and Trump), and there are things that I just don't understand in sex in general (food in sex sounds yucky, risky sex sounds stressful and ethically difficult, and sex on a sandy beach is just horrifying), but if it floats their boats who am I to argue so long as they are informed, safe and consenting? I really encourage you to open-mindedly visit the /r/bdsmcommunity or /r/bdsmadvice subreddits and read the worries and concerns there, or /r/gentlefemdom if you want to see the more gentle side of dominance (it may be female dominance, but there are lots of gentle male doms out there too). If you're interested in seeing a small slice of the variety of kinks around take the bdsmtest, it's interesting, it doesn't require any personal information and you can use an incognito window. You literally have nothing to lose but your opinion.

Human: CMV: BDSM and the recent trend of its encouragement and normalisation is wrong, and it's not empowerment. It's gonna be long, lol. Over the years, there has been a wave of encouragement in mainstream media to engage in BDSM and my opinion is that, although what you do in your bedroom is your business as long as you are safe and have consented - it shouldn't be normalised to the extent it has been, now. (When I say BDSM, I don't just mean rough sex like a spank, or blindfolding, tying, etc. I mean hardcore BDSM and mainly the dom - sub, slave - owner, relationship.) (My post is coming from a woman's perspective, and I acknowledge I don't know enough about the other side of things, and I am aware BDSM isn't just men beating up women, it can be between same sexes or the other way around) Hear me out. The first argument I hear anytime I bring this up, the most popular argument - is "But they are consenting adults and it's none of your business." Well, I can still have an opinion. So, I am firstly going to address the data from the FetLife website (2014), where the number of women who wanted to be submissive was disproportionately larger than anything else, including being dominant. Let's dissect what consent actually is. Consent is not a free choice independent of everything. We, as women, are bought up as in the society where we are expected to be submissive to men. One of the reasons male subs are slightly lesser in numbers is because men are accepted to be masculine and it's frowned upon. So, that establishes that any choice we make is shaped by our social conditioning. When I say BDSM shouldn't be normalised to the extent it is now, I mean to say that people engaging in BDSM need to actually look into where their consent and need is coming from - instead of saying its empowerment and calling it a day. A woman who enjoys being degraded in bed, and engages in degradation with a safe partner she trusts. Okay. But how is it feminist / empowerment? Now, I'd get the argument that feminism is about giving women a choice. They should be able to choose to do and wear and be whatever they want. Let's dissect how that has ended up being over the years. For that I'd give an example : I am Indian and the Indian marriage structure is inherently beneficial for men and is a huge, huge social expectation. If I still want to marry and be a housewife (Me, as a woman who has other choices), I would not call it a feminist move. I'm making a choice, but I am not breaking barriers. I'm succumbing to them by choice and I am happy. But I am not special for that. I'd point out another flaw in this argument. 'Feminism is about giving women a choice'. Have you guys noticed how, over the years, this has to led to encouraging women to HAVE CASUAL SEX!!!! BE A COOL GIRLFRIEND!!!!! POST AS MANY NUDES AS YOU WANT!!!! (Disclaimer - I support all of this and have done a lot of it myself, and associate no shame to it.) How women empowerment has become more about catering to MALE NEEDS and doing these sort of things means a woman is brave and bold. Women owning their bodies has somehow ended up being for men, and they are disrespected by the same men who jerk off to them. I personally feel the same applies to BDSM. Because of Fifty Shades of Grey (haven't watched or read, but I'm aware that it's an inaccurate representation of BDSM and there are extremely clear boundaries irl) and porn, young girls have been conditioned to expect that they are supposed to like it "rough" and if they don't, they're vanilla. There is this societal expectation upon them that it's the new thing, it's the fun, cool, empowering thing - and they need to be okay with it because they literally see it everywhere. And I feel like everytime this conversation is started, it's shut down by people saying "You don't understand BDSM, it involves consent." Yeah. But like I said, where is that actually coming from? Porn affects us more than we would ever be willing to admit. Trigger warning : sexual abuse. I was sexually abused for a long while by a family member and although he was sick in the head, I also know porn contributed a lot to his fantasties being on the violent side. Another point I am given is, women who have been sexually assaulted using it as a coping mechanism to regain control. Firstly, just because it's a coping mechanism doesnt mean its healthy. Even though its valid. Doesnt mean healthy. Secondly, studies have shown that people engaging in BDSM don't have a history of childhood sexual trauma any more than any normal group of people. So, the point just doesn't stand. Also, as a woman, I do not understand why a man would get off from violently hurting his partner, even if the person consents. (And a man who ONLY gets off from that? Hmm.) I think dominant men really need to see where that comes from, instead of just using the above justifications. Because an inherent power dynamic exists between the two genders which is imprinted in our brain and honestly, it just doesn't sit right with me. I am aware there are submissive men, and dominant women - and I don't address them in my post because I don't understand enough (You're welcome to explain!), but I somehow am able to grasp their dynamic more. Men are expected to be strong and dominating and their bedroom can be their safe space to unwind. But I have seen men who get off from being financially degraded. Don't tell me that is just a harmless kink which people should just keep engaging in just because it makes them get off without seeing where it comes from. Another one of the reasons I have this opinion is because, though BDSM encourages boundaries - it is an extremely slippery slope lifestyle. (Although your sexual preference should never be the only / main determinant of your life style, another trend I've seen in BDSM, although that can be personal experience). There are a lot (A LOT) of chances to get seriously hurt, emotionally or physically. No sex should be so mentally draining that "aftercare" is necessity. And the way it's being promoted by main stream media and feminists, it puts a lot of pressure on vulnerable young people to engage in it and get taken advantage of. Of course BDSM isn't shameful, and shouldnt be associated with shame or guilt - but it shouldnt be treated like the norm or a symbol of empowerment. It should be what it is. A sexual preference which has the potential to go bad and should be really really thought about before engaging in it. And it's not. Everytime I have ever called it out, there's been a flood of messages accusing me of being a prude, or just "not understanding" BDSM with no context of that accusation. I've been ganged up against on social media with a flurry of strangers telling me I am wrong, but how? Also, a question - just because you enjoy it, does that make it healthy? At what point should a person engaging in BDSM call it quits, that yeah, THIS isnt healthy? At what point do the cons of BDSM trump sexual pleasure? Is willingly inflicting physical pain on you for no reason other than sexual pleasure healthy? Is sexual pleasure that important that boundaries of the outside society and the bedroom should be that distinct? Assistant:I’m not sure I understand what view you want changed here. If I had to guess, it sounds like you’re saying that if I’m a woman who is into domination, you’re arguing that I should not be — or at least that being treated like my kink is acceptable is wrong. I’m looking to see what evidence you have that women *ought to be* shamed or that people’s kinks should be socially unacceptable and it seems like the reasoning is feminism — Which strikes me as odd. If you found out that societies that had higher levels of female independence also had higher levels of self-reported engagement in BDSM would it make you more certain or less certain of your view?

Human: Parents wrongfully claim me as dependent, I do not live with them and they do not pay for my expenses. What should I do so I can still file as independent? I am (21/F) and have been living on my own for two years now. I work and go to school full time and my tuition is being paid for by financial aid and scholarships, which means my parents are not paying for my education. I decided to move out and away from my parents because living has home has become extremely toxic and my dad has a serious spending problem and is refusing to seek help or even considering on changing. (Let me add that he is already 60+ years old) When I was about to file my taxes, I realized that my dad has already claimed me as a dependent and claims that I am still “living at home”, even though I have not been living with him and he does NOT pay any of my bills/expenses. (I do not even sleep at my parent’s house because he has rented out the additional rooms to other people) He has claimed me last year as well, despite me living on my own but I decided to let it go and file as dependent because I knew he was not going to correct his taxes to change it to me being dependent. The reason I am wondering if there’s something that I can do this year is because I’m tired of always being so passive and allowing my dad to take advantage of me by trying to squeeze every penny out of me… I am wondering what my next steps are. Some people advised me to just file as independent anyway so I could get more tax reimbursement as opposed to if my parents claimed me as dependent. I have talked to my dad about it but he said that he HAS to claim me as dependent, (even though I no longer live with him), because that is the only way I would get financial aid. (Which I’m sure is a lie…) My dad is a compulsive liar and would rather help himself rather than others (even his own children) but I am wondering what I can do so I can file as independent without getting him in trouble with the IRS. I want to add that saving money is VERY foreign to him, so any penny he gets, he spends. Hence it was not surprising to me that he has already put a down payment on a new car... I know some people are saying that I should just file as independent and show the IRS proof that I am living on my own/paying my own expenses; however I do not know what would happen to my parents if IRS sends them a letter saying they have to refund some of the money they have reimbursed him earlier. Even though I am upset my dad has claimed me and is lying about having to claim me as dependent for “my benefit”, I know he would not have the money to pay back the IRS (and any additional fines he may receive) because as I mentioned earlier, he does not know how to save money and “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks” so before anyone says “he has to learn to save” or anything of that sort, I know he would not change. If anything, he would turn to my siblings, my mother, or me for the money to pay his penalty charges that the IRS might send him. What should I do so I can still file as independent without having to get my parents into having to pay a huge fine to IRS (for reasons listed above), or should I just forget about it and file as dependent? Assistant:Others have provided decent legal advice, so let me provide a little coaching of a different sort. There are a lot of posters who come to this sub with a similar story. "Help, I'm being harmed by a loved one who is doing something illegal, and I'd like to know how I can use the legal system to be made whole without any harm befalling my loved one." The stories cover tax fraud over dependents, stealing identities to open lines of credit (with the common variation of adding you as a loan co-signer), violating fiduciary duties as a trustee or executor over a trust/estate, domestic violence, and/or theft (particularly fueled by addiction). I'm sorry - but in the vast majority of cases, you can't have your cake and eat it. The legal system exists to uphold the social contract and to provide justice to we the *people*, which means it cares more about the broader message than your individual circumstances (hence criminal cases are often "The People of the State of X versus Y"). Philosophically, criminal activity harms all of us - it makes us feel insecure, implies that the rule of law does not exist, and if unpunished makes it more likely to occur. It is why once the legal system is notified of criminal activity, it is not your say whether charges are pressed - and why the system doesn't appear to care about the vagaries of your individual situation or your wants and needs. You can choose to do nothing, and decide that you are willing to bear the costs of what your father has done. But please realize that if you remain quiet, you are enabling his behavior. Your father is a compulsive liar, and apparently a tax fraud. He has already made the decision to break the law - and he should bear the responsibility for that, even if it means paying a huge fine to the IRS. He has not only harmed you, he has harmed all of us as citizens who follow the rules. Why should he be allowed to get away with it?

Human: Parents wrongfully claim me as dependent, I do not live with them and they do not pay for my expenses. What should I do so I can still file as independent? I am (21/F) and have been living on my own for two years now. I work and go to school full time and my tuition is being paid for by financial aid and scholarships, which means my parents are not paying for my education. I decided to move out and away from my parents because living has home has become extremely toxic and my dad has a serious spending problem and is refusing to seek help or even considering on changing. (Let me add that he is already 60+ years old) When I was about to file my taxes, I realized that my dad has already claimed me as a dependent and claims that I am still “living at home”, even though I have not been living with him and he does NOT pay any of my bills/expenses. (I do not even sleep at my parent’s house because he has rented out the additional rooms to other people) He has claimed me last year as well, despite me living on my own but I decided to let it go and file as dependent because I knew he was not going to correct his taxes to change it to me being dependent. The reason I am wondering if there’s something that I can do this year is because I’m tired of always being so passive and allowing my dad to take advantage of me by trying to squeeze every penny out of me… I am wondering what my next steps are. Some people advised me to just file as independent anyway so I could get more tax reimbursement as opposed to if my parents claimed me as dependent. I have talked to my dad about it but he said that he HAS to claim me as dependent, (even though I no longer live with him), because that is the only way I would get financial aid. (Which I’m sure is a lie…) My dad is a compulsive liar and would rather help himself rather than others (even his own children) but I am wondering what I can do so I can file as independent without getting him in trouble with the IRS. I want to add that saving money is VERY foreign to him, so any penny he gets, he spends. Hence it was not surprising to me that he has already put a down payment on a new car... I know some people are saying that I should just file as independent and show the IRS proof that I am living on my own/paying my own expenses; however I do not know what would happen to my parents if IRS sends them a letter saying they have to refund some of the money they have reimbursed him earlier. Even though I am upset my dad has claimed me and is lying about having to claim me as dependent for “my benefit”, I know he would not have the money to pay back the IRS (and any additional fines he may receive) because as I mentioned earlier, he does not know how to save money and “you can’t teach old dogs new tricks” so before anyone says “he has to learn to save” or anything of that sort, I know he would not change. If anything, he would turn to my siblings, my mother, or me for the money to pay his penalty charges that the IRS might send him. What should I do so I can still file as independent without having to get my parents into having to pay a huge fine to IRS (for reasons listed above), or should I just forget about it and file as dependent? Assistant:I was in exactly this situation about ten years ago. What happens is that your SSN pops up on both tax documents. You each get a letter informing you of this, and offering to allow you (or the other party) to file an amended return. If neither party does, you both get investigated. In my case, my mother was up to her hip in shaky tax moves, so she really needed to not be audited or investigated, so she amended her return. The same thing may happen here.

Human: My son's apartment community locked out all the tenants after two months of trying to change everyones' leases or push them out. Anyone know of resources in Texas they can get to over the weekend? This is in Texas (for applicable laws / rights) About two months ago, an asset management company bought the apartment community my son (26) lives in. In that time, they've: * Dropped off packages making massive changes to rental agreement with lots of added fees (not legal mid-lease) including a trash valet service ($50 a month), a pet deposit, pet rent, and a "common area cleaning fee" for pet waste even though everyone picks up after their animals ($100 per pet), tried to charge a $1200 fee to each resident in a smoking "building" (not apartment) even if no one in the apartment smokes, etc * It's a gated community, they left the gates open for two months. This led to vandalism and theft (at least a half dozen people have had their catalytic converters stolen, plus cars being broken into). * Painted everything with cheap paint that has started peeling a month later * Done a ton of unneeded temporary repairs that look terrible * Tried to tell everyone they could only pay rent with money orders from a certain company. That company's nearest branch is a 45 minute drive away by car, hours away by bus (they shut down the electronic payment portal). * Quit telling everyone what they owed for utilities then started posting eviction notices for people that didn't pay. * Notified everyone there was a 40% rent increase, effective immediately (illegal) * Required everyone to register their cars under threat of tow, with 48 hours notice (the lease requires 10 days notice). They also said effective immediately, resident parking stickers and the old car registration list are no longer valid. Tonight is supposed to be when the towing starts. Today, at close of business, they closed the gates and turned off everyone's access cards unless they had signed the documents agreeing to all the changes. This effectively is locking everyone out of their homes. One of the residents parked their truck on the exit gate sensor so it would stay open, but otherwise, they would have all been locked out. They've also formed a watch group for tonight so they can warn everyone if a tow truck (or multiple) show up. This stuff can't be legal. Does anyone know of any resources that can help a group of renters on an emergency basis? They need to talk to someone this weekend if at all possible. They're talking about suing the asset management as a community, but I'm not looking for legal advice to pass on, just resources. As an added note, some of the renters believe the asset company may have hired the vandals because it looks like specific people are being targeted, namely the ones that have been giving the most vocal pushback. They don't know that for certain, and can't prove it, but they have filed police reports. Assistant:It's obvious the company is taking a calculated risk that they won't have a tenant with a spine, careful document collection, and a level head. Writ of reentry is what gets around a self-help eviction, not sure if a judge will order it over a weekend. Lawyer up, if there's a group of tenants willing to go in on it, a lawyer would be more likely to take the case.

Human: My son's apartment community locked out all the tenants after two months of trying to change everyones' leases or push them out. Anyone know of resources in Texas they can get to over the weekend? This is in Texas (for applicable laws / rights) About two months ago, an asset management company bought the apartment community my son (26) lives in. In that time, they've: * Dropped off packages making massive changes to rental agreement with lots of added fees (not legal mid-lease) including a trash valet service ($50 a month), a pet deposit, pet rent, and a "common area cleaning fee" for pet waste even though everyone picks up after their animals ($100 per pet), tried to charge a $1200 fee to each resident in a smoking "building" (not apartment) even if no one in the apartment smokes, etc * It's a gated community, they left the gates open for two months. This led to vandalism and theft (at least a half dozen people have had their catalytic converters stolen, plus cars being broken into). * Painted everything with cheap paint that has started peeling a month later * Done a ton of unneeded temporary repairs that look terrible * Tried to tell everyone they could only pay rent with money orders from a certain company. That company's nearest branch is a 45 minute drive away by car, hours away by bus (they shut down the electronic payment portal). * Quit telling everyone what they owed for utilities then started posting eviction notices for people that didn't pay. * Notified everyone there was a 40% rent increase, effective immediately (illegal) * Required everyone to register their cars under threat of tow, with 48 hours notice (the lease requires 10 days notice). They also said effective immediately, resident parking stickers and the old car registration list are no longer valid. Tonight is supposed to be when the towing starts. Today, at close of business, they closed the gates and turned off everyone's access cards unless they had signed the documents agreeing to all the changes. This effectively is locking everyone out of their homes. One of the residents parked their truck on the exit gate sensor so it would stay open, but otherwise, they would have all been locked out. They've also formed a watch group for tonight so they can warn everyone if a tow truck (or multiple) show up. This stuff can't be legal. Does anyone know of any resources that can help a group of renters on an emergency basis? They need to talk to someone this weekend if at all possible. They're talking about suing the asset management as a community, but I'm not looking for legal advice to pass on, just resources. As an added note, some of the renters believe the asset company may have hired the vandals because it looks like specific people are being targeted, namely the ones that have been giving the most vocal pushback. They don't know that for certain, and can't prove it, but they have filed police reports. Assistant:Hi there! I’m the LegalFAQ bot. It looks like you may be experiencing housing issues related to housing or eviction. Come to https://legalfaq.org to find legal resources for renters in each state. You can also find links to local groups that can help you with legal, financial, or other problems at https://legalfaq.org/getHelp. Help us provide accurate advice to fellow redditors: if your post was related to housing or eviction, please like this comment; otherwise, please dislike this comment. *v0.1*

Human: CMV: Opposition to Abortion is Not a Strictly Religious Perspective I lean pro-life. I say "lean" because there's elements of the pro-life movement that I don't agree with, such as referring to abortion as murder. If it's murder, it can never be fully justified, but I do believe that abortion can be justified in some cases. Anyway, I wanted to give a brief disclosure of my overall position before laying out my specific argument. The purpose of this post is not to support pro-life arguments. What has interested me recently is how poor *some* (not all) of the pro-choice arguments are. One of the arguments that I consider to be a very poor one is the argument that any kind of restriction on abortion constitutes the imposition of religious beliefs/values onto our society, and violates the principle of separation of church and state. There's several reasons that I say it's a poor argument, but I'm only going to focus on one of them in this post (I find that in forum discussions/debates like this one, focusing on one small thing at a time leads to the most productive conversations). The main reason I say that that particular pro-choice argument is very poor is that religion is not required at all in order to be opposed to abortion. According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 11% of self-identified atheists say that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. There are even pro-life advocacy groups that are founded entirely on secular principles, such as https://secularprolife.org/ See here for a good, brief summary of the secular case against abortion. Granted, the pro-lifers are religious by a sizable majority, and the overwhelming majority of atheists are pro-choice, but please bear in mind that this is irrelevant to my argument. If non-religious people can have rational, coherent arguments for a position, then that position is not strictly religious. What do I mean by *strictly* religious. Well, there are plenty of positions that it would be virtually impossible for an atheist to have, right? Like, I couldn't imagine a secular organization being founded with the sole mission of making prayers to Jesus and Bible study mandatory in public schools. That would be a clear example of imposing religion by law. The mere fact that most pro-lifers are motivated by religion does not make it a religious position, especially considering the fact that most religious people would cite their faith as a motivating factor for *most, if not all,* of their beliefs about morality and law. For example, most Christians would cite their faith for their belief that one should love one's neighbor as oneself. But that belief can be held by non-Christians as well, including atheists, because it is not strictly religious. On the other hand, a belief stating that one must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, that is strictly religious because it would be incoherent for an atheist to believe such a thing. So my point is, just because a particular belief happens to be mostly favored by religious people, that doesn't make it an inherently/necessarily/strictly religious belief. As such, attempts to advocate for policies or laws that align with that belief *do not* entail an attempt to impose religious beliefs on society in any way that would violate the 1st Amendment or the principle of separation of church and state. Assistant:>See here for a good, brief summary of the secular case against abortion. I don't see anything close to a good summary of their position beyond a vague appeal to human rights, a brief mention of ableism, and an appeal to understand the Catholic Church's “Humanae Vitae”. The last one is interestingly worded as it says that "It is *not enough* to understand 'Humanae Vitae'", which implies that the author feels that an understanding of this *religious* argument is a large part of their calculations when forming their supposedly secular views on abortion.

Human: CMV: Opposition to Abortion is Not a Strictly Religious Perspective I lean pro-life. I say "lean" because there's elements of the pro-life movement that I don't agree with, such as referring to abortion as murder. If it's murder, it can never be fully justified, but I do believe that abortion can be justified in some cases. Anyway, I wanted to give a brief disclosure of my overall position before laying out my specific argument. The purpose of this post is not to support pro-life arguments. What has interested me recently is how poor *some* (not all) of the pro-choice arguments are. One of the arguments that I consider to be a very poor one is the argument that any kind of restriction on abortion constitutes the imposition of religious beliefs/values onto our society, and violates the principle of separation of church and state. There's several reasons that I say it's a poor argument, but I'm only going to focus on one of them in this post (I find that in forum discussions/debates like this one, focusing on one small thing at a time leads to the most productive conversations). The main reason I say that that particular pro-choice argument is very poor is that religion is not required at all in order to be opposed to abortion. According to a 2019 Pew Research poll, 11% of self-identified atheists say that abortion should be illegal in most or all cases. There are even pro-life advocacy groups that are founded entirely on secular principles, such as https://secularprolife.org/ See here for a good, brief summary of the secular case against abortion. Granted, the pro-lifers are religious by a sizable majority, and the overwhelming majority of atheists are pro-choice, but please bear in mind that this is irrelevant to my argument. If non-religious people can have rational, coherent arguments for a position, then that position is not strictly religious. What do I mean by *strictly* religious. Well, there are plenty of positions that it would be virtually impossible for an atheist to have, right? Like, I couldn't imagine a secular organization being founded with the sole mission of making prayers to Jesus and Bible study mandatory in public schools. That would be a clear example of imposing religion by law. The mere fact that most pro-lifers are motivated by religion does not make it a religious position, especially considering the fact that most religious people would cite their faith as a motivating factor for *most, if not all,* of their beliefs about morality and law. For example, most Christians would cite their faith for their belief that one should love one's neighbor as oneself. But that belief can be held by non-Christians as well, including atheists, because it is not strictly religious. On the other hand, a belief stating that one must believe in Jesus Christ in order to be saved, that is strictly religious because it would be incoherent for an atheist to believe such a thing. So my point is, just because a particular belief happens to be mostly favored by religious people, that doesn't make it an inherently/necessarily/strictly religious belief. As such, attempts to advocate for policies or laws that align with that belief *do not* entail an attempt to impose religious beliefs on society in any way that would violate the 1st Amendment or the principle of separation of church and state. Assistant:There is no non-religious justification for treating a collection of developing cells as though it were a child. Maybe there's room for debate as to when, exactly, a gestating fetus has developed sufficiently to constitute an independent life--but outside of a religious context, that debate would involve only very late-term pregnancies. The fact that some people claim to be secular or atheist and still make pro-life arguments doesn't mean those arguments aren't grounded in religious beliefs, regardless of how the speaker characterizes them. The "good, brief summary" you shared of the so-called "secular argument" against abortion is mostly fluff, but to the extent it makes any argument against abortion it accepts the premise that a collection of cells is an unborn child that simply "lacks consciousness." There is, quite simply, no scientific or other non-religious basis for this belief.

Human: I (22M) itched myself a second asshole and I’m too anxiety ridden to do anything about it. TIFU by giving myself a second asshole. NSFW Obligatory throwaway, you’ll see why. 2 years ago or so ago, i starting having the itchiest fucking spot ever just below my tailbone at the top of my ass crack. It would itch so damn much for no reason and I literally couldn’t stop myself from itching it, I wasn’t shoving my hands down my underwear every day either, I was itching it through the top of my jeans which probably fucked me up real good by pushing the fabric of my underwear into my ass avery day.  It got so bad that I would wake up in the middle of the night sometimes and find myself scratching my ass it was so fucking itchy and it would reduce me to tears sometimes. I’m so embarrassed by this and still to this day have not not told a single person.  Around a year ago whilst I was going for a shit at work I could feel that feces was coming out of 2 holes and the worst part was - I didn’t even know if this was the first time or if I just hadn’t noticed it before, because I could only tell it was happening when I was wiping 2 different spots.  My whole ass is just fucked at this point, a year or so on from the first time I did the deed out of 2 holes. I never ever itch it anymore but there is so much tenderness, bloating and god knows how many piles down there from my actual ass hole all the way up to ass hole #2. Good god, there is enough pubic hair attached to my ass right now to cure alopecia in Western Europe, which is honestly the most embarrassing part for me - I do not want anyone to see the absolute bomb site my entire ass is right now. Going for a shit is an absolute nightmare, I normally have to shower after every time, because even after the 10th wipe that paper still ain’t clean. Wiping 2 holes weirds me out so much. (Although to be fair to asshole #2, a lot less comes out of that one.) The thought of sitting down with anyone and having to tell them I’ve basically self inflicted an accidental second ass hole over the past year or so is completely and utterly impossible in my brain. I honestly think I’d rather die than have to sit in a room and tell my family and doctors that. I’ve googled the condition and I’m fairly sure it’s an ‘Anal Fistula’. Basically I am at risk of sepsis if I don’t get this treated. I’d honestly rather get rushed to the emergency room for septic shock than have to tell someone about my assholes. So here you go docs, what the fuck do I do? ‘Just go to a doctor’ has been running through my head for a year. But if you have never dealt with extreme anxiety before, then believe me when I tell you, it’s not as easy as that. Assistant:I had to have an emergency doctor's visit because I had a pilonidal cyst rupture and I had no idea what it was. I was ass up literally having a chunk cut out of my upper ass crack so the cyst could drain. It was the most painful thing in my life. Worse than broken wrists, burst ovarian cysts, and more. I laid there bleeding and oozing on a doctor's table with a very nice nurse who explained to me that the amount of shit health care practitioners see *is so beyond* what I could imagine. Please please, don't be embarrassed of what you think they're thinking. A lot of people put off getting something like this addressed *because no one ever talks about having these issues.* **I promise you**, a month out from getting help you will be so relieved to at least know and have a course of action to help heal. Addressing it is beyond worth it. Edit: Not a doctor & thankyou for the awards!

Human: I (22M) itched myself a second asshole and I’m too anxiety ridden to do anything about it. TIFU by giving myself a second asshole. NSFW Obligatory throwaway, you’ll see why. 2 years ago or so ago, i starting having the itchiest fucking spot ever just below my tailbone at the top of my ass crack. It would itch so damn much for no reason and I literally couldn’t stop myself from itching it, I wasn’t shoving my hands down my underwear every day either, I was itching it through the top of my jeans which probably fucked me up real good by pushing the fabric of my underwear into my ass avery day.  It got so bad that I would wake up in the middle of the night sometimes and find myself scratching my ass it was so fucking itchy and it would reduce me to tears sometimes. I’m so embarrassed by this and still to this day have not not told a single person.  Around a year ago whilst I was going for a shit at work I could feel that feces was coming out of 2 holes and the worst part was - I didn’t even know if this was the first time or if I just hadn’t noticed it before, because I could only tell it was happening when I was wiping 2 different spots.  My whole ass is just fucked at this point, a year or so on from the first time I did the deed out of 2 holes. I never ever itch it anymore but there is so much tenderness, bloating and god knows how many piles down there from my actual ass hole all the way up to ass hole #2. Good god, there is enough pubic hair attached to my ass right now to cure alopecia in Western Europe, which is honestly the most embarrassing part for me - I do not want anyone to see the absolute bomb site my entire ass is right now. Going for a shit is an absolute nightmare, I normally have to shower after every time, because even after the 10th wipe that paper still ain’t clean. Wiping 2 holes weirds me out so much. (Although to be fair to asshole #2, a lot less comes out of that one.) The thought of sitting down with anyone and having to tell them I’ve basically self inflicted an accidental second ass hole over the past year or so is completely and utterly impossible in my brain. I honestly think I’d rather die than have to sit in a room and tell my family and doctors that. I’ve googled the condition and I’m fairly sure it’s an ‘Anal Fistula’. Basically I am at risk of sepsis if I don’t get this treated. I’d honestly rather get rushed to the emergency room for septic shock than have to tell someone about my assholes. So here you go docs, what the fuck do I do? ‘Just go to a doctor’ has been running through my head for a year. But if you have never dealt with extreme anxiety before, then believe me when I tell you, it’s not as easy as that. Assistant:Doctors are there to help. Also put yourself and your body above the thoughts that keep you from getting medial help.

Human: CMV: CMV: I think helicopter parenting is the reason why our kids today are so much less active and risk-averse than generations in the past. School teacher here from the 1990s to today. Pretty basic stuff, helicopter parenting really erupted on the scene in the late 1990s among new parents. The kids who graduated in 2010-2011 are radically different from those graduating now it seems. I used to think it was just social media, but the kids of 2010-2012 also had just as much social media right? But they were more active, more energetic, more independent, less risk averse, had intensive social lives, they used more drugs and alcohol, they had more sex and dated more often. Say what you want about those being 'bad' things, but they're also normal teenage experiences which prepare them for adulthood. They were simply more mature and independent at a much younger age, and it shows why. The generation born 1992-1996 had radically different parents than those born in the 1998-2002 generation, I noticed the difference and so did all of the other teachers and counselors. The earlier parents were much more loose with their kids, they allowed them to walk to the store on their own, they gave them the freedom to decide their own lives and make decisions earlier. The 1998-2002 generation of parents was... very different. Very restrictive of their kids, very willing to flip out on anyone who says anything bad about their kids, they hover over their kids constantly, they make sure they dont do anything they disprove of, they restrict their entertainment more, they're basically with the kids 24/7, not letting them out of the house by themselves until WAY later in their lives. And its not just in my school or district, I am in a lot of groups with a lot different teachers from all over the country, and in the late 1990s was when all of us REALLY began to notice the change in parenting. Like helicopter parents were a thing in 1995, but by 1999 it seemed like the norm. Anyways I think the link to the way kids are today is obvious. Kids dont get out as much when they're young because parents cut off any form of independence, and by the time they're in high school they are so sheltered and stunted socially that they simply dont have the same social lives as kids before them. Its not only socially though, but also in terms of a lot of other factors. I remember last year I was talking to a kid, 16 years old, and I asked if he had ever been to Elizabeth, NJ, which was about 25 miles from where we were, and he said no, because his mom had never taken him there. Not just he had never gone, but because his mom had never taken him. That is like the perfect example of what im talking about. Kids who are 16 today feel often like the 12 year olds of 10 years ago. Not only that, but kids who DONT have helicopter parents dont have the same lives simply because there arent as many kids to hang out with as there was 10 years ago. I used to go outside my school and see like 200 kids hanging out in various groups in 2010, it was so damn easy to socialize. Now? Its down to maybe 25 kids, mostly the fucked up kids. Nobody hangs out, so there's nothing to do and no reason to go outside. Anyways, I know lots of people will say social media, but social media was around in 2011 as well and heavily used by pretty much everyone. And kids were mostly the same in 2011 as they were 10 years before. The real change has been since 2011. Anyways, its all up to opinion and this isn't apart of my general question here, but in my opinion the kids today are wholefully unprepared than the generations before them for life. I really do hope helicopter parenting is just a trend. _____ > *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 mention elsewhere having gone from teaching elementary school to high school at some point. Can you share at least a bit about how long you've been teaching and when that switch occurred? Your frame of reference seems exceedingly small (only about four or five years), and if you'd been a teacher for a lot longer than that I'd have expected a much broader "it's worse now than in 1992 of even 2000" rather than a massive social change supposedly over four years. >But they were more active, more energetic, more independent, less risk averse, had intensive social lives, they used more drugs and alcohol, they had more sex and dated more often. I'd be interested in seeing where you're getting this information. The most recent survey on drug use showed that while drugs other than marijuana were on decline, marijuana use was steady and with the largest drops beginning in the very years you use as examples of prior "better" times. As for sex: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/american-teens-sexual-and-reproductive-health In 2011-2013 (your better time period) about 46.5% of teens aged 15 to 19 had never had sex. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/sexualbehaviors/ In 2015 (worse, apparently) only 41% had never had sex. So in reality: Less drinking, fewer drugs generally, same amount of marijuana, more sex. Not unambiguously "doing less stuff." >They were simply more mature and independent at a much younger age, and it shows why Independent maybe. "Mature" isn't really measured in drugs used or shots downed. A better measure would be responsibility, such as the rise in the use of contraceptives among the (already larger) number of adolescents having sex. > by the time they're in high school they are so sheltered and stunted socially that they simply dont have the same social lives as kids before them Assuming you're right about the lower incidence of all drugs, alcohol, and sex, why would that imply being "stunted socially"? Unless you're also proposing that the only correct social lives are those involving drugs, alcohol, and sex. > I remember last year I was talking to a kid, 16 years old, and I asked if he had ever been to Elizabeth, NJ, which was about 25 miles from where we were, and he said no, because his mom had never taken him there. Not just he had never gone, but because his mom had never taken him. That is like the perfect example of what im talking about. Kids who are 16 today feel often like the 12 year olds of 10 years ago Just to clarify: did this kid say "no, I want to, but my mom never took me"?Because by that age I *had* been to a ton of places I'd have soon skipped except that I was taken there by my parents. Did he lack freedom to go to New Jersey, or was he simply not interested? Those are not the same thing. >Nobody hangs out, so there's nothing to do and no reason to go outside. You have a bit of a causation hiccup here. If "no one goes outside anymore" explains why no one goes outside, anything which causes fewer people to go outside would have the same effect. Not just helicopter parents (which could be merely coincident with your observarion) but things like the ubiquity of other forms of entertainment. >Anyways, I know lots of people will say social media, but social media was around in 2011 as well and heavily used by pretty much everyone. And kids were mostly the same in 2011 as they were 10 years before. The real change has been since 2011. I'm going to be honest, based on the amount of rose-colored recollection you have for 2011 I'd guess either you yourself graduated then or you had kids who graduated then. There's nothing you've identified as bad about the current graduates which was not true in 2011. > the kids today are wholefully unprepared than the generations before them for life Not for nothing, but if you're going to take a rather condescending and critical view of current generations (for the record, I graduated before the downfall you allege), you shouldn't have basic spelling and grammatical errors. You mean "woefully", or maybe "wholly" not "wholefully". And "are unprepared than" just doesn't work. That said, I'll let Socrates agree with you from hundreds of generations before in the hopes that it causes you to question how much of this is just "everyone sees subsequent generations as worse": "The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise."

Human: CMV: CMV: I think helicopter parenting is the reason why our kids today are so much less active and risk-averse than generations in the past. School teacher here from the 1990s to today. Pretty basic stuff, helicopter parenting really erupted on the scene in the late 1990s among new parents. The kids who graduated in 2010-2011 are radically different from those graduating now it seems. I used to think it was just social media, but the kids of 2010-2012 also had just as much social media right? But they were more active, more energetic, more independent, less risk averse, had intensive social lives, they used more drugs and alcohol, they had more sex and dated more often. Say what you want about those being 'bad' things, but they're also normal teenage experiences which prepare them for adulthood. They were simply more mature and independent at a much younger age, and it shows why. The generation born 1992-1996 had radically different parents than those born in the 1998-2002 generation, I noticed the difference and so did all of the other teachers and counselors. The earlier parents were much more loose with their kids, they allowed them to walk to the store on their own, they gave them the freedom to decide their own lives and make decisions earlier. The 1998-2002 generation of parents was... very different. Very restrictive of their kids, very willing to flip out on anyone who says anything bad about their kids, they hover over their kids constantly, they make sure they dont do anything they disprove of, they restrict their entertainment more, they're basically with the kids 24/7, not letting them out of the house by themselves until WAY later in their lives. And its not just in my school or district, I am in a lot of groups with a lot different teachers from all over the country, and in the late 1990s was when all of us REALLY began to notice the change in parenting. Like helicopter parents were a thing in 1995, but by 1999 it seemed like the norm. Anyways I think the link to the way kids are today is obvious. Kids dont get out as much when they're young because parents cut off any form of independence, and by the time they're in high school they are so sheltered and stunted socially that they simply dont have the same social lives as kids before them. Its not only socially though, but also in terms of a lot of other factors. I remember last year I was talking to a kid, 16 years old, and I asked if he had ever been to Elizabeth, NJ, which was about 25 miles from where we were, and he said no, because his mom had never taken him there. Not just he had never gone, but because his mom had never taken him. That is like the perfect example of what im talking about. Kids who are 16 today feel often like the 12 year olds of 10 years ago. Not only that, but kids who DONT have helicopter parents dont have the same lives simply because there arent as many kids to hang out with as there was 10 years ago. I used to go outside my school and see like 200 kids hanging out in various groups in 2010, it was so damn easy to socialize. Now? Its down to maybe 25 kids, mostly the fucked up kids. Nobody hangs out, so there's nothing to do and no reason to go outside. Anyways, I know lots of people will say social media, but social media was around in 2011 as well and heavily used by pretty much everyone. And kids were mostly the same in 2011 as they were 10 years before. The real change has been since 2011. Anyways, its all up to opinion and this isn't apart of my general question here, but in my opinion the kids today are wholefully unprepared than the generations before them for life. I really do hope helicopter parenting is just a trend. _____ > *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:>but in my opinion the kids today are wholefully unprepared than the generations before them for life. Why? Do you need to go and hang out on the street to be prepared for life? Do you need to be a super-risk taker who does drugs and alcohol to be prepared for life? Your conclusion does not seem to follow from your premises.

Human: Put in my 2 week notice, supervisor heard of this and now wants to terminate me. Point under my name giving me a 7 day suspension, writeup was for a rule I didn't break but states I "took too long of a break and had to report it to HR." So to jot things down about specific laws, I live in California, Monterey County to be rather specific. I'm currently on day one of my 7 day suspension and I'm considering opening a case with my Union representative about this. I'm rather dazed because I've been restless as to what I should do about this as I've been urgently saving to hopefully move to Texas with my girlfriend. My supervisor also knows of this. According to the writeup, I was written up for GWR (General Work Rule) #3 - which is in regards to vandalism, theft, or tampering with company property that may pose a threat of injury or death to employees. According to my supervisors word of mouth, I've been suspended for using my third break longer than designated/assigned. I explained to him that I was suffering from constipation, as working night shifts really has put a toll on my physical health, but he disregarded that and said it just wasn't right for me to not tell anyone. I forgot specific hours. But for reference, I began my break at 22:04, and ended it at 22:25, sat down in the locker rooms till 22:32 which is when he had found me sitting on a locker room bench, messaging my girlfriend about how I'm not feeling well and considering asking someone about going home early. Walked down with him to the office and sat me down to write a statement, office visit ranged from 22:35 to 22:56 as I didn't know what I needed to write a statement for, I was constipated and rather worn out from work that day as they had me working nonstop excluding first break and lunch. All I remember from that office visit was sitting blankly at the desk for a solid 5 minutes, was told to write something, and quickly wrote on paper explaining how I basically gave the janitor a field day to work with in a stall. Sent back to work for the rest of that night, 4 days later and here I am. How do I go about in hoping that I get my weeks worth of pay? This suspension isn't right, everyone in the main office is playing a game of favorites and they're rather vicious in getting things done in their favor. I'm not sure if HR is playing said game too, but my requests usually fall on deaf ears whenever I go to them. I'm considering going right to the Union to get that point scrubbed from my name and compensated with the weeks worth of pay they are taking away from me. There are people in that same building that would stamp their break minutes for exactly 15 but would hang around in the locker rooms for well over an hour before returning to production. We get paid for breaks (excluding lunch) so there really isn't a big deal about needing to use the restroom, when all they do is hang around and talk in excess of 20 minutes and above. I'm being targeted as I've made it known to my supervisor that since he doesn't respect me, I have no respect for him. It's common word around here to be a suckup to the higher-ups to even move a little up the ladder in pay, I'm not going to bow down and attune myself to their likings. Is there much else I can do before I resign if that day even comes before my termination? Assistant:Definitely talk to your union rep about it. Isn't the exact reason why you pay to be in a union so that they can help you with situations like this? If they aren't helpful, then you may need to explore other avenues, but for now I would start by going through the union.

Human: Put in my 2 week notice, supervisor heard of this and now wants to terminate me. Point under my name giving me a 7 day suspension, writeup was for a rule I didn't break but states I "took too long of a break and had to report it to HR." So to jot things down about specific laws, I live in California, Monterey County to be rather specific. I'm currently on day one of my 7 day suspension and I'm considering opening a case with my Union representative about this. I'm rather dazed because I've been restless as to what I should do about this as I've been urgently saving to hopefully move to Texas with my girlfriend. My supervisor also knows of this. According to the writeup, I was written up for GWR (General Work Rule) #3 - which is in regards to vandalism, theft, or tampering with company property that may pose a threat of injury or death to employees. According to my supervisors word of mouth, I've been suspended for using my third break longer than designated/assigned. I explained to him that I was suffering from constipation, as working night shifts really has put a toll on my physical health, but he disregarded that and said it just wasn't right for me to not tell anyone. I forgot specific hours. But for reference, I began my break at 22:04, and ended it at 22:25, sat down in the locker rooms till 22:32 which is when he had found me sitting on a locker room bench, messaging my girlfriend about how I'm not feeling well and considering asking someone about going home early. Walked down with him to the office and sat me down to write a statement, office visit ranged from 22:35 to 22:56 as I didn't know what I needed to write a statement for, I was constipated and rather worn out from work that day as they had me working nonstop excluding first break and lunch. All I remember from that office visit was sitting blankly at the desk for a solid 5 minutes, was told to write something, and quickly wrote on paper explaining how I basically gave the janitor a field day to work with in a stall. Sent back to work for the rest of that night, 4 days later and here I am. How do I go about in hoping that I get my weeks worth of pay? This suspension isn't right, everyone in the main office is playing a game of favorites and they're rather vicious in getting things done in their favor. I'm not sure if HR is playing said game too, but my requests usually fall on deaf ears whenever I go to them. I'm considering going right to the Union to get that point scrubbed from my name and compensated with the weeks worth of pay they are taking away from me. There are people in that same building that would stamp their break minutes for exactly 15 but would hang around in the locker rooms for well over an hour before returning to production. We get paid for breaks (excluding lunch) so there really isn't a big deal about needing to use the restroom, when all they do is hang around and talk in excess of 20 minutes and above. I'm being targeted as I've made it known to my supervisor that since he doesn't respect me, I have no respect for him. It's common word around here to be a suckup to the higher-ups to even move a little up the ladder in pay, I'm not going to bow down and attune myself to their likings. Is there much else I can do before I resign if that day even comes before my termination? Assistant:It’s a good idea to escalate to your union rep. Beyond that it’s not sounding like you have much legal recourse. It sounds like they are being vindictive since you gave your resignation. If the last week or so of pay is important I’d say fight it out through your union, if it’s not you can tender your resignation effective today and be done with the whole thing

Human: CMV: Prison is over-sentenced in the U.S. and should almost never be advised for Nonviolent Offenders. Greetings CMV! I had a thought due to some recent events I subscribe to. I've come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non-violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service. Essentially, I'm advocating for anyone who doesn't murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others - that they should never be jailed. **As an example**: A man recently drove 75 in a 45 and passed a truck that cut him off on the right, striking a bicyclist on the shoulder and killing him. He promptly stopped and called 911. What the man did was awful, but I'm quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious. He's not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused (driving) is kept in check. As such, I would think long-term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up. Can you CMV? *I recognize that I'm no expert on prisons* and I would like to think our penal system has evolved out of something more than just petty vengeance... but considering you can be locked up for *years* for carrying dried up leaves of the wrong kind of plant in your pocket in 48 of the 50 states, or be locked up for sleeping in public - it really makes me reconsider the nature of what we've adopted. _____ > *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:In what way can you consider driving recklessly to be a "non violent offense"? Just because it's accidental doesn't make it non-violent. He was piloting a 2 ton death machine with reckless disregard for the lives of others. That said, community service and fines *are* regularly and extensive used. Is your argument simply that the current threshold for what kind of offense deserves prison is too low?

Human: CMV: Prison is over-sentenced in the U.S. and should almost never be advised for Nonviolent Offenders. Greetings CMV! I had a thought due to some recent events I subscribe to. I've come to the conclusion that prisons as a system of harboring all criminals are petty and worthless and that our society would be better served by forcing non-violent criminals to lose whatever associated privileges they had with their crimes and pay back their communities through fines or community service. Essentially, I'm advocating for anyone who doesn't murder, rape, assault, or intentionally cause such things to come to bear on others - that they should never be jailed. **As an example**: A man recently drove 75 in a 45 and passed a truck that cut him off on the right, striking a bicyclist on the shoulder and killing him. He promptly stopped and called 911. What the man did was awful, but I'm quite sure that nobody would consider what he did to be intentional or malicious. He's not a danger to society so long as the privilege he abused (driving) is kept in check. As such, I would think long-term to indefinite suspension of his license and hefty fines/community service are preferable to locking him up. Can you CMV? *I recognize that I'm no expert on prisons* and I would like to think our penal system has evolved out of something more than just petty vengeance... but considering you can be locked up for *years* for carrying dried up leaves of the wrong kind of plant in your pocket in 48 of the 50 states, or be locked up for sleeping in public - it really makes me reconsider the nature of what we've adopted. _____ > *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:I don't know the specifics about the incident you mentioned, but from what you said, it sounds like the guy was driving in an extremely reckless, negligent fashion. The facts are that he (1) choose to drive recklessly, and (2) in the process, he put someone else at high risk of death. People who do that - put others at great risk of death - should be sent to prison. Sure, he didn't *intend* for that other person to die, but did a bunch of things that he knew would make it more likely.

Human: Can you explain how accutane causes long-term damage even after it's discontinued? After stopping I developed MGD, IBS, brain fog, floaters; career ruined feel awful. Hello docs, I took isotretinoin (I believe it was absorica) at age 18 in 2013, was reassured by doctor that it was quite safe and side effects are temporary, to notify him if serious/life-threatening issues arose. The course of the medication: mo. 1: 40mg - dry lips + a little dry skin mo. 2: 40mg - dry lips + drier skin mo. 3: 50mg - dry lips + skin, joints aching, knees sore mo. 4: 40mg - knees still sore, eyes a bit try (used eye drops) My doctor wasn't worried about the side effects at all, my blood results were all good and normal, but the side effects bothered me so I quit. 2 weeks after quitting joint aches went away, but my eyes became incredibly dry (couldn't look at a computer for longer than a few minutes without severe burning pain). Eyes progressively got worse, then afterwards (a month or so), I developed IBS. Around the same time, my eyes developed awful floaters everywhere :( Nothing looks the same, it's awful. I also started noticing that I have a horrible memory and I struggle badly with brain fog. Due to memory loss + dry eyes, I had to change my career. I've been diagnosed with MGD (meibomian gland dysfunction), a permanent and progressive degenerative condition of the glands in the eyes. None of this runs in my familial history at all and I didn't have any of these issues before I stopped the drug. Now almost 6 years later I am still dealing with all this damage that only seems to be getting worse! Severely affecting my ability to have any kind of quality of life. I feel awful all the time with pain and this damage is just horrible. Here's some medical info: Age: 23 G: Male, race: caucasian Blood pressure: 132/84, heart rate: 80 All blood tests are within normal ranges, tested for autoimmune markers, all normal. I've seen an ophthalmologist, a neurologist, psychiatrists, a GI doc, and my GP. When I went back to tell my original dermatologist that I developed IBS, eye issues, and brain fog AFTER accutane he said it was 'just a coincidence' and he didn't think it was related to the drug! Yet after joining a facebook group and talking to other people (a couple have posted here asking about it) so many other patients have the same issue! ***TL;DR:*** So, my question is, I have all these horrible life-ruining damaging effects that started after I stopped taking accutane, my dermatologist says they are unrelated but I was perfectly healthy before. What causes these post-accutane effects to start after you're not even taking the drug? Why are more doctors not taking this seriously and telling you that the side effects can happen not just during, but also after you stop it? Thank you! Assistant:This is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Because bad things happened after Accutane, you ascribe the bad things to Accutane. There's no way to run an experimental world in which your life is the same but you didn't take Accutane, so there's no way to prove that it was unrelated—but millions of people take Accutane at an age when chronic illnesses can develop, and it's unsurprising that in some people they do, unrelated to Accutane.

Human: Can you explain how accutane causes long-term damage even after it's discontinued? After stopping I developed MGD, IBS, brain fog, floaters; career ruined feel awful. Hello docs, I took isotretinoin (I believe it was absorica) at age 18 in 2013, was reassured by doctor that it was quite safe and side effects are temporary, to notify him if serious/life-threatening issues arose. The course of the medication: mo. 1: 40mg - dry lips + a little dry skin mo. 2: 40mg - dry lips + drier skin mo. 3: 50mg - dry lips + skin, joints aching, knees sore mo. 4: 40mg - knees still sore, eyes a bit try (used eye drops) My doctor wasn't worried about the side effects at all, my blood results were all good and normal, but the side effects bothered me so I quit. 2 weeks after quitting joint aches went away, but my eyes became incredibly dry (couldn't look at a computer for longer than a few minutes without severe burning pain). Eyes progressively got worse, then afterwards (a month or so), I developed IBS. Around the same time, my eyes developed awful floaters everywhere :( Nothing looks the same, it's awful. I also started noticing that I have a horrible memory and I struggle badly with brain fog. Due to memory loss + dry eyes, I had to change my career. I've been diagnosed with MGD (meibomian gland dysfunction), a permanent and progressive degenerative condition of the glands in the eyes. None of this runs in my familial history at all and I didn't have any of these issues before I stopped the drug. Now almost 6 years later I am still dealing with all this damage that only seems to be getting worse! Severely affecting my ability to have any kind of quality of life. I feel awful all the time with pain and this damage is just horrible. Here's some medical info: Age: 23 G: Male, race: caucasian Blood pressure: 132/84, heart rate: 80 All blood tests are within normal ranges, tested for autoimmune markers, all normal. I've seen an ophthalmologist, a neurologist, psychiatrists, a GI doc, and my GP. When I went back to tell my original dermatologist that I developed IBS, eye issues, and brain fog AFTER accutane he said it was 'just a coincidence' and he didn't think it was related to the drug! Yet after joining a facebook group and talking to other people (a couple have posted here asking about it) so many other patients have the same issue! ***TL;DR:*** So, my question is, I have all these horrible life-ruining damaging effects that started after I stopped taking accutane, my dermatologist says they are unrelated but I was perfectly healthy before. What causes these post-accutane effects to start after you're not even taking the drug? Why are more doctors not taking this seriously and telling you that the side effects can happen not just during, but also after you stop it? Thank you! Assistant:I googled accutane side effects... What you're describing doesn't sound like any side effects of accutane except the dry skin. And you believe all this could happen months after you quit? That's not logical at all. It sounds like something unrelated is going on, and possibly mental since you're trying to say all this stuff is happening due to a drug you don't even take anymore and barely took for 2 weeks. Also your doctor told you it's unrelated, and you don't seem to believe your DOCTOR. It's not the Accutane. (Not a doctor)

Human: Trying to scale down a chowder recipe from restaurant-vat-sized to home-meal-sized, but it is NOT working. :( Hello r/AskCulinary! Long story short, for the past 10+years, my family has frequented a resort for vacations that served a very delicious seafood chowder. This past year, they stopped serving it (for no reason!!!!), and so I'm trying to replicated it at home! The restaurant was kind enough to give me their recipe, however, it makes a huge vat of soup, and I want to try and make it dinner-sized! I've tried twice now to scale back this recipe, and both times it came out just awful. I have no experience with making chowders, and I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing you can't just keep cutting the amounts in half until you are at a reasonable size? Below is the recipe from the restaurant, verbatim: - 4.5lbs butter - 5.5 cups diced yellow onion - 5.5 cups diced carrots - 5.5 cups diced celery - 1/4 cup chopped garlic - 4 tablespoons of salt and pepper - 26 cups flour - 8 quarts heavy whipping cream - 4 cans chopped clams with juice - 1 pint clam base (dissolved in 1 gallon of water) - 2 tablespoons dried dill - 5lbs parboiled potato (medium diced) - 2 tablespoons lemon juice - 2lb bag of 51/60 shrimp - 5lbs medium diced seafood Instructions: (preface; ingredients are to be added in order of previous list) In the tilt skillet at 200F on low, saute all butter, yellow onion, diced carrot, diced celery, and chopped garlic, until vegetables appear soft and caramelized. Thoroughly blend flour for 2-3 minutes until a firm blonde roux develops. Slowly add heavy cream until thoroughly blended with roux. Once the cream has all been added, move forward with lowering the tilt skillet to 175F. Blend all remaining ingredients while stirring chowder appropriately. Raise temperature to 225F high and stir vigorously for approx. 5 minutes. Cool in freezer for 3 hours with ice wands. Like I said, scaling back proportionately just isn't working. The first time I tried, I ended up with a thick, tasteless goop-- the second time, the smell of the fish I used completely overpowered any potential flavor (which was probably still bad.) Can you guys help me make this into a recipe that I, someone who follows recipes pretty well but sucks at altering them or knowing why something isn't working, could even make? I would appreciate it SO much! Thank you!! Assistant:So, this might be simplistic. BUT-- That's a FUCK TON of flour, so I'm assuming that the "cans" they're referring to are the big restaurant sized cans (6-7lb) not your standard grocery 8oz cans. Is that something you took into account?

Human: Trying to scale down a chowder recipe from restaurant-vat-sized to home-meal-sized, but it is NOT working. :( Hello r/AskCulinary! Long story short, for the past 10+years, my family has frequented a resort for vacations that served a very delicious seafood chowder. This past year, they stopped serving it (for no reason!!!!), and so I'm trying to replicated it at home! The restaurant was kind enough to give me their recipe, however, it makes a huge vat of soup, and I want to try and make it dinner-sized! I've tried twice now to scale back this recipe, and both times it came out just awful. I have no experience with making chowders, and I'm wondering if this is the sort of thing you can't just keep cutting the amounts in half until you are at a reasonable size? Below is the recipe from the restaurant, verbatim: - 4.5lbs butter - 5.5 cups diced yellow onion - 5.5 cups diced carrots - 5.5 cups diced celery - 1/4 cup chopped garlic - 4 tablespoons of salt and pepper - 26 cups flour - 8 quarts heavy whipping cream - 4 cans chopped clams with juice - 1 pint clam base (dissolved in 1 gallon of water) - 2 tablespoons dried dill - 5lbs parboiled potato (medium diced) - 2 tablespoons lemon juice - 2lb bag of 51/60 shrimp - 5lbs medium diced seafood Instructions: (preface; ingredients are to be added in order of previous list) In the tilt skillet at 200F on low, saute all butter, yellow onion, diced carrot, diced celery, and chopped garlic, until vegetables appear soft and caramelized. Thoroughly blend flour for 2-3 minutes until a firm blonde roux develops. Slowly add heavy cream until thoroughly blended with roux. Once the cream has all been added, move forward with lowering the tilt skillet to 175F. Blend all remaining ingredients while stirring chowder appropriately. Raise temperature to 225F high and stir vigorously for approx. 5 minutes. Cool in freezer for 3 hours with ice wands. Like I said, scaling back proportionately just isn't working. The first time I tried, I ended up with a thick, tasteless goop-- the second time, the smell of the fish I used completely overpowered any potential flavor (which was probably still bad.) Can you guys help me make this into a recipe that I, someone who follows recipes pretty well but sucks at altering them or knowing why something isn't working, could even make? I would appreciate it SO much! Thank you!! Assistant:You might wanna be more specific than just "it sucks". Flavorless? Too oily? Too salty?

Human: [IN] Intern seems oblivious to professional norms and it's hurting his job search and burning bridges everywhere At my organization, I'm partly in charge of a man who's near halfway through his year-long paid internship with us. He's not performing well and has alienated almost everyone, and the direct feedback we've been giving him doesn't seem to be making much impact. Here are some reasons why: \- he is given a list of tasks to do and instructions for how to do them, but he ignores these tasks and claims he was never told about them. \- he is not a considerate officemate. I have received a lot of feedback from people who sit near him that he is extremely loud, talks on his phone for hours in his native language while sitting at his desk, and isn't mindful that others need to do work (their roles are such that they cannot wear noise-canceling headphones while doing their jobs) \- he doesn't respect his higher-ups. My industry is pretty hierarchical, with deference expected while interfacing with people above you in the org chart. He will knock on higher-ups' office doors or walk right in, ask if they have five minutes for a quick question, and proceed to talk on and on until he is asked to leave, about a range of topics that, frankly, he should be researching for himself. He does this to me often. I have stopped him and told him it's not a good time, and ask him to come back at a specific time later in the day, which he does not do. Even when I send him a calendar invite for later in the day and he accepts it, he still won't show up at the appointed time, and does not apologize when I next see him. This man was born and raised outside the US and is on a temporary visitor visa in the US. In order to stay in the US after his visa ends, he will need a full-time job offer by an employer who is willing to sponsor him (at much cost to them) to eventually get a green card. As it happens, we have an internal opening in our organization, which he interviewed for, but due to his performance so far, he will not be hired. So, he has been interviewing externally, and while there's a lot of demand for his skill set, he's had no offers. He will come talk to me after almost every interview and complain about the slightest things -- how someone made an offhand remark that offended him, how one of his interviewers told him that the role was quite busy and he didn't like that, how he didn't like that he had to interview with a specific person and he complained to the person organizing the interview about this (!!!), how a hiring manager asked him to meet her at a Starbucks for a preliminary conversation prior to a formal interview day and he felt that was inappropriate, how a hiring manager tried to sell him a job by talking about the generous compensation and he didn't like that (!!!), etc. I have been listening patiently and offering impartial advice. I have also tried to be very frank with him that no job is perfect, especially not the very first job you get right out of internship training, and that his visa status may be a hindrance for some employers. As the months drag by and he continues having apparently negatively experiences everywhere he interviews, it's clear he's not taking my advice on board, and he's probably showing up to them the same way he's showing up to us -- basically, making a poor impression and torching his chances of getting hired anywhere. My industry is pretty small, and I've heard unofficially from some other colleagues at different organizations that he's indeed not interviewing well and turning people off. I've also heard indirectly that his references from other organizations are not giving him good reviews. (Thankfully, he has not asked me to be a reference for him -- and I do not think I could be, in good conscience.) I'm struggling with how to manage this situation going forward. Any resources for how to instill professionalism and self-awareness into someone like this, since direct and pointed feedback isn't working? (Sadly, I don't have the authority to put him on a PIP or terminate him -- the person who hired him is very unlikely to be on board with either of these plans.) I'm also worried about my own professional reputation in this small industry, in the high likelihood that he won't change if/when he finds a full-time job and burns bridges at his next organization too. Assistant:You’re being way too nice. He’s given tasks to do and doesn’t do them? What’s he still doing there. That’s not about professionalism, that’s just being an entitled jerk. If another manager came to you and said their employee wasn’t doing the work they’re asked to do, what would you do? You would keep record and this would be grounds for firing, at minimum. So what’s different here?

Human: [IN] Intern seems oblivious to professional norms and it's hurting his job search and burning bridges everywhere At my organization, I'm partly in charge of a man who's near halfway through his year-long paid internship with us. He's not performing well and has alienated almost everyone, and the direct feedback we've been giving him doesn't seem to be making much impact. Here are some reasons why: \- he is given a list of tasks to do and instructions for how to do them, but he ignores these tasks and claims he was never told about them. \- he is not a considerate officemate. I have received a lot of feedback from people who sit near him that he is extremely loud, talks on his phone for hours in his native language while sitting at his desk, and isn't mindful that others need to do work (their roles are such that they cannot wear noise-canceling headphones while doing their jobs) \- he doesn't respect his higher-ups. My industry is pretty hierarchical, with deference expected while interfacing with people above you in the org chart. He will knock on higher-ups' office doors or walk right in, ask if they have five minutes for a quick question, and proceed to talk on and on until he is asked to leave, about a range of topics that, frankly, he should be researching for himself. He does this to me often. I have stopped him and told him it's not a good time, and ask him to come back at a specific time later in the day, which he does not do. Even when I send him a calendar invite for later in the day and he accepts it, he still won't show up at the appointed time, and does not apologize when I next see him. This man was born and raised outside the US and is on a temporary visitor visa in the US. In order to stay in the US after his visa ends, he will need a full-time job offer by an employer who is willing to sponsor him (at much cost to them) to eventually get a green card. As it happens, we have an internal opening in our organization, which he interviewed for, but due to his performance so far, he will not be hired. So, he has been interviewing externally, and while there's a lot of demand for his skill set, he's had no offers. He will come talk to me after almost every interview and complain about the slightest things -- how someone made an offhand remark that offended him, how one of his interviewers told him that the role was quite busy and he didn't like that, how he didn't like that he had to interview with a specific person and he complained to the person organizing the interview about this (!!!), how a hiring manager asked him to meet her at a Starbucks for a preliminary conversation prior to a formal interview day and he felt that was inappropriate, how a hiring manager tried to sell him a job by talking about the generous compensation and he didn't like that (!!!), etc. I have been listening patiently and offering impartial advice. I have also tried to be very frank with him that no job is perfect, especially not the very first job you get right out of internship training, and that his visa status may be a hindrance for some employers. As the months drag by and he continues having apparently negatively experiences everywhere he interviews, it's clear he's not taking my advice on board, and he's probably showing up to them the same way he's showing up to us -- basically, making a poor impression and torching his chances of getting hired anywhere. My industry is pretty small, and I've heard unofficially from some other colleagues at different organizations that he's indeed not interviewing well and turning people off. I've also heard indirectly that his references from other organizations are not giving him good reviews. (Thankfully, he has not asked me to be a reference for him -- and I do not think I could be, in good conscience.) I'm struggling with how to manage this situation going forward. Any resources for how to instill professionalism and self-awareness into someone like this, since direct and pointed feedback isn't working? (Sadly, I don't have the authority to put him on a PIP or terminate him -- the person who hired him is very unlikely to be on board with either of these plans.) I'm also worried about my own professional reputation in this small industry, in the high likelihood that he won't change if/when he finds a full-time job and burns bridges at his next organization too. Assistant:Your professional reputation is not going to be affected because you supervised an asshat. It’s OK for people to fail, and sometimes that’s the only way they’ll learn. That said, one item in here jumped out at me - talking on the phone for hours in his native language. Is the complaint that he’s talking on the phone too much or too loudly, or that he’s talking in another language? The first is legit, the second is bigotry. Be careful not to mix the two.

Human: CMV: Talking about race, racism, and racial issues along with racial preference programs actually makes any existing problems worse, creates new problems, and divides people rather than unifying them. In my opinion "not seeing color" IS the attitude we should cultivate. In this post I am going to be very blunt. This is because I want to show exactly how all this impacted the thinking of myself and the people around me. I was born here in the US but I am of Chinese and Thai descent. As a child I grew up not really caring at all about race, I just sort of assumed humans came is all different colors and shapes and that was normal. I didn't even know there were names for the different races and ethnicities. The only thing I was really aware of was if people actually came from a different country. As I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now. I grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences. I learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. All the commentary about how this was racist merely solidified my opinion. I saw how violent black neighborhoods are, I was catcalled constantly by black men in the streets, I worked in a leasing office and saw black tenants who lived entirely off the government and complained about everything. If I hadn't heard about race my entire life I would have written all these off as "Man those specific people suck" rather than lump the entire race together. People address these issues as if everyone else is to blame for these peoples actions, instead of saying hey, those are just bad people. Instead they make it a race thing where those bad people are actually VICTIMS. I heard about the police shootings and the publicity around them. I heard about the riots, and the more people talked about how the senseless destruction was justified the more I distanced myself and the more scared I became. I started to involuntarily see black people as a threat. My friends all secretly talked about how they wished all these people would go back to Africa so we could all live in peace. In the past couple years after all the discussion about race I have seen SOO many non-black people become essentially racist, and so many wonderful black people become entitled and vitriolic. So basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past. If we keep bringing up race in EVERYTHING, kids start drawing lines and lumping people together as their race, rather than as Americans. They start noticing and being hyper-aware of differences between races. Crying racism in every situation just annoys people and defeats the goal of ending racism. Racial and diversity programs make people resentful, and make the benefitting parties feel entitled. People should be chosen on merit alone. "Not seeing color" is treated as ignorant and is laughed at, but I feel that this is the best way to operate if we are ever going to solve our problems. I'd like other opinions on this because the way I see the world right now truly sickens me. I don't want to keep feeling like I am different because I am Asian, I want to feel American and be okay with the way people talk about race. I want to feel okay with the way we as Americans are dealing with these issues. I also want to understand why "not seeing color" is ridiculed. Assistant:While disappointing, I cannot say your view is unique here on reddit or anywhere else in the country, so I'm glad you're here on CMV. > > As I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now. > > Could you provide examples of this? As someone who is black, I was never taught that I was "owed" anything. I was also never taught that all white people are responsible for the hideous injustices of the past. > I grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? While I am not a supporter of AA, it is often a misunderstood policy. Pretend you have 2 little league football coaches: Coach 1 takes over a team that was 2-12, and at the end of the season has a score of 8-6 Coach 2 takes over a team that was 7-7, and at the end of the season that is 10-4 I want to hire the most qualified coach. If I just look at what their current seasons were, I would have to go with Coach 2. Coach 2 clearly has a superior record to Coach 1. However, is Coach 2 really more qualified? Coach 1 obviously had to begin with a *much* worse team than Coach 2. If I honestly want the best coach, it would be foolish not to take that into account. The idea behind AA is that we take into account peoples starting positions. This is where the confusion is. If an average white kid gets a score of 1980 on the SAT, and an average black kid gets a score of 1800, the argument isn't that the less qualified black person should get the spot. The argument is that the black student ***is*** the more qualified student. The idea is that we can't just look at the test scores in a vacuum, and that if the black student was raised in the same circumstance, they would have scored much higher. The reason to not support AA isn't because it hurts the students getting passed over, but because it often hurts the students being let in. Even if we concede that a black kid being raised by a single mom working 2 jobs is at a supreme disadvantage, if we let that kid into an advanced school, it still doesn't change the fact that they don't have the skillset to be able to perform in that environment. Being a good student is learned behavior, and it is very unlikely this kid was taught how to be a good student. They simply won't be able to perform, no matter how smart they are, due to their upbringing. > And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences. Asians certainly delt with discrimination in the US. However, the discrimination faced was far less severe and couldn't have as large an effect on their population. This is due to most Asian Americans voluntarily coming here, meaning you have a *very* significant selection factor going on. To put it bluntly, most asians already came here with marketable skills(otherwise they would never have made it here). When you have marketable skills, discrimination is far less effective a means to harm people. Here is a good video explaining this: https://youtu.be/Eu_bKJ11O0M?t=3m23s If you no longer want to go to black professionals because of this, that's your business. But I feel the need to remind you that getting into the college doesn't net you a degree. You still need to pass the classes and graduate, and black students don't get AA while professors are grading their exams. > I learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. You need to be careful with how you interpret statistics. The reason that most people will charge people who cite these statistics racist is because they are usually trying to cite them to present a narrative of the black thug, and do very little to interpret any statistic honestly. Here is a related example. Imagine you have a small asian town in California that kidnaps people that pass by and cannibalizes them. They do this for an entire year, kidnapping around 50 people. When they're caught, and then convicted of this heinous act, later that year I release a headline: **98% of all cannibalism cases committed by asians**. This would be a true statement statistically. Since cannibalism is a very rare crime, this town would responsible for almost 100 percent of the cannibalism cases. However, this is disingenuous to say the least. Me presenting the headline in that manner suggests that asians everywhere are to be feared. Seeing an asian in Vermont might cause people to be cautious that that person would eat them. By printing it I would *knowingly* be spreading misinformation, while technically not telling a single lie. As for the black crime rate, most of it is concentrated in very specific high crime areas. You could look at the murder rate the same way we looked at cannibalism. It is, when dealing with a country of 330 million, a rare crime. In 2013 there were about 14,000 murders total. If half of those were black males, that is *still* only 7000. If we are **generous** and say all those murders were committed by unique individuals, we still have 7000 males out of how many millions? This means that 99.9% of black people you meet have never killed anyone, and will never kill anyone. Sure, you could say that for other races it is 99.99, or 99.999, but 0.01 is still an infinitesimal amount of people no matter how you slice it. To top it off the bulk of these murders can again be traced back to about a dozen or so places. Most of them dealing with drugs. The idea that black people are just running around killing everyone is a myth. To make it more personal, has any black person ever put their hands on you? Assaulted you? Murdered someone you know? My guess is no, and it will probably never happen. Another common misconception seen on reddit is "black people kill white people like 10 bajilliion times more than white people kill black people." Technically true, but misleading. Let's leave out the fact that gross population differences will screw with these numbers, as this post is long enough as is, and just stick with the same line of reasoning as before. In 2013, the amount of whites murdered by blacks was around 350. Not 350,000, not 3500....350. If you're white in this country the chances of a black person killing you is essentially zero percent. You're 10 times more likely to die of food poisoning, and how often are you worried about that? > So basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past It's odd that you say this, while admitting earlier that you're a racist. Racism cannot be solved by simply ignoring it. If you think it can, then indulge me with examples of *any* problem with society that was changed through people ignoring the problem. I'd be surprised if you could give me a singe example.

Human: CMV: Talking about race, racism, and racial issues along with racial preference programs actually makes any existing problems worse, creates new problems, and divides people rather than unifying them. In my opinion "not seeing color" IS the attitude we should cultivate. In this post I am going to be very blunt. This is because I want to show exactly how all this impacted the thinking of myself and the people around me. I was born here in the US but I am of Chinese and Thai descent. As a child I grew up not really caring at all about race, I just sort of assumed humans came is all different colors and shapes and that was normal. I didn't even know there were names for the different races and ethnicities. The only thing I was really aware of was if people actually came from a different country. As I grew older, my classmates and I were bombarded with racial messages during school and everywhere else. We were taught that white people were somehow inherently racist. We were taught that everyone else was perfect and every bad thing they did throughout history was somehow righteous and justified. I started to see lines forming. White kids were told that they were somehow responsible for everything some people in the past did. Black kids were taught that they were owed something. I noticed kids start self-segregating. It wasn't anything dramatic, no one attributed this to the things we were being taught, but people knew they were different now. I grew older still. I started paying attention to the news and the internet,. Race was discussed alot. I learned about affirmative action and it made my blood boil. If you didn't know, Asians are hurt the most by affirmative action. I would need a MUCH higher SAT score and GPA than a black person to get into the schools of my choice. I started to resent black people for this. Why was I being hurt because an entire race was apparently performing poorly and my entire race wasn't? And if discrimination was the reason, well my race was discriminated against in the past too! This was opinion shared by my friends. It led us to think that if this was the case, black people didn't try very much and were lazy in school. Otherwise why would they need help? I was infuriated to learn that a black girl who took all level classes and wasn't even close to the top of the class was accepted into my first choice college while I was not, despite my excellent grades and test scores. When I went to college, I made sure to avoid going to black doctors and other black professionals for fear than they got their position due to unfair preferences. I learned about the black crime rate, and prison population. I started to become scared when I saw a black person on the streets. All the commentary about how this was racist merely solidified my opinion. I saw how violent black neighborhoods are, I was catcalled constantly by black men in the streets, I worked in a leasing office and saw black tenants who lived entirely off the government and complained about everything. If I hadn't heard about race my entire life I would have written all these off as "Man those specific people suck" rather than lump the entire race together. People address these issues as if everyone else is to blame for these peoples actions, instead of saying hey, those are just bad people. Instead they make it a race thing where those bad people are actually VICTIMS. I heard about the police shootings and the publicity around them. I heard about the riots, and the more people talked about how the senseless destruction was justified the more I distanced myself and the more scared I became. I started to involuntarily see black people as a threat. My friends all secretly talked about how they wished all these people would go back to Africa so we could all live in peace. In the past couple years after all the discussion about race I have seen SOO many non-black people become essentially racist, and so many wonderful black people become entitled and vitriolic. So basically, I feel like if we brought our kids up to not see color and talk about Americans as Americans, rather than african-american, asian american, etc, racism would soon become a thing of the past. If we keep bringing up race in EVERYTHING, kids start drawing lines and lumping people together as their race, rather than as Americans. They start noticing and being hyper-aware of differences between races. Crying racism in every situation just annoys people and defeats the goal of ending racism. Racial and diversity programs make people resentful, and make the benefitting parties feel entitled. People should be chosen on merit alone. "Not seeing color" is treated as ignorant and is laughed at, but I feel that this is the best way to operate if we are ever going to solve our problems. I'd like other opinions on this because the way I see the world right now truly sickens me. I don't want to keep feeling like I am different because I am Asian, I want to feel American and be okay with the way people talk about race. I want to feel okay with the way we as Americans are dealing with these issues. I also want to understand why "not seeing color" is ridiculed. Assistant:Color / race / gender / etc. exist - socially if not biologically. Acting as though it doesn't exist teaches kids (inadvertently) that it is a taboo subject, and thus there is something wrong with it. By ignoring race we actually "teach" kids that racial differences are bad.

Human: Update on my struggling master's student I wanted to thank everyone for their thoughtful advice and encouragement, and to provide an update for you, as I know my post generated quite the response. When I had initially made my post, I was not aware of Sara’s final marks in her coursework as she had received extensions on assignments, and I believed her to be in a better position than she was. While her exam marks had averaged out around 51%, I was unaware of how she had done in the courses that were not my own. Marks were fully calculated and posted at the end of last week, and Sarah’s GPA was not in the 2.0-2.3 range that I had expected, but instead at a 1.0. It goes without saying that this will preclude her from any PhD programs. While her GPA could be minorly salvaged by her thesis, at the moment, it does not look like she will complete it. Disability services contacted me on Friday afternoon to inform me that Sarah has only met her first check-point with them, and she should have completed her third last week. It is worth noting that she set out these goals for herself, so there can’t be any claims of unfair expectations. Unsurprisingly, Sarah was in my office first thing this morning. She wanted to go over the breakdown of her marks and discuss how her current average is so low. We went over her exam papers for my courses, we looked at her final marks in each class and discussed how grades were calculated. Sarah admitted to me that she was disappointed, as she had hoped that her performance on the exams would raise her marks enough to qualify her for funding. Armed with encouragement from this sub, I took the opportunity, bit the bullet, and explained to her that with these marks she is not a competitive applicant for our PhD program and that she should not be depending on, nor expecting admission for September. I told her that I could help her explore other options if she was interested, but I did not feel that this was the best path for her. Sarah took a moment to consider this information and then asked if her exam marks could be changed. Specifically, she asked if the questions she did not answer could be excluded from her final mark. Those of you who read my previous post will remember that Sarah did not complete 3 of her 4 exams. On one of those exams, she did not answer half of the questions. Obviously, if we were to exclude the unanswered questions from the calculations of her final mark, the end result would be quite different. A few of you believed that I have been too hard on Sarah already, and I fully expect that you will not be pleased with my response but I stand by it. I **will not** be changing Sarah’s exam marks as it would not be fair to the other students. Sarah received extra tutoring from myself and my colleague, as per the request of disability services, she had an extra hour, one-on-one with each of us once a week for a month leading up to the exams. As laid out in the plan created by herself and disability services, she received four hours instead of the scheduled two for her exams. She was in a well-lit room with ample natural light away from any possible street noise. Myself or my colleague were present for the entire duration of each of her exams as we were told she could only have one other person in the room with her (no official proctor) and that it had to be one of us so that she could ask questions as she saw fit – something she did not take advantage of. It was made abundantly clear to her that if, at any time, during the exam process she felt that she was not being sufficiently accommodated that we would recalibrate and rework until we found a solution. She did not at any point mention this, or ask about changing the ways things were being done. Her cohort did not receive anything nearing this level of help or accommodation and I do not feel that it would be in any way fair to additionally alter Sarah’s exams, with the exclusive purpose of boosting her marks. Perhaps if she had asked *before* learning her results I would have considered discussing it with disability services, but no. Not at this point. I feel that our department has fully accommodated her, and as we have done everything that has been asked of us, and that she needs to take some responsibility: if the accommodations were not sufficient, she should have told us beforehand, or she needs to accept that her quality of work does not merit higher grades. I told Sarah that this was something that I could not and would not do. I explained that it would not be fair to her cohort and that, unfortunately, these are the grades she earned. She then asked if she would be allowed to re-sit the exams – the same exams, under the same conditions. I again expressed that I would not do this as, again, this would be unfair to her cohort, all of whom I’m sure would love the opportunity to re-take one or more of their exams in order to boost their marks. I am not prepared, nor willing, to allow my entire master’s class to retake their exams because they might not be happy with their grades. I think that is simply ridiculous. Again, if she could provide a legitimate reason, beyond being unhappy with her final marks, I would be happy to open up a discussion. Sarah then told me that if I will not change her final marks or allow her to re-take all of her exams, she will file a complaint with disability services and the Dean of Graduate Studies as she does not feel that her needs are being adequately met. I told her that I’m sorry she feels that way, but that I will be holding firm and will not be allotting her marks that she did not earn simply because she wants them, and that I think it would be best for her to focus on her thesis. At which point she told me she was headed to disability services to file her complaint and that I should receive it shortly. So that is a disappointing end to a stressful year. Thank you again for all of the support and insight that was provided. Assistant:Just want to add in my opinion that you have gone above and (quite far) beyond when it comes to accommodating her, and I would be very surprised if anyone, once presented with the facts, considered there to be any merit in her complaint.

Human: Update on my struggling master's student I wanted to thank everyone for their thoughtful advice and encouragement, and to provide an update for you, as I know my post generated quite the response. When I had initially made my post, I was not aware of Sara’s final marks in her coursework as she had received extensions on assignments, and I believed her to be in a better position than she was. While her exam marks had averaged out around 51%, I was unaware of how she had done in the courses that were not my own. Marks were fully calculated and posted at the end of last week, and Sarah’s GPA was not in the 2.0-2.3 range that I had expected, but instead at a 1.0. It goes without saying that this will preclude her from any PhD programs. While her GPA could be minorly salvaged by her thesis, at the moment, it does not look like she will complete it. Disability services contacted me on Friday afternoon to inform me that Sarah has only met her first check-point with them, and she should have completed her third last week. It is worth noting that she set out these goals for herself, so there can’t be any claims of unfair expectations. Unsurprisingly, Sarah was in my office first thing this morning. She wanted to go over the breakdown of her marks and discuss how her current average is so low. We went over her exam papers for my courses, we looked at her final marks in each class and discussed how grades were calculated. Sarah admitted to me that she was disappointed, as she had hoped that her performance on the exams would raise her marks enough to qualify her for funding. Armed with encouragement from this sub, I took the opportunity, bit the bullet, and explained to her that with these marks she is not a competitive applicant for our PhD program and that she should not be depending on, nor expecting admission for September. I told her that I could help her explore other options if she was interested, but I did not feel that this was the best path for her. Sarah took a moment to consider this information and then asked if her exam marks could be changed. Specifically, she asked if the questions she did not answer could be excluded from her final mark. Those of you who read my previous post will remember that Sarah did not complete 3 of her 4 exams. On one of those exams, she did not answer half of the questions. Obviously, if we were to exclude the unanswered questions from the calculations of her final mark, the end result would be quite different. A few of you believed that I have been too hard on Sarah already, and I fully expect that you will not be pleased with my response but I stand by it. I **will not** be changing Sarah’s exam marks as it would not be fair to the other students. Sarah received extra tutoring from myself and my colleague, as per the request of disability services, she had an extra hour, one-on-one with each of us once a week for a month leading up to the exams. As laid out in the plan created by herself and disability services, she received four hours instead of the scheduled two for her exams. She was in a well-lit room with ample natural light away from any possible street noise. Myself or my colleague were present for the entire duration of each of her exams as we were told she could only have one other person in the room with her (no official proctor) and that it had to be one of us so that she could ask questions as she saw fit – something she did not take advantage of. It was made abundantly clear to her that if, at any time, during the exam process she felt that she was not being sufficiently accommodated that we would recalibrate and rework until we found a solution. She did not at any point mention this, or ask about changing the ways things were being done. Her cohort did not receive anything nearing this level of help or accommodation and I do not feel that it would be in any way fair to additionally alter Sarah’s exams, with the exclusive purpose of boosting her marks. Perhaps if she had asked *before* learning her results I would have considered discussing it with disability services, but no. Not at this point. I feel that our department has fully accommodated her, and as we have done everything that has been asked of us, and that she needs to take some responsibility: if the accommodations were not sufficient, she should have told us beforehand, or she needs to accept that her quality of work does not merit higher grades. I told Sarah that this was something that I could not and would not do. I explained that it would not be fair to her cohort and that, unfortunately, these are the grades she earned. She then asked if she would be allowed to re-sit the exams – the same exams, under the same conditions. I again expressed that I would not do this as, again, this would be unfair to her cohort, all of whom I’m sure would love the opportunity to re-take one or more of their exams in order to boost their marks. I am not prepared, nor willing, to allow my entire master’s class to retake their exams because they might not be happy with their grades. I think that is simply ridiculous. Again, if she could provide a legitimate reason, beyond being unhappy with her final marks, I would be happy to open up a discussion. Sarah then told me that if I will not change her final marks or allow her to re-take all of her exams, she will file a complaint with disability services and the Dean of Graduate Studies as she does not feel that her needs are being adequately met. I told her that I’m sorry she feels that way, but that I will be holding firm and will not be allotting her marks that she did not earn simply because she wants them, and that I think it would be best for her to focus on her thesis. At which point she told me she was headed to disability services to file her complaint and that I should receive it shortly. So that is a disappointing end to a stressful year. Thank you again for all of the support and insight that was provided. Assistant:it will be a pain in the ass and a waste of your time, but if you've got everything documented, even narrative like above, i think it very unlikely anyone would rule in her favour.

Human: CMV: The school system (at least in America) drastically needs to change, and right now it's practically worthless. The issue with the American school system is that if a kid doesn't want to learn, then they won't. So forcing them to try and pay attention for 7 hrs a day during a very energetic part of their life is a horrible idea. The modern school system was designed for kids to work in factories. &#x200B; Kids don't learn if they don't want to. I'm a student right now, and I hate reading the material, and will usually just skim through it. For math I practically don't try, I just look at the example, and if I don't know how to do it then I get it wrong. Compare this to something I'm interested in, for example, I just started learning to code Python. I am willing to read and re-read the instructions if I don't understand it, and a week ago I stuck through a difficult part instead of just getting the solution. I rarely do this for any subjects I'm forced to take. Also good grades and test scores literally mean nothing. Tests aren't about seeing what you've learned, or what you need to work on, it just shows how much information you can contain in your head for a few days, until you forget it. And all you need for good grades is to put effort in, and that doesn't always mean you actually learn the material. Last year for Geography I got 100% on nearly all the tests because I just memorized the pre-test, which was the exact same as the test. &#x200B; Obviously kids are hyper. A lot of middle and high schoolers like sports. Kids from the ages of 5-20 enjoy physical activity, and school just doesn't do anything with that. We're hardly able to stand up, and science has proven that not standing up a lot reduces your lifespan. Also a lot of high schools don't have recesses, and if they do their only for 15-30 minutes. Plus this system totally abandons kids with ADHD because it's insanely difficult for them to pay attention anyway. &#x200B; The school system was designed for when a lot of kids would go off to work in the factories. it made since back them to train them to raise their hand, memorize information, ask to go to the bathroom, etc. but now where we can choose basically any career we want that system is outdated. 200 years ago school was practically the same as today, while at the same time phones didn't exist and cars were a lot worse. Everything is improving except school. &#x200B; TL;DR The school system needs change. Kids aren't having fun, their not getting enough exercise, and the current system is outdated. Assistant:I'm a product of the American public school system. So is my wife. We both are reasonably successful. Our kids all go to public schools, and seem to be doing well. We know many other families with kids who have recently graduated from public schools and are doing well in college or starting careers. >I just started learning to code Python Good for you, but you'd be surprised how much math underlies serious programming. Not paying attention in Math class won't benefit you. >I rarely do this for any subjects I'm forced to take Here's a news flash - most things professional people do for work are not exciting and fun. They don't run into work everyday with a huge smile on their face. They do whatever their employer or client pays them to do because that's how they keep their families from starving to death. Even if you enjoy your work - and I do - a lot of it just damn boring and tedious. If you give up because it's not interesting you won't stay employed for long. >Everything is improving except school. My oldest kid just started HS, and holy shit is it different than it was for me. There are dozens of electives - in robotics, culinary arts, criminal justice, digital animation - that just didn't exist when I was in HS. Yes, the basic coursework is still the same, but the fundamentals of Math, English, Physics and Geography haven't changed either.

Human: CMV: The school system (at least in America) drastically needs to change, and right now it's practically worthless. The issue with the American school system is that if a kid doesn't want to learn, then they won't. So forcing them to try and pay attention for 7 hrs a day during a very energetic part of their life is a horrible idea. The modern school system was designed for kids to work in factories. &#x200B; Kids don't learn if they don't want to. I'm a student right now, and I hate reading the material, and will usually just skim through it. For math I practically don't try, I just look at the example, and if I don't know how to do it then I get it wrong. Compare this to something I'm interested in, for example, I just started learning to code Python. I am willing to read and re-read the instructions if I don't understand it, and a week ago I stuck through a difficult part instead of just getting the solution. I rarely do this for any subjects I'm forced to take. Also good grades and test scores literally mean nothing. Tests aren't about seeing what you've learned, or what you need to work on, it just shows how much information you can contain in your head for a few days, until you forget it. And all you need for good grades is to put effort in, and that doesn't always mean you actually learn the material. Last year for Geography I got 100% on nearly all the tests because I just memorized the pre-test, which was the exact same as the test. &#x200B; Obviously kids are hyper. A lot of middle and high schoolers like sports. Kids from the ages of 5-20 enjoy physical activity, and school just doesn't do anything with that. We're hardly able to stand up, and science has proven that not standing up a lot reduces your lifespan. Also a lot of high schools don't have recesses, and if they do their only for 15-30 minutes. Plus this system totally abandons kids with ADHD because it's insanely difficult for them to pay attention anyway. &#x200B; The school system was designed for when a lot of kids would go off to work in the factories. it made since back them to train them to raise their hand, memorize information, ask to go to the bathroom, etc. but now where we can choose basically any career we want that system is outdated. 200 years ago school was practically the same as today, while at the same time phones didn't exist and cars were a lot worse. Everything is improving except school. &#x200B; TL;DR The school system needs change. Kids aren't having fun, their not getting enough exercise, and the current system is outdated. Assistant:You're right in that motivation is a big factor but there are different kinds of motivation. Not all of them good. You can rail against the modern system but what else do you propose that also works to society's advantage? The main goal of school is to create citizens of critical thought; citizens who use that thought to solve their own problems. It seems like you're saying, "Teach me math", but also "I don't want to learn it". Math is math. English is English. There can be different approaches but a Jane Austen novel isn't going to change. >Tests aren't about seeing what you've learned, or what you need to work on, it just shows how much information you can contain in your head for a few days, until you forget it. In general, yes they are. Here's the secret teachers fail to teach: no one gives a shit if you remember how to calculate the area of a circle. Really no one. And no one thinks you'll have to do it in real life. What you're being taught is how to do it so that it's simply there in the future, and you'll be able to retrieve and understand it. Even your own teachers don't remember half this shit without a review and without checking their work. You're really asking to learn something for life and not forget it but if that's what school was, it would be what you don't want it to be: learning a few things for a factory. *This* already is the converse. If you could propose something that looks different, do so, but it's going to resemble exactly what we have. And you're not asking for anything that teachers already haven't been asking for for years: more time, less homework, fewer tests, and smaller ratios. &#x200B;

Human: My dad passed away suddenly and now extended family are ransacking the house and claiming they own everything. Well boys and girls this is a MESS. My dad passed away suddenly in his sleep on Friday night, and due to the drama that’s unfolded since, I haven’t been given the opportunity to really grieve the loss. My grandmother passed away from cancer mid-October and left 100% to my dad. My great uncle was given permission to help my dad manage property, his name was placed on documents to help assess things if needed but NOT as an heir. The estate was distributed to my dad, he filed all the death certificates, got her bank accounts, control of all four properties and the only thing he hasn’t done is swap titles to the cars and some minor things like that. My dad did NOT have a will, and under California law had to outlive his mother by 5 days in order to avoid my Uncle inheriting anything. Unfortunately I’m on the other side of the country and won’t be at the home to deal with all this until tomorrow evening, but my Great Uncle and his wife have entered the home, taken vital documents, money, items and things without permission. The cops were called and his wife started screaming about how “it’s her Uncle’s property now because he was next in line on the trust” and these people are playing stupid. I got in contact with a probate attorney, have recorded all phone calls, filed police reports and notified the funeral home to let me know if they try to say I gave them permission to take over funeral arrangements for my dad. They completely took everything away from the spot my dad passed - moved his shoes, blankets, etc. It may seem odd, but I really just wanted that to be left intact until I got there so I could see the last spot my dad was before I have to say goodbye. I don’t think I can forgive them for that. Is there anything I should be worried about/anything additional I should do? This is my first time dealing with something so I’m trying my best. I’ve considered pressing charges for trespassing and theft if they don’t return every item they took. They’ve gutted the house, trashed rooms worth of things, took legal documents, social security cards, etc because they wanted to ‘keep them safe’ (bullshit), and they even took my dads money, keys, etc. Thankfully I have a full video tour of the home from a month ago so I can compare what was there before and after my dad passed. Assistant:Clients still act shocked when I tell them to literally get a contractor RIGHT NOW to put 2-way deadbolts and window locks on the home of their recently deceased relative. *You just never know who's gonna be a greedy shit and start looting everything.* Or who has a gambling problem or a drug problem or is getting audited by the IRS or is a pauper due to child support based on a job that went bankrupt. ^(edit: things I've seen)

Human: My dad passed away suddenly and now extended family are ransacking the house and claiming they own everything. Well boys and girls this is a MESS. My dad passed away suddenly in his sleep on Friday night, and due to the drama that’s unfolded since, I haven’t been given the opportunity to really grieve the loss. My grandmother passed away from cancer mid-October and left 100% to my dad. My great uncle was given permission to help my dad manage property, his name was placed on documents to help assess things if needed but NOT as an heir. The estate was distributed to my dad, he filed all the death certificates, got her bank accounts, control of all four properties and the only thing he hasn’t done is swap titles to the cars and some minor things like that. My dad did NOT have a will, and under California law had to outlive his mother by 5 days in order to avoid my Uncle inheriting anything. Unfortunately I’m on the other side of the country and won’t be at the home to deal with all this until tomorrow evening, but my Great Uncle and his wife have entered the home, taken vital documents, money, items and things without permission. The cops were called and his wife started screaming about how “it’s her Uncle’s property now because he was next in line on the trust” and these people are playing stupid. I got in contact with a probate attorney, have recorded all phone calls, filed police reports and notified the funeral home to let me know if they try to say I gave them permission to take over funeral arrangements for my dad. They completely took everything away from the spot my dad passed - moved his shoes, blankets, etc. It may seem odd, but I really just wanted that to be left intact until I got there so I could see the last spot my dad was before I have to say goodbye. I don’t think I can forgive them for that. Is there anything I should be worried about/anything additional I should do? This is my first time dealing with something so I’m trying my best. I’ve considered pressing charges for trespassing and theft if they don’t return every item they took. They’ve gutted the house, trashed rooms worth of things, took legal documents, social security cards, etc because they wanted to ‘keep them safe’ (bullshit), and they even took my dads money, keys, etc. Thankfully I have a full video tour of the home from a month ago so I can compare what was there before and after my dad passed. Assistant:Apologies if it's been stated, where is this located? Next of kin laws vary from location to location.