Datasets:

honggen

/

shp_all_BERT

like 0

Human: CMV: Normalizing the casual use of the term "fascist" to describe Republican voters is inaccurate, will lead to more people self-identifying as fascists, and this is a bad thing. ##### 1. Normalizing the casual use of the term "fascist" to describe Republican voters is inaccurate. There are some parallels between the modern Trumpist movement and the German and Italian fascists of the 30s, yet the overall structure of what we saw in the Trump administration is better seen as inverted totalitarianism: corporations do not exist to serve the state; the state exists to serve the corporations. (The wiki gives a good overview of the comparison between inverted totalitarianism and the 30s fascists.) ##### 2. This will lead to more people self-identifying as fascists We saw this in 2015/16 when Clinton and her supporters normalized calling Trump supporters "deplorables" and racists. It didn't shame people into rejecting Trump, it energized them more. The accusations of "racist" became so widespread, and under the systemic definition applies to white people by default, that more people openly accept it. I think this point holds even if the first doesn't, that is, even if the Trumpists are fascists in some meaningful sense of the word, casually accusing Trump supporters (as opposed to Trump politicians) of being fascist is going to make more people comfortable calling themselves fascist. This tweet, which I saw being condemned somewhere on the front page of reddit, is indicative of what I mean: >if democracy means trans rights then I vote for fascism ##### 3. This is a bad thing I think this is bad for two main reasons: a) it weakens a key brake against right-wing extremism, b) it obscures and distracts from the actual way power is wielded in class warfare. a) 10 years ago, it was nearly universally agreed in the US that it is a bad thing to be a nazi or a fascist. There were some genuinely fringe groups which held these ideologies, including a disturbing number in military and law enforcement, but it was understood that they couldn't be particularly vocal or open about it. As we start seeing "nazi" or "fascist" used to describe mainstream GOP politicians and voters, we lose the power of the taboo. Extremists can be more open and bold in their messaging, and moderate conservatives will feel less stigma in exploring these ideologies. b) If people are worried about fascism and think the GOP is fascist then it makes sense to vigorously oppose them. Yet if in actuality our condition is better understood through the lens of inverted totalitarianism, then the strategy to oppose it must be different. Assistant:>As we start seeing "nazi" or "fascist" used to describe mainstream GOP politicians and voters, we lose the power of the taboo. Extremists can be more open and bold in their messaging, and moderate conservatives will feel less stigma in exploring these ideologies. I vaguely remember the ancient past of 2017 when the Republican president commented "very fine people on both sides" on a rally involving people marching with literal swastika flags. I am pretty sure that played an important role in normalizing nazism for the mainstream GOP.

Human: CMV: Normalizing the casual use of the term "fascist" to describe Republican voters is inaccurate, will lead to more people self-identifying as fascists, and this is a bad thing. ##### 1. Normalizing the casual use of the term "fascist" to describe Republican voters is inaccurate. There are some parallels between the modern Trumpist movement and the German and Italian fascists of the 30s, yet the overall structure of what we saw in the Trump administration is better seen as inverted totalitarianism: corporations do not exist to serve the state; the state exists to serve the corporations. (The wiki gives a good overview of the comparison between inverted totalitarianism and the 30s fascists.) ##### 2. This will lead to more people self-identifying as fascists We saw this in 2015/16 when Clinton and her supporters normalized calling Trump supporters "deplorables" and racists. It didn't shame people into rejecting Trump, it energized them more. The accusations of "racist" became so widespread, and under the systemic definition applies to white people by default, that more people openly accept it. I think this point holds even if the first doesn't, that is, even if the Trumpists are fascists in some meaningful sense of the word, casually accusing Trump supporters (as opposed to Trump politicians) of being fascist is going to make more people comfortable calling themselves fascist. This tweet, which I saw being condemned somewhere on the front page of reddit, is indicative of what I mean: >if democracy means trans rights then I vote for fascism ##### 3. This is a bad thing I think this is bad for two main reasons: a) it weakens a key brake against right-wing extremism, b) it obscures and distracts from the actual way power is wielded in class warfare. a) 10 years ago, it was nearly universally agreed in the US that it is a bad thing to be a nazi or a fascist. There were some genuinely fringe groups which held these ideologies, including a disturbing number in military and law enforcement, but it was understood that they couldn't be particularly vocal or open about it. As we start seeing "nazi" or "fascist" used to describe mainstream GOP politicians and voters, we lose the power of the taboo. Extremists can be more open and bold in their messaging, and moderate conservatives will feel less stigma in exploring these ideologies. b) If people are worried about fascism and think the GOP is fascist then it makes sense to vigorously oppose them. Yet if in actuality our condition is better understood through the lens of inverted totalitarianism, then the strategy to oppose it must be different. Assistant:>a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted. Sounds fairly accurate to me. Stop the count. Trump's cult. Many examples of modern republicans fitting this defintion.

Human: [AR] Son's bio-father came out of the woodworks after more than 14 years demanding visitations to his son after no contact and no support his entire life. My partner, "Jay" and I have known each other since I was pregnant with my 14 y/o son. He was even at the hospital when I had my son. We started offically dating when my son was about 3 months old and have been together ever since. My child's bio-dad was never in the picture. Bio-dad never met my child in person and never paid child support despite efforts of the state attorney general. The paternal grandparents refused to give me any information regarding the where abouts of their son and that includes address/phone numbers. They said bio-dad had a right to be involved in my sons life and maybe if he met my son, it would inspire him to be a father, but he can't afford to pay child support as he has to support himself. I tried to be civil with them until they tried to blind-side me. We planned to meet each other offically when my son was about 4. A few months before the trip, they let it slip that bio-dad that would be present for an upcoming vacation to "inspire him." They hadn't told bio-dad this either, for the record. I cut contact after that. The only family member of his that we had regular and healthy relationship with was bio-dads grandfather, "Bee". We would exchange letters once a year and he would send small gifts to my son. We sent letters and pictures regularly. We video called Bee a few times so my son could get to know him better. About 2 years ago Bee stopped contacting us. I later learned that he had passed away. Last I heard bio-dad was married and living 12 hours away in a different state. Over the course of my son's life, bio-dad and his wife would pop up in my FB DMs on a burner account every 3 or 4 years to do one of the following: * To harass me about how I took his child from him. * Demand to let him claim my son on his tax refund. * Send photos of him and his new wife having sex. * Saying that "the illegal Mexican" stole his son away. (Jay is not Mexican, but Puerto Rican, born and raised in the US if that matters) These messages appeared to be short bursts of entertainment for him, so I never thought much of it. The conversation about my son would end when I gave him the contact information for the state attorney generals office. We have moved on and my son refers to Jay has his dad and Jay refers to him as his son. Jay and I have 2 more children together and we are happy. I am a public school teacher and let's be honest: you never know what could happen. In light of the recent event in Texas, we discussed Jay adopting my son in the horrible event that something happens to me, my son would stay with his dad and siblings. My son said of course he wants that because Jay is his dad. We just started getting the ball rolling last week. Lo and behold last night, bio-dad started blowing up my DMs asking to be a part of my sons life. Saying I kept him away from him and that my son is his only bio child. He is claiming he is going to take me to court because my son doesn't even know he is his bio-dad. He found my LinkedIn page and messaged me there, demanding to see my son because he is divorced now and living 4 hours away. I have yet to respond to any of his messages. For clarity: My son is 14 and he is aware that Jay is not his bio-dad. I explained that his bio-dad wasn't ready to be a father and despite my best efforts, I couldn't find him in any meaningful way. I offered to try to contact his bio-dad through FB so they can talk but ONLY if he wants to. My son has no interest because again, he sees Jay as his real dad. I can't talk to my attorney until tomorrow. When we first spoke with the attorney, they said as it stands, he has not made reasonable effort to support or contact my son, so he shouldn't have a leg to stand on to contest the adoption in the event we were able to find him/he were to take us to court. Is there something more we need to be doing? Or should we continue as is? My attorney is in court for the next several days so he can't get back to me right now. Assistant:Speak to your attorney as soon as you can. Most importantly, do NOT engage with the father in any manner. Not emails, calls, texts, DMs, nothing. Absolute silence from you, no matter what he says or how much he tries to provoke you. Turn your phone off if you have to.

Human: [AR] Son's bio-father came out of the woodworks after more than 14 years demanding visitations to his son after no contact and no support his entire life. My partner, "Jay" and I have known each other since I was pregnant with my 14 y/o son. He was even at the hospital when I had my son. We started offically dating when my son was about 3 months old and have been together ever since. My child's bio-dad was never in the picture. Bio-dad never met my child in person and never paid child support despite efforts of the state attorney general. The paternal grandparents refused to give me any information regarding the where abouts of their son and that includes address/phone numbers. They said bio-dad had a right to be involved in my sons life and maybe if he met my son, it would inspire him to be a father, but he can't afford to pay child support as he has to support himself. I tried to be civil with them until they tried to blind-side me. We planned to meet each other offically when my son was about 4. A few months before the trip, they let it slip that bio-dad that would be present for an upcoming vacation to "inspire him." They hadn't told bio-dad this either, for the record. I cut contact after that. The only family member of his that we had regular and healthy relationship with was bio-dads grandfather, "Bee". We would exchange letters once a year and he would send small gifts to my son. We sent letters and pictures regularly. We video called Bee a few times so my son could get to know him better. About 2 years ago Bee stopped contacting us. I later learned that he had passed away. Last I heard bio-dad was married and living 12 hours away in a different state. Over the course of my son's life, bio-dad and his wife would pop up in my FB DMs on a burner account every 3 or 4 years to do one of the following: * To harass me about how I took his child from him. * Demand to let him claim my son on his tax refund. * Send photos of him and his new wife having sex. * Saying that "the illegal Mexican" stole his son away. (Jay is not Mexican, but Puerto Rican, born and raised in the US if that matters) These messages appeared to be short bursts of entertainment for him, so I never thought much of it. The conversation about my son would end when I gave him the contact information for the state attorney generals office. We have moved on and my son refers to Jay has his dad and Jay refers to him as his son. Jay and I have 2 more children together and we are happy. I am a public school teacher and let's be honest: you never know what could happen. In light of the recent event in Texas, we discussed Jay adopting my son in the horrible event that something happens to me, my son would stay with his dad and siblings. My son said of course he wants that because Jay is his dad. We just started getting the ball rolling last week. Lo and behold last night, bio-dad started blowing up my DMs asking to be a part of my sons life. Saying I kept him away from him and that my son is his only bio child. He is claiming he is going to take me to court because my son doesn't even know he is his bio-dad. He found my LinkedIn page and messaged me there, demanding to see my son because he is divorced now and living 4 hours away. I have yet to respond to any of his messages. For clarity: My son is 14 and he is aware that Jay is not his bio-dad. I explained that his bio-dad wasn't ready to be a father and despite my best efforts, I couldn't find him in any meaningful way. I offered to try to contact his bio-dad through FB so they can talk but ONLY if he wants to. My son has no interest because again, he sees Jay as his real dad. I can't talk to my attorney until tomorrow. When we first spoke with the attorney, they said as it stands, he has not made reasonable effort to support or contact my son, so he shouldn't have a leg to stand on to contest the adoption in the event we were able to find him/he were to take us to court. Is there something more we need to be doing? Or should we continue as is? My attorney is in court for the next several days so he can't get back to me right now. Assistant:Document everything. Save or screenshot the DMs going back as far as you can, or any further communications. If he somehow gets your phone number, tell him you will only communicate in writing and hang up. If he does actually file for custody, give those to your lawyer. I would also contact your child's school and let them know who the authorized parents are here. It's not unheard of for delinquent parents to show up at the kid's school out of the blue and try to take them out. Same for any after school activities, daycare, even friends where he may spend long periods of time. Let them all know that his bio-dad may come looking for him, and to not let that happen. While no one here can definitively say what the outcome would be here, this superficially sounds more like hot air than a real threat to your custody of the child.

Human: PA] EEOC Says Work-from-Home Not Guaranteed as Post-Pandemic Reasonable Accommodation **EEOC Says Work-from-Home Not Guaranteed as Post-Pandemic Reasonable Accommodation** Sept. 10, 2020 By: Mark Blondman, Blank Rome LLP During the pandemic, many employers have permitted employees to work remotely/telework in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. As the incidence of the virus has subsided in certain geographic areas, employers have begun to reopen their worksites and have required employees to return to their physical place of work. In doing so, these employers have been met with requests from certain employees that they be permitted to continue working remotely, leading to the question of whether the employer is required to grant such a request. In Technical Assistance Questions and Answers issued on September 8, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) answered the question with a qualified “NO.” Physical presence at the work site is considered an “essential function” of many jobs, which, in some cases, was excused by employers during the pandemic. The EEOC’s Technical Assistance document states clearly that even if an employer is permitting telework to employees because of COVID-19 and is choosing to excuse an employee from performing one or more essential functions, then a request—after the workplace reopens—to continue telework as a reasonable accommodation does not have to be granted if it requires continuing to excuse the employee from performing an essential function. The ADA [(Americans with Disabilities Act)] never requires an employer to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation for an individual with a disability. According to the EEOC, the temporary suspension of performance of an essential function of the job during the pandemic “does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship.” While it appears clear that employers are permitted to reinstitute the requirement that employees return to the worksite, the EEOC’s Technical Assistance does not suggest that all requests for continued telework can be summarily denied. Not surprisingly, the EEOC states that, while an employer is not restrained from restoring all of the employee’s essential functions when it restores a prior work arrangement, it must still “evaluat[e] any requests for continued or new accommodations [including telework] under the usual ADA rules.” The text of the EEOC’s Technical Assistance relating to continued teleworking can be read at section D.15 in the “Reasonable Accommodation” section of [What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. We are not surprised that the EEOC has taken this position on continued teleworking. Employers can expect employees to return to the worksite upon request but must engage in the “interactive process” when faced with a disability-related request for an accommodation and must be prepared to articulate a business rationale for making physical presence at work an ”essential function,” especially when the employee was permitted to work remotely during the pandemic. Original article can be found HERE Assistant:Can we pin this? On the b*tts of pain in the a$$ employees and posters? I understand true disability needs, but am a bit tired of vague ”anxiety “ issues....

Human: PA] EEOC Says Work-from-Home Not Guaranteed as Post-Pandemic Reasonable Accommodation **EEOC Says Work-from-Home Not Guaranteed as Post-Pandemic Reasonable Accommodation** Sept. 10, 2020 By: Mark Blondman, Blank Rome LLP During the pandemic, many employers have permitted employees to work remotely/telework in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. As the incidence of the virus has subsided in certain geographic areas, employers have begun to reopen their worksites and have required employees to return to their physical place of work. In doing so, these employers have been met with requests from certain employees that they be permitted to continue working remotely, leading to the question of whether the employer is required to grant such a request. In Technical Assistance Questions and Answers issued on September 8, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) answered the question with a qualified “NO.” Physical presence at the work site is considered an “essential function” of many jobs, which, in some cases, was excused by employers during the pandemic. The EEOC’s Technical Assistance document states clearly that even if an employer is permitting telework to employees because of COVID-19 and is choosing to excuse an employee from performing one or more essential functions, then a request—after the workplace reopens—to continue telework as a reasonable accommodation does not have to be granted if it requires continuing to excuse the employee from performing an essential function. The ADA [(Americans with Disabilities Act)] never requires an employer to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation for an individual with a disability. According to the EEOC, the temporary suspension of performance of an essential function of the job during the pandemic “does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship.” While it appears clear that employers are permitted to reinstitute the requirement that employees return to the worksite, the EEOC’s Technical Assistance does not suggest that all requests for continued telework can be summarily denied. Not surprisingly, the EEOC states that, while an employer is not restrained from restoring all of the employee’s essential functions when it restores a prior work arrangement, it must still “evaluat[e] any requests for continued or new accommodations [including telework] under the usual ADA rules.” The text of the EEOC’s Technical Assistance relating to continued teleworking can be read at section D.15 in the “Reasonable Accommodation” section of [What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. We are not surprised that the EEOC has taken this position on continued teleworking. Employers can expect employees to return to the worksite upon request but must engage in the “interactive process” when faced with a disability-related request for an accommodation and must be prepared to articulate a business rationale for making physical presence at work an ”essential function,” especially when the employee was permitted to work remotely during the pandemic. Original article can be found HERE Assistant:Yes please sticky

Human: My best friend (25F) had severe memory loss out of nowhere - is this even possible? I’m making this post for one of my best friends out of desperation. She’s a 25 white female and probably between 110-120 pounds, no history of drugs or heavy alcohol use but she uses a vape pen. This started two days ago. I get a phone call from her late night and she’s asking me to take her to a doctor because she “doesn’t feel good” and she’s scared. I’m assuming she’s having symptoms of an anxiety attack. Nonetheless I pick her up and take her to the ER. She’s hyperventilating and saying her hands feel numb. I wait with her in the Er until we see a nurse who says she definitely has close to high blood pressure (somewhere like 140/70 but I can’t remember exactly) but they get her to a more private area. It takes like another 25 mins for doc to see us. But he asks me to step away so he can talk to my friend. I hear him ask a range of questions like “what year is it?” “Do you know who our current president is?” “What state are you in?” She answers correctly that we’re in Georgia. But then she hesitates and says Barack Obama is President. That was all I could pick up before I was asked to step back in the waiting room. I called my friends parents and they got there, waited all night to hear this after she was discharged. There was nothing wrong, seemingly. She had a bad panic attack or something and I guess the Er didn’t need to do anything. I asked her if she thought Obama was still president but she just shook her head: Today her mom calls me and says my friend is saying weird things on and off all day like she needs to take her Stats test... she took her college stats class almost 3 years ago. She also got worried when looking in the mirror because her short hair startled her. My friend apparently forgot she cut her hair almost a full year ago. We’re back at the ER waiting and frankly no one knows what’s up yet. My friend was with her family basically the entire day on the night of the supposed panic attack and they said she didn’t act strange or fall, hit her head. But I think they’re running some kind of CT scan rn and I’ll wait. Could this really be some kind of freak memory loss or anxiety, or a head injury we didn’t notice? Super worried and using my reddit to try and see what could happen before we know. Assistant:It may have been a minor stroke. Both her hands feeling numb does not fit in with this diagnosis, but rather with hyperventilation. A CT and later on an MRI scan will show, if there is any kind of lesion in her brain. An encephalitis or other inflammatory process in the CNS will have to be ruled out via lumbar puncture and further diagnostic measures regarding her spinal fluid. Alternatively, it can be a psychiatric illness, but there is too little information available for me to say anything further.

Human: My best friend (25F) had severe memory loss out of nowhere - is this even possible? I’m making this post for one of my best friends out of desperation. She’s a 25 white female and probably between 110-120 pounds, no history of drugs or heavy alcohol use but she uses a vape pen. This started two days ago. I get a phone call from her late night and she’s asking me to take her to a doctor because she “doesn’t feel good” and she’s scared. I’m assuming she’s having symptoms of an anxiety attack. Nonetheless I pick her up and take her to the ER. She’s hyperventilating and saying her hands feel numb. I wait with her in the Er until we see a nurse who says she definitely has close to high blood pressure (somewhere like 140/70 but I can’t remember exactly) but they get her to a more private area. It takes like another 25 mins for doc to see us. But he asks me to step away so he can talk to my friend. I hear him ask a range of questions like “what year is it?” “Do you know who our current president is?” “What state are you in?” She answers correctly that we’re in Georgia. But then she hesitates and says Barack Obama is President. That was all I could pick up before I was asked to step back in the waiting room. I called my friends parents and they got there, waited all night to hear this after she was discharged. There was nothing wrong, seemingly. She had a bad panic attack or something and I guess the Er didn’t need to do anything. I asked her if she thought Obama was still president but she just shook her head: Today her mom calls me and says my friend is saying weird things on and off all day like she needs to take her Stats test... she took her college stats class almost 3 years ago. She also got worried when looking in the mirror because her short hair startled her. My friend apparently forgot she cut her hair almost a full year ago. We’re back at the ER waiting and frankly no one knows what’s up yet. My friend was with her family basically the entire day on the night of the supposed panic attack and they said she didn’t act strange or fall, hit her head. But I think they’re running some kind of CT scan rn and I’ll wait. Could this really be some kind of freak memory loss or anxiety, or a head injury we didn’t notice? Super worried and using my reddit to try and see what could happen before we know. Assistant:In a young person it would be important to exclude things like viral encephalitis. Does she have a fever? Any odd diet/travel/emdicines/history? Which part of the world is this?

Human: CMV: If we are cutting school art programs due to costs, we should cut sports programs as well. A growing trend in high schools and small undergraduate universities is to drastically reduce the arts programs available to students, as part of an effort to balance the budget. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/09/06/chopping-block-again; https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2019/04/09/how-the-arts-are-being-squeezed-out-of-schools/?sh=5654af49aaf4. While cuts have also been made to sports programs, they have not been as deep. https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2013/12/27/sports-spending-per-athlete-outpaces-per-pupil-spending-on-math-science-english/4230621/; https://wvmetronews.com/2020/12/18/wv-high-school-athletic-programs-to-receive-4-million-in-funding/ ; https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/ **My view:** There are many passionate fans of high school sports. There are also many students who love performing arts and other creative activities. Both have value and are unquestionably a net positive for students. School sports cost drastically more than arts programs do, yet it seems to always be art on the chopping block. 1. **Art programs are more beneficial to one's career than sports programs are.** Growing studies have shown that arts education makes people better in a wide variety of career fields. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00334-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42330-019-00057-7 For this reason, the acronym STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) has been expanded to STEAM, adding arts. A few studies have linked sports participation to greater academic achievement, but there has been comparatively scant research to examine the question. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/693117 Skills learned in the arts are often directly transferrable to valuable careers. Public speaking, aesthetics, creativity and problem-solving are direct benefits of the arts. Sports activities increase social cohesion and physical fitness. Both have value, but the first is more relevant to most careers. 2. **School sports programs lead to bullying, classism and gender conflicts.** It is a recognized and unsolved problem that student athletes are more prone to bullying than students engaged in other extracurricular activities. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02037/full Sports parents can be toxic, setting poor examples for students. Currently, large-scale debate over bathrooms and appropriate divisions for transgender high schoolers has erupted. No similar issues are pertinent to extracurricular arts. 3. **School sports programs are more expensive.** School sports programs are extremely expensive. Costs include the stadium, uniforms, equipment and travel expenses to games. (See above sources and also https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171). Arts programs do not cost nearly as much, comparatively. They use facilities already located at the school. The materials for arts classes are much cheaper. Yet, we cut them first. That makes zero sense to me. 4. **Cutting arts programs without cutting sports is both misogynistic and homophobic.** Common stereotypes indicate that girls and gay high schoolers are more likely to participate in performing arts and other arts than straight boys are. To my mind, given the domination of the straight male in American politics, these programs are being supported more broadly because these programs appeal to those in power. 5. **The costs of school sports are not always offset.** It is commonly argued in these debates that college football is profitable. Certainly, that is the case for large, popular universities. That is not the case for your average, small liberal arts college. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Academic-Spending-vs-Athletic-Spending.pdf For high schools, obviously very little money is raised. 6. **School sports can operate much more cheaply than it does.** School sports are expensive because schools have placed an emphasis on winning rather than on simply providing a positive outlet for kids to exercise and have fun. There is no reason for high school sports programs to take on semi-professional status. By advancing intramural sports, schools could cut costs, allow more kids to participate, and reduce much of the bullying from other students and parents. This would preserve the positive effects of school sports while ameliorating the negative effects. Assistant:> School sports programs are extremely expensive. Costs include the stadium, uniforms, equipment and travel expenses to games. It looks you are are just focusing on the cost? Sure, the cost more, but the difference is they generate a lot of income. Is it still more expensive when factoring that in? > It is commonly argued in these debates that college football is profitable. Certainly, that is the case for large, popular universities. That is not the case for your average, small liberal arts college. Ya, but you still aren’t comparing it to arts, arts also isn’t profitable. > School sports are expensive because schools have placed an emphasis on winning There’s more to winning than just for the sake of it. Moment winning means more money, and also attention on the school which probably functions as advertising. >Cutting arts programs without cutting sports is both misogynistic and homophobic. Plenty of men and straight people participate in the arts. I don’t think they are cutting programs because they hate gay people and woman. People just are less interested in the arts than sports.

Human: CMV: If we are cutting school art programs due to costs, we should cut sports programs as well. A growing trend in high schools and small undergraduate universities is to drastically reduce the arts programs available to students, as part of an effort to balance the budget. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/ed/09/06/chopping-block-again; https://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmorrison/2019/04/09/how-the-arts-are-being-squeezed-out-of-schools/?sh=5654af49aaf4. While cuts have also been made to sports programs, they have not been as deep. https://www.coloradoan.com/story/news/2013/12/27/sports-spending-per-athlete-outpaces-per-pupil-spending-on-math-science-english/4230621/; https://wvmetronews.com/2020/12/18/wv-high-school-athletic-programs-to-receive-4-million-in-funding/ ; https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/the-case-against-high-school-sports/309447/ **My view:** There are many passionate fans of high school sports. There are also many students who love performing arts and other creative activities. Both have value and are unquestionably a net positive for students. School sports cost drastically more than arts programs do, yet it seems to always be art on the chopping block. 1. **Art programs are more beneficial to one's career than sports programs are.** Growing studies have shown that arts education makes people better in a wide variety of career fields. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00334-2; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42330-019-00057-7 For this reason, the acronym STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) has been expanded to STEAM, adding arts. A few studies have linked sports participation to greater academic achievement, but there has been comparatively scant research to examine the question. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/693117 Skills learned in the arts are often directly transferrable to valuable careers. Public speaking, aesthetics, creativity and problem-solving are direct benefits of the arts. Sports activities increase social cohesion and physical fitness. Both have value, but the first is more relevant to most careers. 2. **School sports programs lead to bullying, classism and gender conflicts.** It is a recognized and unsolved problem that student athletes are more prone to bullying than students engaged in other extracurricular activities. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02037/full Sports parents can be toxic, setting poor examples for students. Currently, large-scale debate over bathrooms and appropriate divisions for transgender high schoolers has erupted. No similar issues are pertinent to extracurricular arts. 3. **School sports programs are more expensive.** School sports programs are extremely expensive. Costs include the stadium, uniforms, equipment and travel expenses to games. (See above sources and also https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/hidden-figures-college-students-may-be-paying-thousands-athletic-fees-n1145171). Arts programs do not cost nearly as much, comparatively. They use facilities already located at the school. The materials for arts classes are much cheaper. Yet, we cut them first. That makes zero sense to me. 4. **Cutting arts programs without cutting sports is both misogynistic and homophobic.** Common stereotypes indicate that girls and gay high schoolers are more likely to participate in performing arts and other arts than straight boys are. To my mind, given the domination of the straight male in American politics, these programs are being supported more broadly because these programs appeal to those in power. 5. **The costs of school sports are not always offset.** It is commonly argued in these debates that college football is profitable. Certainly, that is the case for large, popular universities. That is not the case for your average, small liberal arts college. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/Academic-Spending-vs-Athletic-Spending.pdf For high schools, obviously very little money is raised. 6. **School sports can operate much more cheaply than it does.** School sports are expensive because schools have placed an emphasis on winning rather than on simply providing a positive outlet for kids to exercise and have fun. There is no reason for high school sports programs to take on semi-professional status. By advancing intramural sports, schools could cut costs, allow more kids to participate, and reduce much of the bullying from other students and parents. This would preserve the positive effects of school sports while ameliorating the negative effects. Assistant:Theatre groups, bands of all kinds, writers, and all different kinds of artists can bully just as harshly and leave just as many scars as anyone on a sports team. Misogyny and homophobia are not taught in sports. Teamwork is.

Human: CMV: Most religions, as we know them, now relies on perpetual indoctrination of children who as adults (understandably) cannot imagine believing and living in any other way than the religion taught them If, hypothetically, for the following 15 to 20 years no one would teach any kind of religion to anybody. That's the end of most western and middle eastern religion as we know it. It would collapse in a matter of decades as the other generations would die off, with no one to continue the legacy. Meanwhile all the people would have to rely on teachings of humanities - psychology, sociology, philosophy etc... All religions have some really important values and teachings to take from them, spheres where even secular humanities cannot yet reach. But they also have, excuse my language a lot of bullsh*t. A tradition for the sake of tradition. What I believe would happen is that people would pick up the corpses of the religion and pick from them what really has value and meaning to them - relying also on the teachings they would already know from humanities while adopting religious values and meanings. This would give rise to value systems and meanings (love, justice, beauty, etc...) without the grand "papa" who behaves like a warlord who needs to be pleased and who punishes everybody who doesn't follow him like he wants to. Along with all of bullsh*t, hurtful traditions and teachings which are all just interpretations of backwards men who hide behind devotion and "love". I'm just sad what people are willing to do just for the sake of religion and it's tradition. There is no other reason for cutting and sucking boys penis other than tradition, there is no other reason for hating people of other sexual orientation other than tradition, there is no other reason for jews and Palestinians behaving like animals to each other than tradition. I know what great potential religions and their teachings can have but we have to stop this awful interpretations of their teachings and start once again now with rational analysis of their material, leaning on the teachings of humanities that we already have in 21st century (psychology, sociology, philosophy). Religions didn't survive to the 21st century because they encapsulate the best life a person can live. They survived in all their forms because they close off and shut off most of the outside, secular influences while they continue to indoctrinate next generations of their followers. Rabi of ultra orthodox jews in Israel said it himself - if our boys go to an army, they will become more and more secular and then run away from our community. Well doesn't that just show on how fragile legs your teachings stand on? If the boys cannot live and function with your religion in real life (or even the army), only in a closed of community, in your little bubble of life and what you want it to be - sorry you really need to think through your teaching. This is just my opinion. Badly informed and probably not well written argument which relies on little research and mostly just impressions. I just want to start a discussion. Would really like some man educated in theology to give his take on this problem. My point at the end is - some (if not most) religions need really serious reformation, if not on an almost destruction of its building blocks. My thought of 15-20 years of ban of religion was just thought experiment. Assistant:Old religions rely on tradition, but the existence of new religions debunks your thesis. People want to believe in something. If they are not told what to believe, they will invent it anyway.

Human: CMV: Most religions, as we know them, now relies on perpetual indoctrination of children who as adults (understandably) cannot imagine believing and living in any other way than the religion taught them If, hypothetically, for the following 15 to 20 years no one would teach any kind of religion to anybody. That's the end of most western and middle eastern religion as we know it. It would collapse in a matter of decades as the other generations would die off, with no one to continue the legacy. Meanwhile all the people would have to rely on teachings of humanities - psychology, sociology, philosophy etc... All religions have some really important values and teachings to take from them, spheres where even secular humanities cannot yet reach. But they also have, excuse my language a lot of bullsh*t. A tradition for the sake of tradition. What I believe would happen is that people would pick up the corpses of the religion and pick from them what really has value and meaning to them - relying also on the teachings they would already know from humanities while adopting religious values and meanings. This would give rise to value systems and meanings (love, justice, beauty, etc...) without the grand "papa" who behaves like a warlord who needs to be pleased and who punishes everybody who doesn't follow him like he wants to. Along with all of bullsh*t, hurtful traditions and teachings which are all just interpretations of backwards men who hide behind devotion and "love". I'm just sad what people are willing to do just for the sake of religion and it's tradition. There is no other reason for cutting and sucking boys penis other than tradition, there is no other reason for hating people of other sexual orientation other than tradition, there is no other reason for jews and Palestinians behaving like animals to each other than tradition. I know what great potential religions and their teachings can have but we have to stop this awful interpretations of their teachings and start once again now with rational analysis of their material, leaning on the teachings of humanities that we already have in 21st century (psychology, sociology, philosophy). Religions didn't survive to the 21st century because they encapsulate the best life a person can live. They survived in all their forms because they close off and shut off most of the outside, secular influences while they continue to indoctrinate next generations of their followers. Rabi of ultra orthodox jews in Israel said it himself - if our boys go to an army, they will become more and more secular and then run away from our community. Well doesn't that just show on how fragile legs your teachings stand on? If the boys cannot live and function with your religion in real life (or even the army), only in a closed of community, in your little bubble of life and what you want it to be - sorry you really need to think through your teaching. This is just my opinion. Badly informed and probably not well written argument which relies on little research and mostly just impressions. I just want to start a discussion. Would really like some man educated in theology to give his take on this problem. My point at the end is - some (if not most) religions need really serious reformation, if not on an almost destruction of its building blocks. My thought of 15-20 years of ban of religion was just thought experiment. Assistant:Ignoring that most cultural identities of countries and nations are built on history and consequential religion, and that that's a very liberal use of "indoctrination", 20 years is nothing. A lot of people still believe in horoscopes and that's a much easier thing to debunk than religion but it's too deep-rooted to disappear any time soon. And still religion is as much a belief system as... well sociology, philosophy (frankly philosophy is a bunch of different systems) and psychology. Any one of them will disappear in some capacity if people stopn reiterating.

Human: CMV: Achieving a "colorblind" society with equality of opportunity is the ultimate ideal, but that might mean accepting differences in outcome for along time. However, temporarily pursuing equity and treating people differently based on their color/ sex in order to combat preexisting oppressive racism and sexism to push towards equality of outcome (slavery reparations, quota hiring, etc) may be a good idea. The fundamental flaw of modern leftists like BLM, feminists, etc, is that they hold equity (equality of outcome) as the highest goal. Due to fundamental differences between men and women, and differences in culture between ethnic groups, in a hypothetical scenario where treatment of all individuals both individually and systemically is fair and equal, differences in outcome will persist due to personal choice due to the individuals and their inherent characteristics. The disparities we see today, for example Asian men leading in income, native and white men leading in suicide rate, and black women having the lowest suicide rate, may be be due to racism and oppression rather than individual choice/characteristics. While BLM and leftists in general want to move society away from racism and oppression they won't know when to stop cause they'll claim sexism exists until soldiers are 50% female (never gonna happen, its biology), and they'll claim racism exists until all the effects of historical differences regarding socioeconomic status between ethnicities (higher income in Jews, Asians, etc) have been completely smoothed out by time. If you know anything about history you know that Jews are going to continue being among the richest people in the US for a long time regardless of whether antisemitism is eradicated, and sadly the opposite is true of african and native americans regardless of whether racism is eradicated. Even if antisemitism is absolutely purged from society the generational wealth of Jews will continue persisting for many more hundreds of year as it already has. Likewise, even if hypothetically all racism ends, the generational wealth of BIPOC people will take a very long time to reach a level that is representative of the general population. That's literally what generational wealth MEANS, it means it takes many generations (centuries) to accumulate. Maybe for clarities' sake I could rephrase what I'm saying to be that even if all bias and prejudice and stigma and unconscious bias etc was completely and entirely eliminated from society there would still be differences in outcome between men and women and different races, due to biological differences between men and women and cultural/historic factors between ethnicities. Why is this a worthwhile conversation to have? Because: equity is a false ideal, and: equality of opportunity with a combination of eradicating conscious and unconscious bias, is the only way to go, contrary to what SJWs say. SOurces; traits between men/women: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887\_Culture\_consumption\_in\_Sweden\_The\_stability\_of\_gender\_differences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676\_Gender\_Differences\_in\_Personality\_Traits\_Across\_Cultures\_Robust\_and\_Surprising\_Findings https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221\_Why\_Can%27t\_a\_Man\_Be\_More\_Like\_a\_Woman\_Sex\_Differences\_in\_Big\_Five\_Personality\_Traits\_Across\_55\_Cultures\_vol\_94\_pg\_168\_2008 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijop.12265 Suicide: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/suicide/rates\_1999\_2017.htm Income by ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_ethnic\_groups\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_household\_income Income by religion: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/ Assistant:A lot of the equity discussions are really just attempts to eliminate the existing barriers. I don’t think most progressives want absolute equality as in communism, but the ideal goal is to make it where skin color is no longer a detrimental factor. Right now skin color is still a statistical predictor for many assets of life. We don’t want that. In some cases, that does mean affirmative steps to combat systemic biases or failures. Also, what’s wrong with trying to mitigate the effects of generational wealth? We can’t go back in time but we can certainly make it easier for future generations to experience socio-economic movement and make it so that their lower historical wealth doesn’t impact their access to schools and other services and opportunities.

Human: CMV: Achieving a "colorblind" society with equality of opportunity is the ultimate ideal, but that might mean accepting differences in outcome for along time. However, temporarily pursuing equity and treating people differently based on their color/ sex in order to combat preexisting oppressive racism and sexism to push towards equality of outcome (slavery reparations, quota hiring, etc) may be a good idea. The fundamental flaw of modern leftists like BLM, feminists, etc, is that they hold equity (equality of outcome) as the highest goal. Due to fundamental differences between men and women, and differences in culture between ethnic groups, in a hypothetical scenario where treatment of all individuals both individually and systemically is fair and equal, differences in outcome will persist due to personal choice due to the individuals and their inherent characteristics. The disparities we see today, for example Asian men leading in income, native and white men leading in suicide rate, and black women having the lowest suicide rate, may be be due to racism and oppression rather than individual choice/characteristics. While BLM and leftists in general want to move society away from racism and oppression they won't know when to stop cause they'll claim sexism exists until soldiers are 50% female (never gonna happen, its biology), and they'll claim racism exists until all the effects of historical differences regarding socioeconomic status between ethnicities (higher income in Jews, Asians, etc) have been completely smoothed out by time. If you know anything about history you know that Jews are going to continue being among the richest people in the US for a long time regardless of whether antisemitism is eradicated, and sadly the opposite is true of african and native americans regardless of whether racism is eradicated. Even if antisemitism is absolutely purged from society the generational wealth of Jews will continue persisting for many more hundreds of year as it already has. Likewise, even if hypothetically all racism ends, the generational wealth of BIPOC people will take a very long time to reach a level that is representative of the general population. That's literally what generational wealth MEANS, it means it takes many generations (centuries) to accumulate. Maybe for clarities' sake I could rephrase what I'm saying to be that even if all bias and prejudice and stigma and unconscious bias etc was completely and entirely eliminated from society there would still be differences in outcome between men and women and different races, due to biological differences between men and women and cultural/historic factors between ethnicities. Why is this a worthwhile conversation to have? Because: equity is a false ideal, and: equality of opportunity with a combination of eradicating conscious and unconscious bias, is the only way to go, contrary to what SJWs say. SOurces; traits between men/women: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223529887\_Culture\_consumption\_in\_Sweden\_The\_stability\_of\_gender\_differences https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11825676\_Gender\_Differences\_in\_Personality\_Traits\_Across\_Cultures\_Robust\_and\_Surprising\_Findings https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24001221\_Why\_Can%27t\_a\_Man\_Be\_More\_Like\_a\_Woman\_Sex\_Differences\_in\_Big\_Five\_Personality\_Traits\_Across\_55\_Cultures\_vol\_94\_pg\_168\_2008 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijop.12265 Suicide: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/suicide/rates\_1999\_2017.htm Income by ethnicity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_ethnic\_groups\_in\_the\_United\_States\_by\_household\_income Income by religion: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/ Assistant:Why are you bringing up BLM when you're talking about all soldiers being 50% female? BLM has nothing to do with feminism at all, let alone women in the military. The problem with the argument that fundamental differences between different sexes and races would cause different outcomes even in a completely sex/raceblind world is that the data you use to justify that data comes in what is clearly not a sex/raceblind world. Even in places like Sweden that are close still aren't completely free of bias. Plus, I'd say that if generational wealth matters at all, we haven't reached full equality, regardless of if racism and sexism are completely solved or not.

Human: Getting mail for a dead maybe-former resident. University sending the mail insists he's alive, that he lives in my unit, and that they'll keep sending them. [CA, USA] I rent a condo near a university in suburban LA county. I've lived here for several years. Recently, I started getting mail for a man who doesn't live here. The mail is from the university, and they appear to be retirement benefits from the information printed on the envelope. Often times it's just single envelopes with what I assume are checks inside, but other times it's sizable boxes filled with tons of paperwork explaining benefits. One time it was a large package; I obviously didn't open it, so I have no idea what it contained. Each time, I've written "return to sender, nobody here by that name" on envelopes or boxes, and my mailman has taken them away. Sometimes the return-to-sendered envelopes come back, with the mailman explaining that the college mailroom told him that *yes,* This Particular Man *does* live here. He doesn't! My landlords don't recognize the name, and they've owned the unit for over a decade. My elderly HOA president hasn't heard of This Particular Man either, and he's lived in the complex for a loooooooong time. I looked into This Particular Man, and found that he's **dead**. I called the university department sending the retirement checks and told them that I'm erroneously receiving mail for a dead former employee who never lived in my unit, but they keep insisting that NO, he's alive, and he lives with me, and that they will keep sending the mail. I can't find any contact info for his family, so I don't have a forwarding address. The university wouldn't let me know if he had any other contact information. When I talked to my mailman, they told me to talk to the university, which obviously got me nowhere. What is my responsibility, as the renter of this unit, for this mail? If one of the packages gets stolen off of my doorstep, am I liable (though who would care)? I feel weird receiving checks for somebody every two weeks; am I obligated by law to do anything more with them than what I'm doing (returning to sender every time)? Is there any way I can get the university to stop erroneously sending this mail so whoever is supposed to be getting these checks does? Assistant:I work for a similar university office in a different state, where we update records for any alumni, staff, friend of the University etc. We comb records daily to keep up to date on how to contact people and life events, especially for donations. If you can find something like alumni relations you may be able to find someone else who can help.

Human: Getting mail for a dead maybe-former resident. University sending the mail insists he's alive, that he lives in my unit, and that they'll keep sending them. [CA, USA] I rent a condo near a university in suburban LA county. I've lived here for several years. Recently, I started getting mail for a man who doesn't live here. The mail is from the university, and they appear to be retirement benefits from the information printed on the envelope. Often times it's just single envelopes with what I assume are checks inside, but other times it's sizable boxes filled with tons of paperwork explaining benefits. One time it was a large package; I obviously didn't open it, so I have no idea what it contained. Each time, I've written "return to sender, nobody here by that name" on envelopes or boxes, and my mailman has taken them away. Sometimes the return-to-sendered envelopes come back, with the mailman explaining that the college mailroom told him that *yes,* This Particular Man *does* live here. He doesn't! My landlords don't recognize the name, and they've owned the unit for over a decade. My elderly HOA president hasn't heard of This Particular Man either, and he's lived in the complex for a loooooooong time. I looked into This Particular Man, and found that he's **dead**. I called the university department sending the retirement checks and told them that I'm erroneously receiving mail for a dead former employee who never lived in my unit, but they keep insisting that NO, he's alive, and he lives with me, and that they will keep sending the mail. I can't find any contact info for his family, so I don't have a forwarding address. The university wouldn't let me know if he had any other contact information. When I talked to my mailman, they told me to talk to the university, which obviously got me nowhere. What is my responsibility, as the renter of this unit, for this mail? If one of the packages gets stolen off of my doorstep, am I liable (though who would care)? I feel weird receiving checks for somebody every two weeks; am I obligated by law to do anything more with them than what I'm doing (returning to sender every time)? Is there any way I can get the university to stop erroneously sending this mail so whoever is supposed to be getting these checks does? Assistant:You say you found out he is dead; have you sent that proof to the University? Was it an obituary, info from findagrave.com, and city death records? All of that might be enough to make them rethink him being alive and calculate when they actually talked to him last.

Human: CMV: Companies should not be allowed to ask for your Name, DOB, Gender, Race, or any other personally identifying information before the hiring decision has been made. ## Introduction and Reasoning: There is political discussion from various different factions about discriminatory hiring practices, but I think it's safe to say that discriminatory hiring practices (that is, hiring one person over another for any reason other than pure merit) hurts everyone. The most obvious accusation is that companies can employ racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory hiring practices, even if the hiring managers are doing it subconsciously. I remember seeing a study about how people who apply for jobs with, "black sounding," names were less likely to be hired. There are also things such as affirmative action or minority quotas, which have been criticized for being racist practices. There are other types of discrimination though, which aren't talked about as much. Political discrimination is a good example, I have seen TikToks and posts on other sites where hiring managers or recruiters talk about how they scan their potential employees' Social Media pages, and choose not to hire them based on political beliefs. This creates a society that is hostile towards anyone with political beliefs that aren't in line with what corporations expect, and it goes against the principals of free speech and democracy. To be clear, I'm not talking about free speech *the law*, I mean free speech *the idea*. The first amendment is great, but there are many ways that it falls short in the modern age, and it could totally be expanded to include more types of speech, and speech in different mediums. ## Implementation: With my reasoning being laid out, let's talk about the implementation of this idea. The most obvious weakness that I think others would point out with this idea is that when a company does in-person interviews, they would obviously be able to see the person. My solution to that is what I think will be the most controversial aspect of this idea: With companies collecting personally identifiable information being outlawed before the hiring decision has been made, that would also make in person, face-to-face interviews illegal. Now, I get that in person, face-to-face interviews are a big part of the hiring process for most companies, however, I'm confident that alternatives which replicate many of the benefits of this could be used instead. Obviously the internet could be used; an interview could be conducted via messaging or voice chat, for example. With the resources of hundreds of massive companies combined, however, I'm sure they could come up with an even more creative solution that still respects privacy and the new restrictions imposed. Some detail/information that hiring managers get from an in person interview would, of course, be sacrificed. That's definitely a sacrifice that's worth it though, because on one hand, they might get slightly less information in the hiring process, but on the other hand, it would eliminate hiring discrimination almost in it's entirety, which is a societal benefit that greatly outweighs the cost. Of course questions about things such as background checks can be brought up as well. My solution to that is a multi-step hiring process. Once companies have decided to hire someone, if a background check is needed, that person can be passed to phase-2. At this point, the only reason that the company is allowed to reverse their hiring decision would be if their background check comes back, and turns out they have a criminal record that makes them a bad fit for the job. Another weakness with this idea is that the company might fire someone for a discriminatory reason after that person has been hired. The solution to this is to have stronger laws against wrongful termination with much more steep penalties. Unions would also be a great defense against this, if we could get rid of some of those pesky laws that prevent workplace organization. ## Conclusion: I could continue to list details about the implementation, but then the post would become even longer than it already is. It also reduces the amount of things that can be discussed in the comments, which is no fun. The whole point is for other people to poke holes in this idea, so that I can either strengthen it and create a more concrete basis for it, or scrap it as a bad idea and go back to the drawing board. I've had this idea for a long time, and I just think about it every time I hear about discriminatory hiring practices, so I'm excited to discuss it regardless of the outcome, whether it gets absolutely destroyed, or if I end up believing in it even stronger than I did initially. Assistant:So you're expecting companies to hire people not knowing anything about their prior work history or their prior educational history?

Human: CMV: Companies should not be allowed to ask for your Name, DOB, Gender, Race, or any other personally identifying information before the hiring decision has been made. ## Introduction and Reasoning: There is political discussion from various different factions about discriminatory hiring practices, but I think it's safe to say that discriminatory hiring practices (that is, hiring one person over another for any reason other than pure merit) hurts everyone. The most obvious accusation is that companies can employ racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory hiring practices, even if the hiring managers are doing it subconsciously. I remember seeing a study about how people who apply for jobs with, "black sounding," names were less likely to be hired. There are also things such as affirmative action or minority quotas, which have been criticized for being racist practices. There are other types of discrimination though, which aren't talked about as much. Political discrimination is a good example, I have seen TikToks and posts on other sites where hiring managers or recruiters talk about how they scan their potential employees' Social Media pages, and choose not to hire them based on political beliefs. This creates a society that is hostile towards anyone with political beliefs that aren't in line with what corporations expect, and it goes against the principals of free speech and democracy. To be clear, I'm not talking about free speech *the law*, I mean free speech *the idea*. The first amendment is great, but there are many ways that it falls short in the modern age, and it could totally be expanded to include more types of speech, and speech in different mediums. ## Implementation: With my reasoning being laid out, let's talk about the implementation of this idea. The most obvious weakness that I think others would point out with this idea is that when a company does in-person interviews, they would obviously be able to see the person. My solution to that is what I think will be the most controversial aspect of this idea: With companies collecting personally identifiable information being outlawed before the hiring decision has been made, that would also make in person, face-to-face interviews illegal. Now, I get that in person, face-to-face interviews are a big part of the hiring process for most companies, however, I'm confident that alternatives which replicate many of the benefits of this could be used instead. Obviously the internet could be used; an interview could be conducted via messaging or voice chat, for example. With the resources of hundreds of massive companies combined, however, I'm sure they could come up with an even more creative solution that still respects privacy and the new restrictions imposed. Some detail/information that hiring managers get from an in person interview would, of course, be sacrificed. That's definitely a sacrifice that's worth it though, because on one hand, they might get slightly less information in the hiring process, but on the other hand, it would eliminate hiring discrimination almost in it's entirety, which is a societal benefit that greatly outweighs the cost. Of course questions about things such as background checks can be brought up as well. My solution to that is a multi-step hiring process. Once companies have decided to hire someone, if a background check is needed, that person can be passed to phase-2. At this point, the only reason that the company is allowed to reverse their hiring decision would be if their background check comes back, and turns out they have a criminal record that makes them a bad fit for the job. Another weakness with this idea is that the company might fire someone for a discriminatory reason after that person has been hired. The solution to this is to have stronger laws against wrongful termination with much more steep penalties. Unions would also be a great defense against this, if we could get rid of some of those pesky laws that prevent workplace organization. ## Conclusion: I could continue to list details about the implementation, but then the post would become even longer than it already is. It also reduces the amount of things that can be discussed in the comments, which is no fun. The whole point is for other people to poke holes in this idea, so that I can either strengthen it and create a more concrete basis for it, or scrap it as a bad idea and go back to the drawing board. I've had this idea for a long time, and I just think about it every time I hear about discriminatory hiring practices, so I'm excited to discuss it regardless of the outcome, whether it gets absolutely destroyed, or if I end up believing in it even stronger than I did initially. Assistant:Realistically, I think it wouldn't make a difference because you could gather enough "non personally identifiable information" to identify someone if you really wanted to. For example, it would be valid to want to know where someone went to school and what degree they got - these are things which correspond with having the proper credentials to do the job. That information alone already narrows down who the applicant is from 7.5 billion people to a few tens of thousands at the most. Then it would certainly be valid to ask someone's job experience history, after all, that too is of interest when it comes to evaluating your ability to perform the job. So now they know your prior places of employment, your college, and what degree you got. That information alone plus Google is probably enough to uniquely identify most people. You can imagine that a few more basic questions would be enough to single out even the most ubiquitous of applicants. Sure, you could make it illegal to try to identify an applicant based on their answers to these types of questions... But we all know that wouldn't stop anybody. The hiring manager could do the googling from their phone while on the toilet, it's that easy.

Human: CMV: We need to make sure that the Stop Asian Hate movement does not make CCP’s image more favorable. Moreover, we need to differentiate between the Asian people and the CCP government. I am from Hong Kong, ardent supporter of the recent democratic movements, and I have identified a trend. If you are (in the US context) progressive, pro-BLM, anti-asian-racism, having an activist page with a tumblr/instagram aesthetic.. You are more likely to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by the Chinese Communist Party. I’m only saying more likely. Just like what many say, “china is getting stronger by the day!” “Stop hating on china.” “China is the new superpower!” “China will be stronger than you will ever be.” “China has a full fledged e-currency system, alipay, wechat pay! do you have one?” “I just want to watch my c-drama, my chinese tiktokers.” While we be so very vocal on anti-asian crimes. Under the “strong” image created by the CCP: is the Uyghur genocide, the Hong Kong democracy movement rapidly suppressed - arrests of 47 democratic lawmakers and related persons; and also - Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Ivan Lam, they are all activists in jail, Also the national security law, uprisings in Maoming city, suppression of mongolian language education, death of Liu Xiaobo, censoring artists like Ai Weiwei, authors like Ma Jian, Arresting human rights defenders (lawyers) the disappearance of civil reporter Chen Qiushi... don’t they deserve people fighting for them? Rather than being nullified? Swept to the shadows? What this boils down to, is that people cannot differentiate between asian people and the CCP govermment. People think asian people are all the same, are all “east asian”, being yellow-skinned, and yes the CCP is also operated by people who are yellow skinned. East asian. Chinese. But they, CCP, are devils deep down. This is why making sure that the CCP’s image does not get any better is important. I have to apologize if “yellow skinned” is offensive to you in any way. Please educate me on how to better describe east asians, or if you want please let me know if you want it deleted. And yes! Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, some ethnicities in Central Asia, middle-easterners, are all asians! Asians do not deserve any hate crime committed against them. This is cruel, illegal. If your loved ones are killed or hurt by hate crimes, I am very, very sorry. But whilst we speak up for the victims of hate crime, do not let your empathy reach the CCP government. Actively, on your own volition, research on human rights violations, and other atrocities, in China, committed by the CCP. Do not rely on the media to spoon-feed you information. Because why? To quote a poem by Niemoller: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Assistant:I don't understand. I haven't seen any anti-Asian hate due to the CCP. Most people understand the difference between a population and their government - and that's just China. People in Myanmar where there was just a military coup, or in Viet Nam or in Japan, Korea, India, Bangladesh, etc. have even less to do with the CCP. It would be like blaming Argentinians for something the Brazilian government did. Different entities, different cultures, different languages. Supporting Asians is not supporting the CCP. Fighting the CCP does not mean fighting Asians. One can do both things.

Human: CMV: We need to make sure that the Stop Asian Hate movement does not make CCP’s image more favorable. Moreover, we need to differentiate between the Asian people and the CCP government. I am from Hong Kong, ardent supporter of the recent democratic movements, and I have identified a trend. If you are (in the US context) progressive, pro-BLM, anti-asian-racism, having an activist page with a tumblr/instagram aesthetic.. You are more likely to turn a blind eye to atrocities committed by the Chinese Communist Party. I’m only saying more likely. Just like what many say, “china is getting stronger by the day!” “Stop hating on china.” “China is the new superpower!” “China will be stronger than you will ever be.” “China has a full fledged e-currency system, alipay, wechat pay! do you have one?” “I just want to watch my c-drama, my chinese tiktokers.” While we be so very vocal on anti-asian crimes. Under the “strong” image created by the CCP: is the Uyghur genocide, the Hong Kong democracy movement rapidly suppressed - arrests of 47 democratic lawmakers and related persons; and also - Joshua Wong, Agnes Chow, Ivan Lam, they are all activists in jail, Also the national security law, uprisings in Maoming city, suppression of mongolian language education, death of Liu Xiaobo, censoring artists like Ai Weiwei, authors like Ma Jian, Arresting human rights defenders (lawyers) the disappearance of civil reporter Chen Qiushi... don’t they deserve people fighting for them? Rather than being nullified? Swept to the shadows? What this boils down to, is that people cannot differentiate between asian people and the CCP govermment. People think asian people are all the same, are all “east asian”, being yellow-skinned, and yes the CCP is also operated by people who are yellow skinned. East asian. Chinese. But they, CCP, are devils deep down. This is why making sure that the CCP’s image does not get any better is important. I have to apologize if “yellow skinned” is offensive to you in any way. Please educate me on how to better describe east asians, or if you want please let me know if you want it deleted. And yes! Indians, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, some ethnicities in Central Asia, middle-easterners, are all asians! Asians do not deserve any hate crime committed against them. This is cruel, illegal. If your loved ones are killed or hurt by hate crimes, I am very, very sorry. But whilst we speak up for the victims of hate crime, do not let your empathy reach the CCP government. Actively, on your own volition, research on human rights violations, and other atrocities, in China, committed by the CCP. Do not rely on the media to spoon-feed you information. Because why? To quote a poem by Niemoller: First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Assistant:I’d argue that the inevitable conflict with Taiwan will prevent people from viewing the ccp favorably. As for the premise of your title I think that it is helping to humanize Asian people in America who don’t often get the spotlight. I don’t see growing supports for the ccp government

Human: NY] My former employer refuses to provide me with a pay stub. Can I sue him for that? Hello there! ​ I know that it is not the best place to ask for legal advice. But I have no other option left on the table. Besides, I'm so fuckin mad at my boss that I have no idea what I should do in my case. I'm sorry for the harsh words, but I just dunno how to express all the bullshit my boss did to me. ​ The issue is that I've been working at one company for 5 years. I'm talking now specifically about my former employer. I never got a raise and was fed up with false promises that if I worked hard the next month, I would get a raise or a significant bonus. In the whole 5 years, I never got a big bonus or a raise. In the beginning, I understood that they had some financial problems and had to cut a lot of jobs. I was trying to be loyal and didn't leave them during the difficult period. I expected that my boss would appreciate this gesture and all my effort to help them to recover. But, he simply forgot all the kind things I did for that company. ​ Later, my flatmate told me that he wanted to move out of our place and rent a flat with his GF. Well, I understand that, and I can't stop him from being happy. But, on the other hand, I can't afford to rent this place by myself. I don't wanna get another flatmate either and adjust to his living habits. So, I started to look for a one-bedroom flat or a studio. Besides, I found a couple of options and almost signed a lease agreement with one landlord. ​ Another issue is that I started job hunting too. Each potential employer asks for a pay stub from my last place. But this bastard — my boss, doesn't want to give one. I tried to convince and threaten him, but he just laughed in my face, like I had no other option except for working for him for the rest of my life. I tried to find a solution and found this online service — [https://www.thepaystubs.com/. But I suppose this pay stub needs to be signed by my stupid boss, or can I submit an unsigned pay stub? ​ I know that there are so many questions, but I'm desperate... Assistant:Apparently one of the provisions of the NY wage theft protection act is that employers are legally required to provide a pay stub. https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/p715.pdf From the NY DOL: WAGE STATEMENTS Under the new law, employers must: 1. Give each employee a wage statement or pay stub each payday that lists all of the above payroll data plus: • Employee’s name • Employer’s name, address and phone number • Dates covered by the payment 2. Give any employee who asks a written explanation of how they computed wages. Employers that do not give wage statements may have to pay damages of up to $250 per day, per employee, unless they paid employees all wages required by law. (This stops at $5,000 per employee in civil lawsuits filed by employees.) Your remedy is to contact the NY DOL. however if you’re being paid under the table, then you could end up with tax issues.

Human: NY] My former employer refuses to provide me with a pay stub. Can I sue him for that? Hello there! ​ I know that it is not the best place to ask for legal advice. But I have no other option left on the table. Besides, I'm so fuckin mad at my boss that I have no idea what I should do in my case. I'm sorry for the harsh words, but I just dunno how to express all the bullshit my boss did to me. ​ The issue is that I've been working at one company for 5 years. I'm talking now specifically about my former employer. I never got a raise and was fed up with false promises that if I worked hard the next month, I would get a raise or a significant bonus. In the whole 5 years, I never got a big bonus or a raise. In the beginning, I understood that they had some financial problems and had to cut a lot of jobs. I was trying to be loyal and didn't leave them during the difficult period. I expected that my boss would appreciate this gesture and all my effort to help them to recover. But, he simply forgot all the kind things I did for that company. ​ Later, my flatmate told me that he wanted to move out of our place and rent a flat with his GF. Well, I understand that, and I can't stop him from being happy. But, on the other hand, I can't afford to rent this place by myself. I don't wanna get another flatmate either and adjust to his living habits. So, I started to look for a one-bedroom flat or a studio. Besides, I found a couple of options and almost signed a lease agreement with one landlord. ​ Another issue is that I started job hunting too. Each potential employer asks for a pay stub from my last place. But this bastard — my boss, doesn't want to give one. I tried to convince and threaten him, but he just laughed in my face, like I had no other option except for working for him for the rest of my life. I tried to find a solution and found this online service — [https://www.thepaystubs.com/. But I suppose this pay stub needs to be signed by my stupid boss, or can I submit an unsigned pay stub? ​ I know that there are so many questions, but I'm desperate... Assistant:We definitely need more details about how you have been paid in the past and if you have been filing your taxes using a W2. Also, I’ve never seen a signed paystub. Most paystubs are sent to the employee using an online service or (in the case of some small businesses) printed from a software like Quickbooks. They have never been signed in my experience. Only checks are signed.

Human: [TN] I am moving into a new residence. My new landlord is demanding I turn on the electricity for them to clean the residence 2 weeks before we move in. What are my options and rights? Thank you for your help. I have currently rented at my current house for 3 years. My current land lord sold this house and we have to be out of here by July 13. We scrambled to find a new place and found a new house. We are moving into our new home July 7, but our new landlord is demanding that we turn the power on early for her to clean the house. Obviously, me having to pay for her to use the electricity and water to clean up the house in preparation for our move in is total BS. I tried to play dumb and sent the following text message. "They won't let me turn it on until I move in. Since you are the property owner of the property you can surely get it put in your name for the days you need to clean. They (the electric company) told me since my move in date is the 7th that is when they can turn it on for me. She responded "Radicalvic1 (she used my first name like she's my mom. That really pissed me off) I hate to inform you but that's not how it works! I told you both that utilities needed to be turned on in your name. I already have other tenants with utilities on in there name waiting for us to clean up. That's not gonna fly with me." Anyway, here is the issues. I am extremely upset that I am required to pay for them to use the water and electricity to clean the apartment weeks before we move in. I don't want to push too hard. Where we live good, affordable housing is hard to come by. I am worried that she will decide to cancel the lease and return our deposit. Considering we have to be out of our current house with all of our stuff by July 13, this would be a massive problem. The lease I signed has no mention that I am required to turn on the power and water beforehand so that they can clean the house for us. My current plan is to record all of the information and cost of their cleaning. I will then take them to small claims court in a year when our lease is up. I can already tell I am going to have issues with this land lord, but I don't have any other options at this point in time. I am so frustrated by this situation and my new landlord. What are my rights and options? Thank you for your answers, I apologize if this is long. Assistant:People in this subreddit love to give the advice "look at the contract and tell the landlord to fuck off". And I may get downvoted for this. But unlike many, I'm a real lawyer. I like to talk to my clients about the cost benefit analysis of things. How much is two weeks of electricity going to cost? $50 at most? Are you willing to have her cancel the lease (which may be possible per the lease terms) over $50? Do you want to live there? Do you want to have a good relationship with your landlord? How much time, effort, and energy will it cost you to fight it?

Human: [TN] I am moving into a new residence. My new landlord is demanding I turn on the electricity for them to clean the residence 2 weeks before we move in. What are my options and rights? Thank you for your help. I have currently rented at my current house for 3 years. My current land lord sold this house and we have to be out of here by July 13. We scrambled to find a new place and found a new house. We are moving into our new home July 7, but our new landlord is demanding that we turn the power on early for her to clean the house. Obviously, me having to pay for her to use the electricity and water to clean up the house in preparation for our move in is total BS. I tried to play dumb and sent the following text message. "They won't let me turn it on until I move in. Since you are the property owner of the property you can surely get it put in your name for the days you need to clean. They (the electric company) told me since my move in date is the 7th that is when they can turn it on for me. She responded "Radicalvic1 (she used my first name like she's my mom. That really pissed me off) I hate to inform you but that's not how it works! I told you both that utilities needed to be turned on in your name. I already have other tenants with utilities on in there name waiting for us to clean up. That's not gonna fly with me." Anyway, here is the issues. I am extremely upset that I am required to pay for them to use the water and electricity to clean the apartment weeks before we move in. I don't want to push too hard. Where we live good, affordable housing is hard to come by. I am worried that she will decide to cancel the lease and return our deposit. Considering we have to be out of our current house with all of our stuff by July 13, this would be a massive problem. The lease I signed has no mention that I am required to turn on the power and water beforehand so that they can clean the house for us. My current plan is to record all of the information and cost of their cleaning. I will then take them to small claims court in a year when our lease is up. I can already tell I am going to have issues with this land lord, but I don't have any other options at this point in time. I am so frustrated by this situation and my new landlord. What are my rights and options? Thank you for your answers, I apologize if this is long. Assistant:Have you tried asking for a discount on next month's rent in exchange for signing up for utilities early?

Human: Wife had a brain aneurysm during surgery. Chances of survival and other questions. Age: 32 Sex: female Height: 5’2 Weight: 120 lb prior to pregnancy, unsure during pregnancy (was 33 weeks pregnant) Race: Caucasian Duration of complaint: history of 8 years but current complaint since the 27th of May Location (Geographic and on body): Hawaii, brain Any existing relevant medical issues (if any): had a stroke eight years ago and a small clot treated 3 years ago Current medications (if any): a seizure medication and a beta blocker (unsure of names) Include a photo if relevant (skin condition for example) Hello, it was suggested that I post here seeking a possible second opinion about my wife’s condition. 8 years ago when we were first married she suffered a stroke but made a complete recovery but was treated with a seizure medication and a beta blocker to prevent complications. She later had a small blood clot removed from her brain surgically with no complications 3 years ago. On the 25th of May when she was 33 weeks pregnant with our fourth child, she began experiencing symptoms that were similar to those of her first stroke with intense headache, numbness and had a small seizure. I took her to the emergency department and it was determined that she had a blood clot that needed to be operated on and that they needed to deliver the baby. They delivered the baby and transferred my wife to a different hospital where her clot could be surgically treated. The day before surgery she seemed normal. She was complaining of pain and numbness but seemed like herself still. She was smiling, making jokes and ordering me to go back to be with our baby rather than stay with her. On the 27th of May she underwent the surgery. During the surgery the aneurysm ruptured. It was a lot bigger than they previously thought. Currently, my wife is in ICU on life support. Her doctors say that most likely she won’t survive and that if she does the effects will be devastating and she won’t be the same. The chances of her surviving her first stroke were only 40% and the chances of having almost no side effects were less than 1% and she came through. She came through the second surgery with ease too. I guess what I’m asking is if there’s a chance that this could be wrong or that her brain could heal itself. I saw the MRI and I understand how serious it is, a large portion of her brain was decimated by the rupture, but I want to know if there’s any chance at all that she could recover from this. Can the brain heal itself from an aneurysm? I’m not ready to say goodbye to her. She’s so young and our kids are all under 7. Assistant:Neurologist here. It sounds like she had a dural venous sinus thrombosis at first - a blood clot in the veins surrounding the brain. Pregnant women tend to be at greater risk for clotting in general. Then it seems the doctors attempted to evacuate that clot but that there was a complication during the procedure. She isn't likely to have an independently-existing aneurysm which just so happened to rupture in the context of all of this. It's quite rare for 30-year-olds to have that problem anyway. The extent of injury from the bleed sounds severe, and it is impossible to say more without additional details and the images of the CT scans or MRI scans, but she is young and could recover, albeit with deficits ... And it'll be a long road ahead. I'm very sorry for this. It sounds like a horrible situation all around. I wish you and your family healing.

Human: Wife had a brain aneurysm during surgery. Chances of survival and other questions. Age: 32 Sex: female Height: 5’2 Weight: 120 lb prior to pregnancy, unsure during pregnancy (was 33 weeks pregnant) Race: Caucasian Duration of complaint: history of 8 years but current complaint since the 27th of May Location (Geographic and on body): Hawaii, brain Any existing relevant medical issues (if any): had a stroke eight years ago and a small clot treated 3 years ago Current medications (if any): a seizure medication and a beta blocker (unsure of names) Include a photo if relevant (skin condition for example) Hello, it was suggested that I post here seeking a possible second opinion about my wife’s condition. 8 years ago when we were first married she suffered a stroke but made a complete recovery but was treated with a seizure medication and a beta blocker to prevent complications. She later had a small blood clot removed from her brain surgically with no complications 3 years ago. On the 25th of May when she was 33 weeks pregnant with our fourth child, she began experiencing symptoms that were similar to those of her first stroke with intense headache, numbness and had a small seizure. I took her to the emergency department and it was determined that she had a blood clot that needed to be operated on and that they needed to deliver the baby. They delivered the baby and transferred my wife to a different hospital where her clot could be surgically treated. The day before surgery she seemed normal. She was complaining of pain and numbness but seemed like herself still. She was smiling, making jokes and ordering me to go back to be with our baby rather than stay with her. On the 27th of May she underwent the surgery. During the surgery the aneurysm ruptured. It was a lot bigger than they previously thought. Currently, my wife is in ICU on life support. Her doctors say that most likely she won’t survive and that if she does the effects will be devastating and she won’t be the same. The chances of her surviving her first stroke were only 40% and the chances of having almost no side effects were less than 1% and she came through. She came through the second surgery with ease too. I guess what I’m asking is if there’s a chance that this could be wrong or that her brain could heal itself. I saw the MRI and I understand how serious it is, a large portion of her brain was decimated by the rupture, but I want to know if there’s any chance at all that she could recover from this. Can the brain heal itself from an aneurysm? I’m not ready to say goodbye to her. She’s so young and our kids are all under 7. Assistant:I'm very sorry this is happening to you and your wife, I can't imagine how tough and scary it must be. It sounds grim based off of what the doctors have told you, but it's tough to say more without knowing the extent of her injury. If the doctors thought there was even a very very slight chance of meaningful recovery, it is unlikely that they would keep that information from you. The brain is an organ that is very vulnerable to injury and it is not good at healing itself. From what it sounds like, if she does not pass, then no, there is near zero likelihood that she would make any meaningful recovery. Sending positive thoughts your way.

Human: How can I get doctors to ignore my medical condition? (I know how bizarre that sounds!) 36F, 5'5", 145#, complaining of difficulty communicating with docs, been going on for a while, sometimes alcohol, no drugs. I have a genetic mutation called GCK-MODY which is kind of like lifelong prediabetes. The nice thing about it is that it doesn't require treatment, it doesn't lead to the usual complications associated with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, and my risk for developing other types of diabetes are the same as the general population. But damn, I wish I'd never been diagnosed with this. The problem is that every caregiver I encounter sees "diabetes" and thinks they know what that means. This mutation is rare enough that unfortunately, I am often a bit more informed than my doctors and nurses about the condition. I try to let them know I don't need counseling about nutrition and exercise, but I always seem to be put on the diabetes "conveyor belt" of treatment. This is extra unpleasant because I'm recovering from body image issues and disordered eating, so I can have irrational reactions to things said in these discussions. I understand this might sound like I'm ignoring some good advice, so I'll just put this out there that my A1c has been steady at 6.0 for the last six years, I have a healthy diet, and exercise 30-90 minutes six days a week. So it's infuriating for EVERY appointment, even with dentists and dermatologists and eye doctors, to start with a check in about how I'm managing my diabetes. I get my health care through a big organization with a central chart database, so every provider no matter what specialty sees "diabetes" before they even see my face. I had one obgyn say she would only manage my prenatal care if I agreed to an elective c-section, which is LUDICROUS even though pregnancy is the only time GCK-MODY might impact healthcare protocols. When I try to explain about the condition, they might seem to listen to me, but then they'll conclude the conversation with a tip about limiting carbs and getting enough exercise, or a mention of what complications I can expect from poorly managed diabetes. It's depressing and irrelevant. So docs of Reddit, could you give me some magic words that will nudge medical professionals off the "diabetes track" and into care that's appropriate for me? And by the way thank you so much for the hard work you do to keep people healthy. I really look up to medical professionals regardless of this complaint. Assistant:If diabetes is on the chart, most (primary care) docs need to mention it to you for standard of care during wellness visits . Just like smoking. Other than that idk, I haven’t heard of that mutation. Sounds neat but ya you need to have your PCP do some chart doctoring to remove diabetes as a a problem on the problem list. It won’t go away otherwise.

Human: How can I get doctors to ignore my medical condition? (I know how bizarre that sounds!) 36F, 5'5", 145#, complaining of difficulty communicating with docs, been going on for a while, sometimes alcohol, no drugs. I have a genetic mutation called GCK-MODY which is kind of like lifelong prediabetes. The nice thing about it is that it doesn't require treatment, it doesn't lead to the usual complications associated with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, and my risk for developing other types of diabetes are the same as the general population. But damn, I wish I'd never been diagnosed with this. The problem is that every caregiver I encounter sees "diabetes" and thinks they know what that means. This mutation is rare enough that unfortunately, I am often a bit more informed than my doctors and nurses about the condition. I try to let them know I don't need counseling about nutrition and exercise, but I always seem to be put on the diabetes "conveyor belt" of treatment. This is extra unpleasant because I'm recovering from body image issues and disordered eating, so I can have irrational reactions to things said in these discussions. I understand this might sound like I'm ignoring some good advice, so I'll just put this out there that my A1c has been steady at 6.0 for the last six years, I have a healthy diet, and exercise 30-90 minutes six days a week. So it's infuriating for EVERY appointment, even with dentists and dermatologists and eye doctors, to start with a check in about how I'm managing my diabetes. I get my health care through a big organization with a central chart database, so every provider no matter what specialty sees "diabetes" before they even see my face. I had one obgyn say she would only manage my prenatal care if I agreed to an elective c-section, which is LUDICROUS even though pregnancy is the only time GCK-MODY might impact healthcare protocols. When I try to explain about the condition, they might seem to listen to me, but then they'll conclude the conversation with a tip about limiting carbs and getting enough exercise, or a mention of what complications I can expect from poorly managed diabetes. It's depressing and irrelevant. So docs of Reddit, could you give me some magic words that will nudge medical professionals off the "diabetes track" and into care that's appropriate for me? And by the way thank you so much for the hard work you do to keep people healthy. I really look up to medical professionals regardless of this complaint. Assistant:You can just tell them that you have an endocrinologist who is closely managing this condition (whether you do or not)

Human: [MA] A restaurant manager purposefully switched out my celiac boyfriend's non-gluten meal with a normal one due to her disbelief that he was intolerant So I wrote about this last night just after it happened on another subreddit, and was advised by many of the comments to post here for some clarity on what recourse we could actually seek from this. I won't be writing out the whole incident again in as much detail as before, but if anyone reads my earlier post and thinks I've missed out something crucial, I'll be happy to edit the post. My boyfriend and I went out for lunch yesterday at a restaurant we have dined at before. My boyfriend is a diagnosed celiac and has been for many years, and when this place was recommended to us originally we were told the restaurant has specific gluten free items, and a specific area where such food was prepared to avoid cross contamination. We had a great time, and checked online before going back again yesterday and saw there were no complaints about people being 'glutened'. We arrived and ordered our meals, with my boyfriend specifically ordering a gluten free appetizer and entree, something that the waitress stated would come with a different sauce than advertised as the usual sauce was made in the general area of the kitchen and as such could be contaminated. We have no issues until the entrees come, when my boyfriend is served a dish of pasta with the advertised sauce. The waitress thinks that there's been a mix up in the kitchen, and comes back a minute later to say that someone else has received his gluten free pasta and the kitchen were rushing out a new order. She said she'd comp our appetizers and try to get us a free dessert, something she'd have to check with the shift manager on first. We see her go over to someone we assume is the manager, and then minutes later the manager storms over and asks us what kind of scam we're pulling. She says that the pasta was definitely gluten free, and we tell her that because of my boyfriend's celiacs we were told that the normal sauce wasn't safe and were waiting on a new dish with a new sauce. She started to complain about fad eating and sensitive customers (something we attributed to us being young and therefore 'millennials'). The waitress came over with the new dish with the new sauce, but the manager snatched it from her and started to walk it back into the kitchen saying that the 'precious table' couldn't be served something that she hadn't checked. She came back a few minutes later with what we assumed was the same dish and wouldn't give it over to my boyfriend initially, sarcastically asking if she wasn't us to drag away the chef from their job and tell us ourselves it was safe. We said it was fine, and rushed to finish so we could get out of there, probably finishing our meals in about 10 minutes. We flagged down our original waitress and asked for the check. She was a little while, and when she came back to us she looked like she'd seen a ghost. She told us that she'd gone back to the kitchen to check on another order, and noticed a pasta dish that looked exactly like the one my boyfriend had eaten sitting on the side. She asked if it needed to go out, and was told that it was the one the manager had brought back about 15 minutes before. The waitress said that she thought it had been brought back out to the customer, but was told that the manager had only come in and asked the chef working with pasta dishes to simply drain some normal, gluten-containing pasta and serve it with the gluten free sauce (my boyfriend had ordered a tortellini style dish and there was a similar one on the regular menu, so he wouldn't have noticed by appearance or taste alone). The waitress had comped all of the food on our check, but I insisted that we paid for my dishes, and tipped her well over the average, just in case she was penalised for the manager's mistakes. She went above and beyond what was necessary by telling us the truth to help us in preparing for my boyfriend's future 'glutened' state. My boyfriend started having a reaction just before we got home, and spent the rest of the evening locked in the bathroom having a serious response to eating a whole bowl of gluten. As of this morning the worst is over, but he is still having serious stomach pains that will be occurring for the next few weeks at the very least. On my original post, I was given many different types of advice; I was told to both post and not post a scathing review, to sue and not sue the restaurant, and to get the police involved over a 'poisoning' incident or just go all vigilante on the manager. As I have been looking after my boyfriend all night, I have not been able to research any further, legal ways of dealing with this. As a note, my boyfriend has not and will not be going to the ER or doctor about this - we already have everything we could possibly need to manage this, and it would simply be wasting time and money. However, if people advise that we need medical 'proof', we will be happy to pursue that. TL;DR - My celiac boyfriend was purposely 'glutened' by an irate manager who didn't believe he needed a specialist meal, who and what should we pursue to get this manager fired and the restaurant investigated? Assistant:I am not a lawyer, but I suggest putting in a complaint to your state's health inspector. They should take incidents such as this very seriously; just imagine what could happen if they start adding peanuts to the food of people who have peanut allergies!

Human: [MA] A restaurant manager purposefully switched out my celiac boyfriend's non-gluten meal with a normal one due to her disbelief that he was intolerant So I wrote about this last night just after it happened on another subreddit, and was advised by many of the comments to post here for some clarity on what recourse we could actually seek from this. I won't be writing out the whole incident again in as much detail as before, but if anyone reads my earlier post and thinks I've missed out something crucial, I'll be happy to edit the post. My boyfriend and I went out for lunch yesterday at a restaurant we have dined at before. My boyfriend is a diagnosed celiac and has been for many years, and when this place was recommended to us originally we were told the restaurant has specific gluten free items, and a specific area where such food was prepared to avoid cross contamination. We had a great time, and checked online before going back again yesterday and saw there were no complaints about people being 'glutened'. We arrived and ordered our meals, with my boyfriend specifically ordering a gluten free appetizer and entree, something that the waitress stated would come with a different sauce than advertised as the usual sauce was made in the general area of the kitchen and as such could be contaminated. We have no issues until the entrees come, when my boyfriend is served a dish of pasta with the advertised sauce. The waitress thinks that there's been a mix up in the kitchen, and comes back a minute later to say that someone else has received his gluten free pasta and the kitchen were rushing out a new order. She said she'd comp our appetizers and try to get us a free dessert, something she'd have to check with the shift manager on first. We see her go over to someone we assume is the manager, and then minutes later the manager storms over and asks us what kind of scam we're pulling. She says that the pasta was definitely gluten free, and we tell her that because of my boyfriend's celiacs we were told that the normal sauce wasn't safe and were waiting on a new dish with a new sauce. She started to complain about fad eating and sensitive customers (something we attributed to us being young and therefore 'millennials'). The waitress came over with the new dish with the new sauce, but the manager snatched it from her and started to walk it back into the kitchen saying that the 'precious table' couldn't be served something that she hadn't checked. She came back a few minutes later with what we assumed was the same dish and wouldn't give it over to my boyfriend initially, sarcastically asking if she wasn't us to drag away the chef from their job and tell us ourselves it was safe. We said it was fine, and rushed to finish so we could get out of there, probably finishing our meals in about 10 minutes. We flagged down our original waitress and asked for the check. She was a little while, and when she came back to us she looked like she'd seen a ghost. She told us that she'd gone back to the kitchen to check on another order, and noticed a pasta dish that looked exactly like the one my boyfriend had eaten sitting on the side. She asked if it needed to go out, and was told that it was the one the manager had brought back about 15 minutes before. The waitress said that she thought it had been brought back out to the customer, but was told that the manager had only come in and asked the chef working with pasta dishes to simply drain some normal, gluten-containing pasta and serve it with the gluten free sauce (my boyfriend had ordered a tortellini style dish and there was a similar one on the regular menu, so he wouldn't have noticed by appearance or taste alone). The waitress had comped all of the food on our check, but I insisted that we paid for my dishes, and tipped her well over the average, just in case she was penalised for the manager's mistakes. She went above and beyond what was necessary by telling us the truth to help us in preparing for my boyfriend's future 'glutened' state. My boyfriend started having a reaction just before we got home, and spent the rest of the evening locked in the bathroom having a serious response to eating a whole bowl of gluten. As of this morning the worst is over, but he is still having serious stomach pains that will be occurring for the next few weeks at the very least. On my original post, I was given many different types of advice; I was told to both post and not post a scathing review, to sue and not sue the restaurant, and to get the police involved over a 'poisoning' incident or just go all vigilante on the manager. As I have been looking after my boyfriend all night, I have not been able to research any further, legal ways of dealing with this. As a note, my boyfriend has not and will not be going to the ER or doctor about this - we already have everything we could possibly need to manage this, and it would simply be wasting time and money. However, if people advise that we need medical 'proof', we will be happy to pursue that. TL;DR - My celiac boyfriend was purposely 'glutened' by an irate manager who didn't believe he needed a specialist meal, who and what should we pursue to get this manager fired and the restaurant investigated? Assistant:You should contact a personal injury attorney. It seems like the manager intentionally ignored a serious condition. Imagine if this was a peanut allergy, how the response would be different. At the very least you should call the owner of the restaurant or corporate. Most importantly, I hope your BF is ok, its awful how you can run into people that act like serious health issues are "choices/fads"

Human: Why do papers often not include the calculations? Physics student here! As I come to a phase in my university curriculum where I have to read papers from time to time, I've come to notice that some of them are a pain in the *ss . Often the authors state equation after equation , result after result , not only without intermediate steps but often even without the starting point for their calculation. I think there is no reason to exclude these things from papers. I state here the reasons why i think the algebra is often omitted, and my "rebuttal" of them. 1. It's trivial. To the Authors maybe, but to somebody who specialises in a different field or a bachelor student like me? Not at all. 2. It disturbs the flow of reading. Put it into an appendix, or on your website and provide a link, do whatever. 3. It is a lot of work. You had to do the algebra anyways, how much worse can it be to write it out? Hire an intern to type it into latex or take pictures of the scribbles you made on a blackboard and put them on your facebook page. I doubt Research level math is done purely in your head so it should be possible to obtain it in written form somehow. 4. It's not necessary; what's important are the results not how we got there. No, the path to your results can give great insights about them. Also people not well acquainted with the field, who do not know the typical approximations or integral tricks can learn a lot by that. I don't think you should write a textbook about it, but just sketch it out, dammit! You don't have to solve the integral substitution by substitution but seeing the integral before you give me the end result would already be helpful. 5. It takes up so much space That is the only thing I understand. Printed journals should not come as a set of Lord-Of-The-Rings Type volumes. But do people still read papers on actual paper? I haven't met anyone who does. An impression I have is also, that papers i read from maybe 100 years ago where much "better" (according to my opinion anyways" in this respect. Is it true that this is a trend that developped over the last century? I have to add that of course there are great counterexamples where researchers actually show all intermediate steps. Also another question: how does peer review work on these papers. How do the reviewers check the math if the math isn't in the paper? Do they get additional material? I Hope this post is appropriate for this subreddit. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this. Assistant:>1. It's trivial. >To the Authors maybe, but to somebody who specialises in a different field or a bachelor student like me? Not at all. Papers are intended to be for the expert community, as a way for experts to share their work with other experts. It is therefore often assumed that the reader already knows a lot of what the author is talking about. For someone newer to the field, a reference should be used. References can be either graduate level textbooks or review papers. I do love it though when papers have nice and fleshed out appendices or supplement material.

Human: Why do papers often not include the calculations? Physics student here! As I come to a phase in my university curriculum where I have to read papers from time to time, I've come to notice that some of them are a pain in the *ss . Often the authors state equation after equation , result after result , not only without intermediate steps but often even without the starting point for their calculation. I think there is no reason to exclude these things from papers. I state here the reasons why i think the algebra is often omitted, and my "rebuttal" of them. 1. It's trivial. To the Authors maybe, but to somebody who specialises in a different field or a bachelor student like me? Not at all. 2. It disturbs the flow of reading. Put it into an appendix, or on your website and provide a link, do whatever. 3. It is a lot of work. You had to do the algebra anyways, how much worse can it be to write it out? Hire an intern to type it into latex or take pictures of the scribbles you made on a blackboard and put them on your facebook page. I doubt Research level math is done purely in your head so it should be possible to obtain it in written form somehow. 4. It's not necessary; what's important are the results not how we got there. No, the path to your results can give great insights about them. Also people not well acquainted with the field, who do not know the typical approximations or integral tricks can learn a lot by that. I don't think you should write a textbook about it, but just sketch it out, dammit! You don't have to solve the integral substitution by substitution but seeing the integral before you give me the end result would already be helpful. 5. It takes up so much space That is the only thing I understand. Printed journals should not come as a set of Lord-Of-The-Rings Type volumes. But do people still read papers on actual paper? I haven't met anyone who does. An impression I have is also, that papers i read from maybe 100 years ago where much "better" (according to my opinion anyways" in this respect. Is it true that this is a trend that developped over the last century? I have to add that of course there are great counterexamples where researchers actually show all intermediate steps. Also another question: how does peer review work on these papers. How do the reviewers check the math if the math isn't in the paper? Do they get additional material? I Hope this post is appropriate for this subreddit. I would be glad to hear your thoughts on this. Assistant:2. Actually some papers have online supplementary material, often containing more details on experiments and calculations.

Human: [Warhammer 40K] Why is everyone such an asshole? Basically, what I gathered about the different races of the WH40K universe is that everyone *(in a very general sense)* is a very stubborn and ignorant and intolerant asshole whose motivation is nothing more but to get you, slaughter you or swallow you whole. No diplomacy, no negotiations, no means of universal peace The Imperium of Man, a very religiously fanatic race, is willing to sacrifice millions to achieve victory *(known as a Pyrrhic victory)* and willing to exterminate races or even those suspicious of heresy or being tempted by the forces of Chaos because of sheer religious dogma and xenophobia The Eldar, a once very proud and psionically-superior race, is willing to be so incredibly arrogant and self-absorbed just so that they are willing to become the race to dominate the universe because they felt like they were gods before they eventually fucked Slaneesh into existence *(literally)* The Orks are basically a race of space orges, sometimes headstrong brutes, sometimes cunning, who are in their very nature to fight and commit wars, even amongst themselves. Why? Because that is how they are. It's like their nature really. No reason why, to be honest. The Tyranids are basically an unbelievably horrifying over-the-top collective animalistic race with no conscious or free will but willing kill and brutalise and tear the enemies into tiny pieces just to survive and live by their natural instincts. Basically a horrifying alien version of animals living by their instincts. The forces of Chaos, a more obscure and unbelievably cruel version of space hell were those who willingly want to join or were corrupted by the undeniable power of the Warp who willing to commit genocide and other atrocities for the worship of their Chaos gods who are embodiements of unbelievable power and influence and cruelty. Does not matter how much atrocities they do, they just have to do it The Dark Eldar, a more cruel version of the Eldar who willingly wanted to use their psionic powers because .... they just can. Screw morality or having a conscience, I can do whatever I fucking want becuase I got powers, bitches!! The Necrons, a very mysterious zombie-like robots who will do everything they can to make every single organism in the universe their bitch and do whatever the C'Tan tell them to do. Why? ... We do not really know The Tau Empire, a newest edition of the WH40K universe, a techonologically advanced and very promising empire, only to find out that they have a very strict hierarchy and there are mostly possessed and brainwashed by the Ethereals *(who we still don't know much about)*. Their motivations is basically like communism, wanting to do "good" for the universe ... or else. Join us for the greater good ... or else. Assistant:Reader's digest: - the Imperium is super-dogmatic because faith and oppression are the only things holding it together; it's super anti-xenos because that's one of the sacred tenets of its faith - the Eldar are dicks because they're on the brink of extinction; they have amazing precognitive powers so they use them to steer trouble in someone else's direction - the Orks are a degenerate form of a bio-engineered warrior race created precisely to do war and nothing else; they're not dicks, it's just how they were made - the Nids... nobody knows, they just om-nom everything - Chaos is that way because the Warp is a reflection of the material world and the titanic War in Heaven, millions of years ago, created so much RAGE, dickery and despair to literally mindrape the Realm of Souls into becoming Hell - the Dark Eldar torture-rape-murder people because their suffering replenishes their souls, which are slowly getting siphoned off by Slaanesh - the Necrons no longer follow the C'Tan (it's been retconned), they're now squabbling dynasties with superweapons and it's not clear that they're hellbent on galactic conquest - the T'au genuinely want to do good via the Greater Good, though as with all complex societies they have a fair amount of political bullshit and personal ambition mixed in

Human: [Warhammer 40K] Why is everyone such an asshole? Basically, what I gathered about the different races of the WH40K universe is that everyone *(in a very general sense)* is a very stubborn and ignorant and intolerant asshole whose motivation is nothing more but to get you, slaughter you or swallow you whole. No diplomacy, no negotiations, no means of universal peace The Imperium of Man, a very religiously fanatic race, is willing to sacrifice millions to achieve victory *(known as a Pyrrhic victory)* and willing to exterminate races or even those suspicious of heresy or being tempted by the forces of Chaos because of sheer religious dogma and xenophobia The Eldar, a once very proud and psionically-superior race, is willing to be so incredibly arrogant and self-absorbed just so that they are willing to become the race to dominate the universe because they felt like they were gods before they eventually fucked Slaneesh into existence *(literally)* The Orks are basically a race of space orges, sometimes headstrong brutes, sometimes cunning, who are in their very nature to fight and commit wars, even amongst themselves. Why? Because that is how they are. It's like their nature really. No reason why, to be honest. The Tyranids are basically an unbelievably horrifying over-the-top collective animalistic race with no conscious or free will but willing kill and brutalise and tear the enemies into tiny pieces just to survive and live by their natural instincts. Basically a horrifying alien version of animals living by their instincts. The forces of Chaos, a more obscure and unbelievably cruel version of space hell were those who willingly want to join or were corrupted by the undeniable power of the Warp who willing to commit genocide and other atrocities for the worship of their Chaos gods who are embodiements of unbelievable power and influence and cruelty. Does not matter how much atrocities they do, they just have to do it The Dark Eldar, a more cruel version of the Eldar who willingly wanted to use their psionic powers because .... they just can. Screw morality or having a conscience, I can do whatever I fucking want becuase I got powers, bitches!! The Necrons, a very mysterious zombie-like robots who will do everything they can to make every single organism in the universe their bitch and do whatever the C'Tan tell them to do. Why? ... We do not really know The Tau Empire, a newest edition of the WH40K universe, a techonologically advanced and very promising empire, only to find out that they have a very strict hierarchy and there are mostly possessed and brainwashed by the Ethereals *(who we still don't know much about)*. Their motivations is basically like communism, wanting to do "good" for the universe ... or else. Join us for the greater good ... or else. Assistant:The Eldar were Gods of their own domain. Built by the old ones to be perfect. They fell to hedonism solely become they had already conquered and perfected everything else in life. Every Eldar is objectively better than most other races and now you expect them to grovel and come hat in hand to those lesser races asking for help? The orks arnt people, they're a bio weapon running out of control. Also built by the old ones their entire point of existing is to war. There are no ork poets, no ork philosophers. Every instinct is designed to make them the best warrior possible. Tyranids are bugs that seek only to feed and multiply. Thats it. There's no deeper reason to them beyond they're incredibly adaptive and successful animals that are doing what every animal does. Humans got absolutely fucked during the Age of Strife. Like edge of extinction fucked. And all those nice Xenos species, that utopian stark trek fantasy that had been going on? Once the chips were down they all turned on humanity. The grand ideals were ground into the dirt at the first sign of danger. Humanity survived by the skin of its teeth but they learned an important lesson. Trust not the Xenos to live because they will turn on you.

Human: My long term girlfriend and I have split up and need to sell our house. She believes she is entitled to a larger cut due to her income. (Missouri, USA) We have lived together for 6 years. Both of our names are on the deed. I put down the down payment of $4K. I had the savings and higher credit score needed, but she had the income. When we purchased the house she made roughly three times what I made, so we agreed that I would pay the utilities and vehicle insurance and she would pay the house payment. Initially this was roughly a 70/30 split. A year later, this went to a 60/40 split and I also got a raise. For the last year it has been nearly 50/50. For almost 4 of the 6 years we had a roommate that typically gave his rent to me and I would use it on whatever was needed. Whether that was bills, groceries, maintenance, putting it in my savings account, or entertainment for the both of us. His total contribution was about $16K. We had initially discussed putting this money into a separate joint account, but never followed through with this. The work done to the house was split pretty close to 50/50, and that we agreed on. We both paid for enhancements and contributed labor to projects. Now that we are selling, she has informed me that she believes I am only entitled to a 30% cut of the profit because that was my financial contribution. We expect to profit approximately $100K on the house. I was under the impression that we were equal partners. I always considered everything as "ours". We never had anything in writing and at no point in the last 6 years did she ever ask me to pay more or ask for financial assistance in any way. We split groceries, we split entertainment, we split everything. When her truck broke down, she drove my truck and I purchased a new vehicle. This allowed her to pay down her student loans quicker and I took on the debt of a car payment. I never asked for reimbursement for the use of the truck. She states that, since our roommate paid me most of the rent money, she never received her "cut" of that money. She did take it from time to time, but the majority of the time it went to me. In my opinion, this was passive income that allowed us to live at the comfort level we did by paying for projects around the house, bills, groceries, etc. I would like to avoid having to hire lawyers, so my offer is as follows: A 55/45 split of the house profit. This will net her approximately $10,000 more than I will receive. Essentially, I'm giving her $5000 of my cut to avoid having to hire lawyers. I am pretty certain she is going to decline this offer. She has previously said she may be willing to entertain a 60/40 split, but I don't feel that this is a fair number. However, I don't want to drag this out and spend more on lawyers than is worth. What are my options? Assistant:Because of the (illegal) renter that is a main part of your argument, you really don't want this to go to court. Offer the 45/55 split, and if she doesn't take it then settle for the 40/60 If you're really set on the 45/55, you're gonna need to hire a lawyer.

Human: My long term girlfriend and I have split up and need to sell our house. She believes she is entitled to a larger cut due to her income. (Missouri, USA) We have lived together for 6 years. Both of our names are on the deed. I put down the down payment of $4K. I had the savings and higher credit score needed, but she had the income. When we purchased the house she made roughly three times what I made, so we agreed that I would pay the utilities and vehicle insurance and she would pay the house payment. Initially this was roughly a 70/30 split. A year later, this went to a 60/40 split and I also got a raise. For the last year it has been nearly 50/50. For almost 4 of the 6 years we had a roommate that typically gave his rent to me and I would use it on whatever was needed. Whether that was bills, groceries, maintenance, putting it in my savings account, or entertainment for the both of us. His total contribution was about $16K. We had initially discussed putting this money into a separate joint account, but never followed through with this. The work done to the house was split pretty close to 50/50, and that we agreed on. We both paid for enhancements and contributed labor to projects. Now that we are selling, she has informed me that she believes I am only entitled to a 30% cut of the profit because that was my financial contribution. We expect to profit approximately $100K on the house. I was under the impression that we were equal partners. I always considered everything as "ours". We never had anything in writing and at no point in the last 6 years did she ever ask me to pay more or ask for financial assistance in any way. We split groceries, we split entertainment, we split everything. When her truck broke down, she drove my truck and I purchased a new vehicle. This allowed her to pay down her student loans quicker and I took on the debt of a car payment. I never asked for reimbursement for the use of the truck. She states that, since our roommate paid me most of the rent money, she never received her "cut" of that money. She did take it from time to time, but the majority of the time it went to me. In my opinion, this was passive income that allowed us to live at the comfort level we did by paying for projects around the house, bills, groceries, etc. I would like to avoid having to hire lawyers, so my offer is as follows: A 55/45 split of the house profit. This will net her approximately $10,000 more than I will receive. Essentially, I'm giving her $5000 of my cut to avoid having to hire lawyers. I am pretty certain she is going to decline this offer. She has previously said she may be willing to entertain a 60/40 split, but I don't feel that this is a fair number. However, I don't want to drag this out and spend more on lawyers than is worth. What are my options? Assistant:Get a consult with a real estate attorney to understand what would happen in a partition sale. Paying more of certain costs, how the rental profit is shared can adjust how much one party will receive, but the specifics vary.

Human: CMV: Feminism and “men’s rights” can and should coexist. Ok, first let me state that I am a male. I have identified as a “feminist ally” since college. I am happily married to an awesome woman who I know is the better and stronger human of the two of us. We have one child - a son, whom we both fear will grow up with a target on his head simply for being a male. I’d fear for the way society would treat my daughter if I had one, but for separate reasons. I am posting this to see if I can open up my perspective on this issue. I’m super, super frustrated with how people around me talk about men’s rights and feminism. It seems to me that there are compassionate, reasonable men and women on both sides bringing up issues unique to men and issues unique to women. Then there are idiots spewing an anti-man or anti-woman dogma who get held up as examples of the other side and whenever this happens all reasonable discourse stops. I recently had a conversation in which a feminist told me that she was super concerned about this dude she knows talking about some men’s rights stuff because men’s rights is just a “distraction” and pulls resources away from the real inequity in society. I was shocked. Clearly there are plenty of reasons to be a feminist today. Lots of work that is still needed to create a society that is not run by penises. But to be so laser focused on women’s issues that you view his (mostly legitimate) points as nothing more than a distraction is indicative of a lack of true empathy. There are plenty of individual ways in which it is harder to be a man in the USA than it is to be a woman. Overall most women probably have it harder than most men. But certainly some women have way easier lives and experience far more privilege than some men, and this particular lady is one of them. And I think the result of ignoring some of these concerns is to deepen the divide between the two groups. If either one started acknowledging the other’s concerns and making an effort to understand they would likely find that they agreed on more than they disagreed. At present I can’t call myself a feminist ally anymore, and well, I’ve never thought of myself as a men’s rights guy either. It’s only the fringe members of these groups being provocative, but the vast majority of feminists and men’s rights activists completely ignore the other side, and that’s stupid. I’m tired. So tired of trying to promote equality within my own life, learn the right ways to think about and talk about every issue and yet always feel like an outsider. Screw tribalism. I’d rather be scorned by women and men, and the political right and left alike and try to treat every individual I meet with empathy and respect and try not to assume things about people based on their sex or anything else about them for that matter. (Ha, which is exhausting because the human brain wants to stereotype the crap out of everything - but I’m going to keep trying). Change my view: feminism and men’s rights should coexist (listen to each other, acknowledge each other’s different experiences, and work together to create a just and equal society). Assistant:The issue is not fighting for Men's Rights. There are plenty of feminist organizations that do so. In fact, one of the great champions of Men's Rights in the court room was none other than [renowned feminist Ruth Bader Ginsburg] (https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1993/07/05/mens-rights). The problem is groups that identify as the Men's Rights movement almost uniformly being a cover for outright misogyny and anti-women's rights. This has caused the movement under that specific title to be seen as a hate group, because most of the main figures and groups involved *actually are hate groups*. This is similar to the phrase "White Pride". Inherently, there is nothing wrong with enjoying elements of European and White Culture. Most of us do. Many white people are proud of their country of origin and that's okay as well. However, the phrase "White Pride" was co-opted by actual White Supremacists and bigots to the point where the phrase is pretty much indistinguishable from hate groups. The problem is that the phrase "Men's Rights" has in and of itself become a slogan of bigots. Those who care about actual male issues who aren't bigots often support Men's issues, but never use that phrase to identify themselves due to association of the phrase with actual bigots. For example, [here is a link to tons of feminist resources speaking out specifically about men] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/3syhda/a_list_of_feminist_resources_tackling_mens_issues/) While I'm sure there's plenty of misandrists out there, most of the intellectual and social leaders of the feminist movement believe that society's current gender role structure is just as damaging to men as it is to women

Human: CMV: Feminism and “men’s rights” can and should coexist. Ok, first let me state that I am a male. I have identified as a “feminist ally” since college. I am happily married to an awesome woman who I know is the better and stronger human of the two of us. We have one child - a son, whom we both fear will grow up with a target on his head simply for being a male. I’d fear for the way society would treat my daughter if I had one, but for separate reasons. I am posting this to see if I can open up my perspective on this issue. I’m super, super frustrated with how people around me talk about men’s rights and feminism. It seems to me that there are compassionate, reasonable men and women on both sides bringing up issues unique to men and issues unique to women. Then there are idiots spewing an anti-man or anti-woman dogma who get held up as examples of the other side and whenever this happens all reasonable discourse stops. I recently had a conversation in which a feminist told me that she was super concerned about this dude she knows talking about some men’s rights stuff because men’s rights is just a “distraction” and pulls resources away from the real inequity in society. I was shocked. Clearly there are plenty of reasons to be a feminist today. Lots of work that is still needed to create a society that is not run by penises. But to be so laser focused on women’s issues that you view his (mostly legitimate) points as nothing more than a distraction is indicative of a lack of true empathy. There are plenty of individual ways in which it is harder to be a man in the USA than it is to be a woman. Overall most women probably have it harder than most men. But certainly some women have way easier lives and experience far more privilege than some men, and this particular lady is one of them. And I think the result of ignoring some of these concerns is to deepen the divide between the two groups. If either one started acknowledging the other’s concerns and making an effort to understand they would likely find that they agreed on more than they disagreed. At present I can’t call myself a feminist ally anymore, and well, I’ve never thought of myself as a men’s rights guy either. It’s only the fringe members of these groups being provocative, but the vast majority of feminists and men’s rights activists completely ignore the other side, and that’s stupid. I’m tired. So tired of trying to promote equality within my own life, learn the right ways to think about and talk about every issue and yet always feel like an outsider. Screw tribalism. I’d rather be scorned by women and men, and the political right and left alike and try to treat every individual I meet with empathy and respect and try not to assume things about people based on their sex or anything else about them for that matter. (Ha, which is exhausting because the human brain wants to stereotype the crap out of everything - but I’m going to keep trying). Change my view: feminism and men’s rights should coexist (listen to each other, acknowledge each other’s different experiences, and work together to create a just and equal society). Assistant:what do you mean by "mens rights?" actual specific issues, or the collection of people under "MRA?"

Human: Feeling like I will never belong in academia(STEM/USA) Feeling really lost. Recently I got selected into a diversity program at an ivy league uni meant to prepare students from Phd the application process, it involves me being paired up with a current grad student from the department who will mentor me until April, when I will supposedly be deciding where to go, though I am over the moon grateful to be involved, I don't know if I'll ever see myself fitting in western academia. As a a part of the mentorship program, the program coordinators were really kind to share the SoPs of current grad students, and it would be an understatement to say that I was blown away, I'm from the third world so reading those SoPs it seemed like these people were living on some other planet, the kind of things they've done, the experiences they've had, the people they've worked with, I don't think I'll ever be able to compete with them, I'm in Ecology so most people have mentioned being around nature reserves all their lives and things like going to Africa in high school for biodiversity surveys. On the other hand I didn't even know there was something like Ecology at that age, I've never had any of these experience, I just came across a theoretical ecology paper one day in university and that was it for me, I grew up in a small industrial town and hadn't even been to a proper forest before my first field internship. At the same time I was able to accumulate decent amount of experience and publications just through contacting enough people in Europe for internships, though the work was not exactly related to what I was primarily interested in, I had to take those opportunities because the other option was sitting duck at home. I've been contacting PIs in America since the last month for Phd positions and have somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me? Assistant:Yes, academia is for people like you. You suffer from impostor syndrome. It's very common in academia. But you been selected into the program, you've got publications, and you have PIs that are interested in what you're doing. All those things have happened because you made it so, and it shows you're doing fine. Now, I don't have any Ivy league experience. But I'm also an ecologist, and I certainly didn't grow up doing shit in nature reserves or going to Africa and all that. But I managed to fit in anyways, and my PhD turned out alright. And if I'm allowed to pat our own backs for a moment, I must say that us ecologist are a pretty decent bunch of people, so I'm hopeful you'd feel welcome whereever you end up.

Human: Feeling like I will never belong in academia(STEM/USA) Feeling really lost. Recently I got selected into a diversity program at an ivy league uni meant to prepare students from Phd the application process, it involves me being paired up with a current grad student from the department who will mentor me until April, when I will supposedly be deciding where to go, though I am over the moon grateful to be involved, I don't know if I'll ever see myself fitting in western academia. As a a part of the mentorship program, the program coordinators were really kind to share the SoPs of current grad students, and it would be an understatement to say that I was blown away, I'm from the third world so reading those SoPs it seemed like these people were living on some other planet, the kind of things they've done, the experiences they've had, the people they've worked with, I don't think I'll ever be able to compete with them, I'm in Ecology so most people have mentioned being around nature reserves all their lives and things like going to Africa in high school for biodiversity surveys. On the other hand I didn't even know there was something like Ecology at that age, I've never had any of these experience, I just came across a theoretical ecology paper one day in university and that was it for me, I grew up in a small industrial town and hadn't even been to a proper forest before my first field internship. At the same time I was able to accumulate decent amount of experience and publications just through contacting enough people in Europe for internships, though the work was not exactly related to what I was primarily interested in, I had to take those opportunities because the other option was sitting duck at home. I've been contacting PIs in America since the last month for Phd positions and have somehow been receiving positive responses, with them not really caring about my previous work being slightly detached from what I'm currently interested in and what they're doing, I don't know how I am in a position to say this but I have multiple Professors at amazing places like UCLA and Stanford who are somehow really really interested in their own words, in the questions I approached them with and have told me they'll do everything in their power to get me into the program. Since reading those SoPs I'm confused about my position, even if I do end up making the jump from a poor nobody from a poor country to a grad student at an elite university, will I ever fit in with the rest of the people there who come from places and experiences which seem completely alien to my imagination? Would I be just another diversity hire who would struggle to find their place? I did use to think about the fact that I'll never be able to compete with people coming from immense privilege, but today for the first time I was pure intimidated. Is academia for people like me? Assistant:Oh so much to unpick here. I'm going to be honest and say you may never find somewhere that you feel you fit in but that doesn't mean you don't deserve to be there or that academia and ecology doesn't need you. There's no such thing as diversity hires, if there were academia (and industry) would be stuffed full of BIPOC and they aren't. The few BIPOC who make it, make it by being twice as good as everyone else, while some people try to tear them down by calling them a diversity hire. Your experience is totally different from the people around you and you bring a unique perspective to the academic questions you ask and clearly they're questions that pique interest from serious academics. Growing up in a privileged environment of nature reserves and trips to Europe doesn't necessarily equip you to ask really important questions with large societal impact. Growing up wherever you did, may. Please don't let anyone convince you, you don't belong somewhere just because you're different from them, but at the same time you don't owe anyone your mental health and your sanity just because you've been offered mentoring and support. If you want to do a PhD, go for it. Find other people like you - societies, volunteering for a cause, religious communities etc - and build a support network, and do whatever it is you want to do with your life. My feeling is from your post academia needs you more than you need academia, and you could do some great work.

Human: CMV: People need to stop expecting Disney to adhere to their desires when it comes to minority representation. First off, I'm not coming at this from a place of *"Representation doesn't matter"*. I would wager that I'm a bigger advocate for minority representation in media than 99% of the people here. The issue here is that I am also an advocate for *good* representation and think people need to focus on the amazing representative works that are already out there and continue to be made as opposed to expecting Disney to fulfill everyone's representative wants. It seems like we go through this all the time. Some Disney property makes some big show about how they are finally going to break some new ground when it comes to minority representation. We saw it with LeFou being "openly gay" in the Beauty and the Beast remake. How did that manifest? LeFou is dancing with some unnamed man in the ending for a split second. Oh, there's finally a black lead in a Star Wars movie? What did they do with John Boyega? Fuck all and he's said as much. Oh, there's finally an Asian main character in a Star Wars film? What did they do with Kelly Marie Tran? Fuck all and John Boyega said as much. There's also literally a 0% chance that Rey getting shipped with Kylo instead of film wasn't rooted in Disney being scared or portraying an interracial romance in one of their flagship franchises. Oh, there's a gay character in a Marvel movie. It's some random guy talking to Cap during a therapy session. Oh, Lando Calrissian is pansexual in Solo: A Star Wars Story. How does that manifest? It literally doesn't. Like...at all. Is Elsa gay? Well, they'll keep hinting at it to queerbait you but literally never actually confirm anything. The list of this goes on and on. And now you have people clamoring for a trans Disney princess which they are *never* going to do. It seems people have all these wants that Disney is willing to exploit but never actually pull the trigger on. And I think expecting anything else from them is foolish. So I don't understand this constant clamoring for Disney to have a black superhero, or a trans Star Wars character, or a Asian superhero, or an Asian man in a love story with a white woman, etc. You can get all these things without Disney and properties that are meant for teenagers. I don't go to Disney for good representation of black people. I go to all the amazing black filmmakers that center the black experience in their narratives. It's more nuanced and more valuable than anything Disney will ever have the guts to even try. When I want to see great Asian representation, I don't need Disney. There's Asian filmmakers all over the world and in the US that are telling amazing stories of their unique experiences. I don't need Disney to see good LGBTQ representation. Disney is totally irrelevant in this arena. The only counter example I can think of is, *"Well, think of the children"*. For one, the people clamoring for this representation are adults most of the time. Secondly, there's still good stuff that's kid friendly that are infinitely more daring than Disney is ever going to be. Say what you want about KorrAsami being last minute, but that gay relationship is still more overt and earned than anything I've seen from Disney. And Legend of Korra is for kids/teenagers. Also both ATLA and Legend of Korra are steeped in influence from Asian cultures. There's a lot to dig into there with children. Characters like Static Shock or Jon Stewart from Justice League are infinitely better than John Boyega being forced to play a minstrel show in Star Wars. I guess my main point is that people put Disney on a pedestal when it comes to representation. If Disney puts you in a movie, that means "you made it". Well, no. It doesn't. Disney will put a black person front and center in their ads and doing absolutely nothing with them (Star Wars). Disney will egg on articles about how a character will be gay but that's not even a part of the story (Beauty and the Beast). They are only okay with minorities insofar as they can manipulate them into going to see their garbage. If you want true, real minority representation, you need to let Disney go. They are not on your side. Other creators are making enormous strides in representation that you're unaware of because Black Panther is more fun to watch than Moonlight. Assistant:7 years ago, we had a kid's cartoon where 2 women were close friends, and the creators confirmed that they were a couple who got together immediately after the story ended. A year later, we had 2 women in a kid's cartoon who were extremely heavily implied in-show to be ex-lovers. A few years later, that couple officially got together on-screen, and we got a new kid's show featuring an entire race of explicitly-lesbian space aliens, including lesbian kisses and weddings. Today, we have half a dozen kid's shows including explicit gay and lesbian characters/relationships, and the representation is mostly good and normal. Yes, the *first* attempts at representation in a medium are often half-hearted and weak, because they are generally the result of executives not wanting to include them at all but throwing a bone to a specific audience/creator. Then that gts a uge public response, and it's a little bit better the next time; then that gets a huge public response, and it's better the next time. Eventually things get normalized and just become part of the money-making equation that these executives use to determine plot and character beats across all their projects. That's how this process has always worked, and we've seen it succeed over and over for different markets and types of representation. Yes, it can take a decade or two, and we're still at the start of that process with some Disney franchises. But a casual glance at history gives every indication that we should expect it to work, slowly but inevitably.

Human: CMV: People need to stop expecting Disney to adhere to their desires when it comes to minority representation. First off, I'm not coming at this from a place of *"Representation doesn't matter"*. I would wager that I'm a bigger advocate for minority representation in media than 99% of the people here. The issue here is that I am also an advocate for *good* representation and think people need to focus on the amazing representative works that are already out there and continue to be made as opposed to expecting Disney to fulfill everyone's representative wants. It seems like we go through this all the time. Some Disney property makes some big show about how they are finally going to break some new ground when it comes to minority representation. We saw it with LeFou being "openly gay" in the Beauty and the Beast remake. How did that manifest? LeFou is dancing with some unnamed man in the ending for a split second. Oh, there's finally a black lead in a Star Wars movie? What did they do with John Boyega? Fuck all and he's said as much. Oh, there's finally an Asian main character in a Star Wars film? What did they do with Kelly Marie Tran? Fuck all and John Boyega said as much. There's also literally a 0% chance that Rey getting shipped with Kylo instead of film wasn't rooted in Disney being scared or portraying an interracial romance in one of their flagship franchises. Oh, there's a gay character in a Marvel movie. It's some random guy talking to Cap during a therapy session. Oh, Lando Calrissian is pansexual in Solo: A Star Wars Story. How does that manifest? It literally doesn't. Like...at all. Is Elsa gay? Well, they'll keep hinting at it to queerbait you but literally never actually confirm anything. The list of this goes on and on. And now you have people clamoring for a trans Disney princess which they are *never* going to do. It seems people have all these wants that Disney is willing to exploit but never actually pull the trigger on. And I think expecting anything else from them is foolish. So I don't understand this constant clamoring for Disney to have a black superhero, or a trans Star Wars character, or a Asian superhero, or an Asian man in a love story with a white woman, etc. You can get all these things without Disney and properties that are meant for teenagers. I don't go to Disney for good representation of black people. I go to all the amazing black filmmakers that center the black experience in their narratives. It's more nuanced and more valuable than anything Disney will ever have the guts to even try. When I want to see great Asian representation, I don't need Disney. There's Asian filmmakers all over the world and in the US that are telling amazing stories of their unique experiences. I don't need Disney to see good LGBTQ representation. Disney is totally irrelevant in this arena. The only counter example I can think of is, *"Well, think of the children"*. For one, the people clamoring for this representation are adults most of the time. Secondly, there's still good stuff that's kid friendly that are infinitely more daring than Disney is ever going to be. Say what you want about KorrAsami being last minute, but that gay relationship is still more overt and earned than anything I've seen from Disney. And Legend of Korra is for kids/teenagers. Also both ATLA and Legend of Korra are steeped in influence from Asian cultures. There's a lot to dig into there with children. Characters like Static Shock or Jon Stewart from Justice League are infinitely better than John Boyega being forced to play a minstrel show in Star Wars. I guess my main point is that people put Disney on a pedestal when it comes to representation. If Disney puts you in a movie, that means "you made it". Well, no. It doesn't. Disney will put a black person front and center in their ads and doing absolutely nothing with them (Star Wars). Disney will egg on articles about how a character will be gay but that's not even a part of the story (Beauty and the Beast). They are only okay with minorities insofar as they can manipulate them into going to see their garbage. If you want true, real minority representation, you need to let Disney go. They are not on your side. Other creators are making enormous strides in representation that you're unaware of because Black Panther is more fun to watch than Moonlight. Assistant:"There's also literally a 0% chance that Rey getting shipped with Kylo instead of film wasn't rooted in Disney being scared or portraying an interracial romance in one of their flagship franchises. " There are people who ship Christine with the Phantom instead of Raoul. There are people who ship Aerith with Sephiroth instead of Cloud. You really think that this is the first fandom where a female heroine gets shipped with the "brooding bad boy" with an air of "but I can change him"?

Human: As an average heterosexual male I believe that courting/chasing modern women is a waste of time CMV So i'll probably get slaughtered for some of the things i'm about to say and called a hypocrite. Before I begin I should state that I know men can be big assholes too, I am aware of this. I'm a 20 year old guy, not particularly attractive, with a dark sense of humor, not in the greatest of shapes and with a terrible dress sense. So I know that there are a lot of things I would have to fix to be considered "presentable" to females. I take full responsibility for the physical aspect as that is laziness and comfort eating on the most part however I cannot change my personality. My attitude to women hasn't really changed but hardened over the last few years. I have seen too many things to suggest that in fact trying to date one would be a total waste of time including people posting screenshots of fake profiles with average guys on dating sites and comparing them with reactions by the same women to ones with male models. Now my issue isn't that these women are attracted to male models, its the surreptitious way they do it, pretending to be all for serendipity and presenting themselves as quite well adjusted people only to drop their panties for the first incredibly hot guy who comes along. Men are just as bad I agree but i'm not attracted to men so it doesn't affect me. Then there's the fact that an average female at age 22 will have had many more sexual partners than her male counterpart, lost her virginity earlier and can get with guys who are on higher social standings than them and more physically attractive very easily. For a guy to do the same thing takes too much effort. I know the counter argument to this is "women can get sex easily but struggle to get committed relationships" I call BS for two reasons, many guys will go into a relationship just so they can have regular sex and also on the flipside many women like having sex with no strings. Now for the part that will probably get me slammed but whatever. My disdain grew as I found out about the various seduction/PUA communities online. Now personally I feel too sleazy to use canned lines and using manipulation techniques however I do like using some of the tips on there as it has shown me the true nature of women. I have seen far too many examples on those sites where women will completely drop their principles if a guy conveys enough "alpha chemistry". My personality isn't really that of an "alpha" guy, I have odd interests and a weird sense of humor, so I can't really do that. Part of me really wants to believe that there are decent, well adjusted, quirky women who can make me laugh as much as I make her laugh and enjoy each others company whilst both being attracted to each other but I don't think I can trust women knowing what I know now. So can anyone change my view without simply stating that men are just as bad? Assistant:> Part of me really wants to believe that there are decent, well adjusted, quirky women who can make me laugh as much as I make her laugh and enjoy each others company whilst both being attracted to each other but I don't think I can trust women knowing what I know now. Give me a break. You admit to not making an effort at taking care of yourself, can't be bothered to do much to become an attractive potential partner, and then bitch because a self-fulling prophecy is fulfilled? Please. The women you speak of are out there. But they have pride, finding themselves attracted to men who make a stab at the whole "be a desirable person if you want to attract desirable persons" game biologically programmed into our beings. You don't have to be an overbearing, Porsche-driving, Armani-suit-wearing A-type, but you *do* have to have enough self-pride to at least attempt to be someone worth notice. If you are content to just sit there in the club in your lame grunge-wear nursing a drink all night, angsting over why nobody appreciates your self-styled "dark sense of humor" as some other guy is over there flirting with the woman you've had your eye on for the past forty-five minutes, then who's really to blame? Maybe you're better looking, maybe you're this special snowflake who has all sorts of emotional and intellectual depth, but you're sucking the bottom inch of that pint and he's... well, he's happier than you. > So can anyone change my view without simply stating that men are just as bad? It's not men who are bad. It's men with an entitlement streak who seem to think that unlike every other worthwhile thing in life, finding a partner should be this magical thing requiring no effort on their parts, that if it doesn't happen, one may as well just give up. Perhaps I'm wrong, but your question reeks of this sentiment.

Human: As an average heterosexual male I believe that courting/chasing modern women is a waste of time CMV So i'll probably get slaughtered for some of the things i'm about to say and called a hypocrite. Before I begin I should state that I know men can be big assholes too, I am aware of this. I'm a 20 year old guy, not particularly attractive, with a dark sense of humor, not in the greatest of shapes and with a terrible dress sense. So I know that there are a lot of things I would have to fix to be considered "presentable" to females. I take full responsibility for the physical aspect as that is laziness and comfort eating on the most part however I cannot change my personality. My attitude to women hasn't really changed but hardened over the last few years. I have seen too many things to suggest that in fact trying to date one would be a total waste of time including people posting screenshots of fake profiles with average guys on dating sites and comparing them with reactions by the same women to ones with male models. Now my issue isn't that these women are attracted to male models, its the surreptitious way they do it, pretending to be all for serendipity and presenting themselves as quite well adjusted people only to drop their panties for the first incredibly hot guy who comes along. Men are just as bad I agree but i'm not attracted to men so it doesn't affect me. Then there's the fact that an average female at age 22 will have had many more sexual partners than her male counterpart, lost her virginity earlier and can get with guys who are on higher social standings than them and more physically attractive very easily. For a guy to do the same thing takes too much effort. I know the counter argument to this is "women can get sex easily but struggle to get committed relationships" I call BS for two reasons, many guys will go into a relationship just so they can have regular sex and also on the flipside many women like having sex with no strings. Now for the part that will probably get me slammed but whatever. My disdain grew as I found out about the various seduction/PUA communities online. Now personally I feel too sleazy to use canned lines and using manipulation techniques however I do like using some of the tips on there as it has shown me the true nature of women. I have seen far too many examples on those sites where women will completely drop their principles if a guy conveys enough "alpha chemistry". My personality isn't really that of an "alpha" guy, I have odd interests and a weird sense of humor, so I can't really do that. Part of me really wants to believe that there are decent, well adjusted, quirky women who can make me laugh as much as I make her laugh and enjoy each others company whilst both being attracted to each other but I don't think I can trust women knowing what I know now. So can anyone change my view without simply stating that men are just as bad? Assistant:>Then there's the fact that an average female at age 22 will have had many more sexual partners than her male counterpart, lost her virginity earlier Can we get a source for this? It's difficult to combat your view without information about where you get "facts" like this and the methodology used to obtain them. >Part of me really wants to believe that there are decent, well adjusted, quirky women who can make me laugh These women most certainly exist. >whilst both being attracted to each other You basically say that you aren't attractive. There is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is expecting that you deserve a mate who is attractive without putting in any effort to be attractive yourself. That's not to say that unattractive people don't occasionally land very attractive people, but if you're the kind of guy willing to say and think things like >but I don't think I can trust women knowing what I know now. it's hard to assume that you've got the kind of personality that can over come severe differences in attractiveness.

Human: META: In September 2020, AskHistorians hosted its first conference, hoping to bring scholarly conversations to the public like never before. Today, a peer-reviewed article about the conference has been published in ‘History’ – and it’s available to read now for free! As most of us remember all too well, the spring of 2020 was a difficult time, as we dealt simultaneously with the impact of a new and deadly disease upon ourselves and loved ones, as well as the sudden shock of having to live most of our lives in virtual environments. Historians, like most other people, cancelled their planned gatherings in 2020, or shifted them online as best they could as we all hurriedly got to grips with Zoom and other online meeting platforms, and loudly wished for the return of business as usual. Yet for those of us involved in helping run AskHistorians, the moment seemed opportune to make the case for the advantages of digital platforms. The whole project, after all, is predicated on the notion that high-quality history has an audience beyond academia. As such, we set out to organise a conference that broke the mould, not just in terms of format, but also in terms of who gets to attend and participate. With the generous support of you all, we’ve since hosted two digital conferences, and you can still watch the talks and read the AMAs from the amazing scholars who joined us. But we also wanted to share our intentions and lessons with other historians, and help shape what history conferences will look like in a post-pandemic world. As such, in late 2020, three of us (myself, u/Historiagrephour and u/Soviet\_Ghosts) pitched an article to a special issue of *History* on digital public history. Over the course of 2021, we received peer reviews, made revisions, and waited. And, at last, our article ‘Out of the Ivory Tower, into the Digital World? Democratising Scholarly Exchange’ has now been published and is available here: # https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-229X.13259 Due to an agreement with my own employer, the University of Sheffield, the article is completely open access, and can be viewed for free in perpetuity. We are very grateful for this, as breaking down barriers to knowledge was such an important part of our motivation to begin with, and we’re very excited that everyone here will be able to read it. We’re all immensely proud to have been part of the AskHistorians Digital Conferences, and to be able to represent this community in a journal such as *History*. We hope you enjoy the read! Assistant:I agree with /u/Gankom. This is an important achievement. Well done! Although I saw at least one thing that I personnally take exception to (renowned??? - you've got to be kidding), the article is really brilliant and is an excellent marker in the sand. The international community of historians should take notice, and now, perhaps, it must. /r/AskHistorians may not always have great days, but this is certainly one of them. Three Huzzahs and a Tiger for Fraser Raeburn, Lisa Baer-Tsarfati, and Viktoria Porter (you each get your own personal huzzah, but you'll have to share the roar of the tiger at the end).

Human: META: In September 2020, AskHistorians hosted its first conference, hoping to bring scholarly conversations to the public like never before. Today, a peer-reviewed article about the conference has been published in ‘History’ – and it’s available to read now for free! As most of us remember all too well, the spring of 2020 was a difficult time, as we dealt simultaneously with the impact of a new and deadly disease upon ourselves and loved ones, as well as the sudden shock of having to live most of our lives in virtual environments. Historians, like most other people, cancelled their planned gatherings in 2020, or shifted them online as best they could as we all hurriedly got to grips with Zoom and other online meeting platforms, and loudly wished for the return of business as usual. Yet for those of us involved in helping run AskHistorians, the moment seemed opportune to make the case for the advantages of digital platforms. The whole project, after all, is predicated on the notion that high-quality history has an audience beyond academia. As such, we set out to organise a conference that broke the mould, not just in terms of format, but also in terms of who gets to attend and participate. With the generous support of you all, we’ve since hosted two digital conferences, and you can still watch the talks and read the AMAs from the amazing scholars who joined us. But we also wanted to share our intentions and lessons with other historians, and help shape what history conferences will look like in a post-pandemic world. As such, in late 2020, three of us (myself, u/Historiagrephour and u/Soviet\_Ghosts) pitched an article to a special issue of *History* on digital public history. Over the course of 2021, we received peer reviews, made revisions, and waited. And, at last, our article ‘Out of the Ivory Tower, into the Digital World? Democratising Scholarly Exchange’ has now been published and is available here: # https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-229X.13259 Due to an agreement with my own employer, the University of Sheffield, the article is completely open access, and can be viewed for free in perpetuity. We are very grateful for this, as breaking down barriers to knowledge was such an important part of our motivation to begin with, and we’re very excited that everyone here will be able to read it. We’re all immensely proud to have been part of the AskHistorians Digital Conferences, and to be able to represent this community in a journal such as *History*. We hope you enjoy the read! Assistant:This is incredible, well done to all the writers! Very interesting to see just how far our community can go!

Human: Has anyone ever left a fulfilling job and regretted it (thinking of leaving national lab) I graduated college over a decade ago, and could have written some of the posts I see frequently here. I thought my first engineering jobs were so boring and without challenge that I really questioned if I had been seriously duped into becoming an engineer. I hopped between big companies, small companies, and all different industries for 5 years and was routinely disappointed at how each of them might as well have been "Office Excel monkey with a little technical flair". As a last ditch effort, I eventually got a job at a national lab and a Masters degree and have been loving it. It's the exact job I naively thought engineers did when I was taking physics in high school. I design electronics and write FPGA firmware and software. I work with physicists to make detectors and sensors resistant to high voltage and cryogenics and play with liquid nitrogen all the time. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in the last year I've worked on projects for quantum computing, superconductivity, collider physics, and more. I (used to) travel around the world to install stuff and even give talks. The people are cool and laid back, in the pre-COVID lunchroom, you could easily start a debate about triple integrals or the Linux kernel. I feel like a professor with tenure who gets to pick what they want to work in, I can go days or weeks without my boss checking on me. My name is on scientific papers. I feel like I'm the Gordon Freeman or Otacon, the fictional characters I grew up with that made me go "Woah, what are those people's regular jobs like"? The only thing is that I sometimes feel like I'm doing careers wrong when I read this sub. People on this sub talk about ruthlessly switching jobs every 2-3 years to optimize your salary growth. They talk about not giving a minute over 40 hours in a week that you don't take back in another week. These are things I find hard to do at my current job. After reading the sub for a while, I did get a competing offer, and my lab matched it - it was a big administrative deal, it had to get signed off by the head of the lab because it was outside my official salary band with the years I have. So here I am, in my 30s, making around $120k, and that's really unlikely to go up faster than the 3 or 4% yearly raises until I maybe get a promotion. I feel grateful that my job inspires me and gives me absolutely none of the existential dread I remember having earlier in my career and I seem to read about often on here. But on this sub, I read about people making a jump from 120k to 175k to 230k+bonus in like 5 years, and I wonder if it's worth it. I started paying attention to LinkedIn the past couple of months and recruiters are really hounding. I don't know if this sub has just given me FOMO and the grass looks greener, and I may end up sitting at an Office Space cubicle making more, but wondering what I'm doing with my life. On the other hand, it feels very weird to go against the consensus of a sub full of very rational people who generally converge on the most optimal way to solve a problem (in this case, maximizing salary). People at work lately have been talking about how much more you can make "out there" and questioning if we're dumb for staying. This may seem naive also, but the only position I could see myself in that gives me more intellectual satisfaction would be entrepreneurship. Like an Elon Musk type on a smaller scale (just used as an example, I don't like him), who has the resources to solve a problem in the way that they want. If I can get one of these 200k or 300k jobs people are talking about and sock away money for 10 years and then start a business, well that sounds kind of cool too. But I don't know if I could last in a boring job that long. Has anyone been in a situation like this? Is intellectual job satisfaction the unshakeable best metric of whether you should stay or leave? Or could the grass really be greener? Assistant:I've been out here, working as an engineer in industry for 25 years. If I had your job, I would hold onto it like the rarest of treasures. The one lesson I've learned, sometimes the hard way, is the while you might earn more money on the other side of the fence, as long as you are making enough to have a comfortable life, having work you enjoy and working with people you like is valuable beyond measure. I've had enough micromanaging, manipulative, backstabbing bosses to know that the grass isn't always greener. Sure, if you have a shitty boss, you might as well roll the dice and jump ship hoping that you land somewhere better, but you might wind up working for an even bigger asshole.

Human: Has anyone ever left a fulfilling job and regretted it (thinking of leaving national lab) I graduated college over a decade ago, and could have written some of the posts I see frequently here. I thought my first engineering jobs were so boring and without challenge that I really questioned if I had been seriously duped into becoming an engineer. I hopped between big companies, small companies, and all different industries for 5 years and was routinely disappointed at how each of them might as well have been "Office Excel monkey with a little technical flair". As a last ditch effort, I eventually got a job at a national lab and a Masters degree and have been loving it. It's the exact job I naively thought engineers did when I was taking physics in high school. I design electronics and write FPGA firmware and software. I work with physicists to make detectors and sensors resistant to high voltage and cryogenics and play with liquid nitrogen all the time. I'm not exaggerating when I say that in the last year I've worked on projects for quantum computing, superconductivity, collider physics, and more. I (used to) travel around the world to install stuff and even give talks. The people are cool and laid back, in the pre-COVID lunchroom, you could easily start a debate about triple integrals or the Linux kernel. I feel like a professor with tenure who gets to pick what they want to work in, I can go days or weeks without my boss checking on me. My name is on scientific papers. I feel like I'm the Gordon Freeman or Otacon, the fictional characters I grew up with that made me go "Woah, what are those people's regular jobs like"? The only thing is that I sometimes feel like I'm doing careers wrong when I read this sub. People on this sub talk about ruthlessly switching jobs every 2-3 years to optimize your salary growth. They talk about not giving a minute over 40 hours in a week that you don't take back in another week. These are things I find hard to do at my current job. After reading the sub for a while, I did get a competing offer, and my lab matched it - it was a big administrative deal, it had to get signed off by the head of the lab because it was outside my official salary band with the years I have. So here I am, in my 30s, making around $120k, and that's really unlikely to go up faster than the 3 or 4% yearly raises until I maybe get a promotion. I feel grateful that my job inspires me and gives me absolutely none of the existential dread I remember having earlier in my career and I seem to read about often on here. But on this sub, I read about people making a jump from 120k to 175k to 230k+bonus in like 5 years, and I wonder if it's worth it. I started paying attention to LinkedIn the past couple of months and recruiters are really hounding. I don't know if this sub has just given me FOMO and the grass looks greener, and I may end up sitting at an Office Space cubicle making more, but wondering what I'm doing with my life. On the other hand, it feels very weird to go against the consensus of a sub full of very rational people who generally converge on the most optimal way to solve a problem (in this case, maximizing salary). People at work lately have been talking about how much more you can make "out there" and questioning if we're dumb for staying. This may seem naive also, but the only position I could see myself in that gives me more intellectual satisfaction would be entrepreneurship. Like an Elon Musk type on a smaller scale (just used as an example, I don't like him), who has the resources to solve a problem in the way that they want. If I can get one of these 200k or 300k jobs people are talking about and sock away money for 10 years and then start a business, well that sounds kind of cool too. But I don't know if I could last in a boring job that long. Has anyone been in a situation like this? Is intellectual job satisfaction the unshakeable best metric of whether you should stay or leave? Or could the grass really be greener? Assistant:You are doing really good Switching jobs ruthlessly is just how people get big raises now, companies don’t believe in raises for whatever reason. Doesn’t mean you have to

Human: CMV: The advice of "stop caring what other people think [about you]" is horrible unrealistic and unscientific advance and only applies to the privileged. **Intro:** “Stop caring about what other people think” is very common advice given about self confidence that I think many people hear both online and in real life. I’m well aware it’s not meant in the utmost literal sense; even the people who say this advice or say it as a flex (“I don’t care about what others think”) normally care about what a few people close to them think. However I believe it’s almost always genuinely bad advice because of how unscientific it is in regards to the brain chemistry some people have in regards to being more reactionary and subsequently sensitive than others, in addition to also being unscientific in regards to how socialisation works, on a micro as well as macro scale. On top of this, almost all of the people who give this advice/say this mantra (particularly content creators, but also normal people like on reddit or whatever) tend to have pretty poor self awareness and don’t realise that they “don’t care about what people think” primarily because of things outside of their control, being their brain chemistry, their environment (the people around them, which they can’t control even if they moved), and subsequently how they fit into that environment (in particular, how other people react to them). The gist is, they either are in environments and/or particularly in their developmental years grew up in environments where there was little to emphasis on there being a need to care about what other people largely thought of them. For many people, particularly those who are minorities in some way, you cannot really do this. You do not get confidence by yourself; confidence does not exist in a vacuum. Other people give it to you. **Point 1: It's unscientific:** When this sort of advice is given, it’s normally without context of how some people are just naturally more “sensitive” than others biologically, especially when considering disorders like borderline personality disorder or other ones that may affect your mood such as major depression, or anxiety disorders. A lot of people tend to think these are seasonal disorders (especially depression), but many of them are biological and aren’t really something you “cure”, you just at best put it in remission and it temporarily goes away or it’s reduced greatly but it doesn’t make you normal in terms of brain chemistry and how you react emotionally to things. This means that some people will never be able to achieve that zen moment of “not caring what other people think”, especially depending on their environment. **Point 2: It’s unrealistic advice and only applies to the privileged:** The advice is often if not always given by people who are in privileged positions to not have to care about what others think. This can occur on a macro and micro scale, meaning in the larger scale environment and/or also in a smaller-scale environment that someone may immerse themselves in more than the macro environment. Let me try to give an example/analogy: Being gay versus being straight. A quote from a YouTube video I saw a while ago summarises the comparison perfectly: >I think for some people they may say 'why does your sexuality influence you so much?' to which the answer is, if you think about it, for straight people/cis gendered people don't think about it that way is because the world is already designed for people like them in mind, i.e. in laws, healthcare, television, movie, marketing, advertising, ideas about what love is, gender roles, etc. all of that is catering to a heteronormative standard so you might not even notice how much of your life is shaped by your sexuality but for non-cis/queer people, we are going to have a completely different experience living in the world compared to someone who lives in a world catered to them. They don't have to go through life worrying about other people thinking negatively about their sexuality, if they will be rejected or ostractised because of it, etc. Even then you have, say, gay people living in very liberal and gay-friendly areas who, at least on a micro scale, are in environments where they don’t have to care about what people think because they are the standard in some way. Let’s say we’ve got a gay American man who lives in some gayville in California. He’s over 185cm tall, fair skin, light eyes, is generally masculine presenting both physically and in terms of mannerisms (and subsequently, may not be registered as gay superficially by people who he doesn’t tell it to). In this environment, he doesn’t have to really care about what other people think of him as he is the standard in this context. Compare that to a gay guy who’s classed as feminine (which is often much more berated than being masculine as a guy, gay or not), is short, not “straight passing” in presentation (be it voice, how they dress, etc.). The former gay guy has not as much to worry about in regards to confidence on a macro and micro scale. The latter has a lot to deal with in just the micro environment alone and even more so on a macro scale. There are so many intersections where so many people are affected by things like this, and many people are affected by a multitude of things that are very observable and not something that can be hidden where they have to be very conscious that they are other or seen as inferior and are ready to either defend themselves if provoked or have to be conscious of what other people think of them to try and portray a version of themselves to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Here’s a great quote on Twitter about the topic to an extent: >*Queer people don't grow up as ourselves, we grow up playing a version of ourselves that sacrifices authenticity to minimise humiliation & prejudice. The massive task of our adult lives is to unpick which parts of ourselves are truly us & which parts we've created to protect us.* This is not even exclusive to being a minority in terms of demographics in some way, it’s just not fitting the bill in some fashion and the more that apply to you, the worse it can get and probably already is. Not being straight, being neurodivergent, not being tall enough (or short enough for women), not having a socially acceptable body (being fat, too skinny, etc), being a minority religion (or not being religious at all) in a religious environment, being a minority in terms of phenotype/being an ethnic minority/minority in terms of “race”, small boobs, small penis, etc. the list can go on and on. Another quote that depicts what I'm saying in a similar way: >You can't get another person to see another person as they are (different) unless their reality is popped. How much your reality is popped dictates how introspective you can be. If you're in a bubble that's perfect for you and safe for you, why would you ever question your reality? Usually when you're "other", you have a greater opportunity to become introspective because you are forced to from a young age. If you're in a bubble where you are the standard generally or completely, you don't understand the concept really of feeling othered and having to change who you are to make other people comfortable because your arbitrary characteristics are already widely accepted and you can be yourself. When you are the minority in some way, you generally have to cater to other people to make them more comfortable in order to get along and not cause social tension. This is not something that people who are not a minority in some regard have to even think about. They don’t have to regularly think about some characteristic of themselves making them fundamentally bad and having to temper themselves to make other people comfortable. When you are in an environment that fundamentally dislikes who you are or views you/treats you as inferior, the notion of “don’t care about what other people think” isn’t applicable. You don’t enter this world thinking you’re attractive, other people tell you that you are and you reap the social benefits of it. Other people have to tell you that you’re good at something and you subsequently reap the benefits of your skill as a result. If no one values your skill, objectively how good you are at something does not matter whatsoever. Confidence does not exist in a vacuum and is developed by socialisation. **Point 3: "Go where you fit in" isn't the perfect answer people tend to think it is:** Before I hear it from anyone, yes it's obviously better to go where you fit in, but for many people including myself this advice isn't practical. Let's re-use the gay example. A gay guy in a conservative country can go to a more liberal one, or hopefully a more liberal area where he's accepted more. However for people with intersections of being multiple minorities this isn't always practical to be able to find a home that accepts you for who you are. Take me for example; I'm a person of colour, I've got ADHD, clinical depression, autism, as well as being gay. Where are you going to tell me to do where I'm accepted on all bases, let alone most? I can do the best I can but I don't really have the privilege where there's a focal point of how I am to focus on in regards to both acceptance of safety. There are some places in the world where I can be in danger for being a person of colour. There are others where I can be jailed and stoned for being gay. Even within western gay-friendly spaces my autism isn't going to be accepted either. **Conclusion:** Insecurities start from other people; people being cruel, commenting on you, etc. Confidence does not exist in a vacuum and is developed by socialisation and the advice of simply saying “don’t care about what other people think about you” is generally very crappy advice that isn’t applicable to people who have to actively care about what other people think about them in order to navigate their environment safely. This advice in general is said by people who have been brought up and/or currently live in environments where they don’t have to be very considerate, if at all, about what other people think about them to maintain a healthy level of self confidence, and it reeks of a lack of self awareness and privilege that this advice is said to people who may not and probably aren’t as lucky to be in such an environment. Manifestation of self confidence does not work and isn’t real. Assistant:The advice is solid. I have had terrible anxiety in my life, I have PTSD, I'm sort of an anxious mess at times. When I feel overly sensitive, anxious, etc., it's usually due to my over thinking my own actions based on what I perceive others seeing them as. When I cut out those thoughts I have to judge my actions based on my own views and opinions, and then I don't see why I'm so upset at myself. When people have trauma, brain chemistry issues and such, it's our responsibility to not let those things become a burden, to ourselves and to others. We must take responsibility for ourselves and stop viewing the world through a broken lens. People who say they don't care what others think about them fall into three categories: Those who are excusing their behavior to others, those who are broken inside and have developed that line of thinking as their wall/shield, and those who have stopped worrying about idiots who judge them because their actions are in line with their beliefs. These can all coexist in one person, but the most wonderfully "dangerous" ones are the ones who no longer care about how they're seen by anyone outside of themselves or their trusted circle of friends and family who have their best interests at heart. If one of those people told them they did wrong, they would listen and look further into their behavior. There is no science in emotion that gives this an unscientific take. You keep saying it's unscientific, but I'm not seeing a scientific explanation for anything. All emotions are valid, to a point. Such as how anger is a go to emotion for many things including fear, anxiety, pain, and the feeling is valid until it's used as a weapon without reason, even when that weapon is only hurting us. "Stop caring about what other people think of you" isn't the end of that thought process. It's actually, "Stop thinking about what other people think of you, and ask yourself what you're thinking of you." If the answer is "I think I did the right thing " you're good. If the answer is "I don't think I handled that well" then you've learned something that makes you better.

Human: CMV: The advice of "stop caring what other people think [about you]" is horrible unrealistic and unscientific advance and only applies to the privileged. **Intro:** “Stop caring about what other people think” is very common advice given about self confidence that I think many people hear both online and in real life. I’m well aware it’s not meant in the utmost literal sense; even the people who say this advice or say it as a flex (“I don’t care about what others think”) normally care about what a few people close to them think. However I believe it’s almost always genuinely bad advice because of how unscientific it is in regards to the brain chemistry some people have in regards to being more reactionary and subsequently sensitive than others, in addition to also being unscientific in regards to how socialisation works, on a micro as well as macro scale. On top of this, almost all of the people who give this advice/say this mantra (particularly content creators, but also normal people like on reddit or whatever) tend to have pretty poor self awareness and don’t realise that they “don’t care about what people think” primarily because of things outside of their control, being their brain chemistry, their environment (the people around them, which they can’t control even if they moved), and subsequently how they fit into that environment (in particular, how other people react to them). The gist is, they either are in environments and/or particularly in their developmental years grew up in environments where there was little to emphasis on there being a need to care about what other people largely thought of them. For many people, particularly those who are minorities in some way, you cannot really do this. You do not get confidence by yourself; confidence does not exist in a vacuum. Other people give it to you. **Point 1: It's unscientific:** When this sort of advice is given, it’s normally without context of how some people are just naturally more “sensitive” than others biologically, especially when considering disorders like borderline personality disorder or other ones that may affect your mood such as major depression, or anxiety disorders. A lot of people tend to think these are seasonal disorders (especially depression), but many of them are biological and aren’t really something you “cure”, you just at best put it in remission and it temporarily goes away or it’s reduced greatly but it doesn’t make you normal in terms of brain chemistry and how you react emotionally to things. This means that some people will never be able to achieve that zen moment of “not caring what other people think”, especially depending on their environment. **Point 2: It’s unrealistic advice and only applies to the privileged:** The advice is often if not always given by people who are in privileged positions to not have to care about what others think. This can occur on a macro and micro scale, meaning in the larger scale environment and/or also in a smaller-scale environment that someone may immerse themselves in more than the macro environment. Let me try to give an example/analogy: Being gay versus being straight. A quote from a YouTube video I saw a while ago summarises the comparison perfectly: >I think for some people they may say 'why does your sexuality influence you so much?' to which the answer is, if you think about it, for straight people/cis gendered people don't think about it that way is because the world is already designed for people like them in mind, i.e. in laws, healthcare, television, movie, marketing, advertising, ideas about what love is, gender roles, etc. all of that is catering to a heteronormative standard so you might not even notice how much of your life is shaped by your sexuality but for non-cis/queer people, we are going to have a completely different experience living in the world compared to someone who lives in a world catered to them. They don't have to go through life worrying about other people thinking negatively about their sexuality, if they will be rejected or ostractised because of it, etc. Even then you have, say, gay people living in very liberal and gay-friendly areas who, at least on a micro scale, are in environments where they don’t have to care about what people think because they are the standard in some way. Let’s say we’ve got a gay American man who lives in some gayville in California. He’s over 185cm tall, fair skin, light eyes, is generally masculine presenting both physically and in terms of mannerisms (and subsequently, may not be registered as gay superficially by people who he doesn’t tell it to). In this environment, he doesn’t have to really care about what other people think of him as he is the standard in this context. Compare that to a gay guy who’s classed as feminine (which is often much more berated than being masculine as a guy, gay or not), is short, not “straight passing” in presentation (be it voice, how they dress, etc.). The former gay guy has not as much to worry about in regards to confidence on a macro and micro scale. The latter has a lot to deal with in just the micro environment alone and even more so on a macro scale. There are so many intersections where so many people are affected by things like this, and many people are affected by a multitude of things that are very observable and not something that can be hidden where they have to be very conscious that they are other or seen as inferior and are ready to either defend themselves if provoked or have to be conscious of what other people think of them to try and portray a version of themselves to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Here’s a great quote on Twitter about the topic to an extent: >*Queer people don't grow up as ourselves, we grow up playing a version of ourselves that sacrifices authenticity to minimise humiliation & prejudice. The massive task of our adult lives is to unpick which parts of ourselves are truly us & which parts we've created to protect us.* This is not even exclusive to being a minority in terms of demographics in some way, it’s just not fitting the bill in some fashion and the more that apply to you, the worse it can get and probably already is. Not being straight, being neurodivergent, not being tall enough (or short enough for women), not having a socially acceptable body (being fat, too skinny, etc), being a minority religion (or not being religious at all) in a religious environment, being a minority in terms of phenotype/being an ethnic minority/minority in terms of “race”, small boobs, small penis, etc. the list can go on and on. Another quote that depicts what I'm saying in a similar way: >You can't get another person to see another person as they are (different) unless their reality is popped. How much your reality is popped dictates how introspective you can be. If you're in a bubble that's perfect for you and safe for you, why would you ever question your reality? Usually when you're "other", you have a greater opportunity to become introspective because you are forced to from a young age. If you're in a bubble where you are the standard generally or completely, you don't understand the concept really of feeling othered and having to change who you are to make other people comfortable because your arbitrary characteristics are already widely accepted and you can be yourself. When you are the minority in some way, you generally have to cater to other people to make them more comfortable in order to get along and not cause social tension. This is not something that people who are not a minority in some regard have to even think about. They don’t have to regularly think about some characteristic of themselves making them fundamentally bad and having to temper themselves to make other people comfortable. When you are in an environment that fundamentally dislikes who you are or views you/treats you as inferior, the notion of “don’t care about what other people think” isn’t applicable. You don’t enter this world thinking you’re attractive, other people tell you that you are and you reap the social benefits of it. Other people have to tell you that you’re good at something and you subsequently reap the benefits of your skill as a result. If no one values your skill, objectively how good you are at something does not matter whatsoever. Confidence does not exist in a vacuum and is developed by socialisation. **Point 3: "Go where you fit in" isn't the perfect answer people tend to think it is:** Before I hear it from anyone, yes it's obviously better to go where you fit in, but for many people including myself this advice isn't practical. Let's re-use the gay example. A gay guy in a conservative country can go to a more liberal one, or hopefully a more liberal area where he's accepted more. However for people with intersections of being multiple minorities this isn't always practical to be able to find a home that accepts you for who you are. Take me for example; I'm a person of colour, I've got ADHD, clinical depression, autism, as well as being gay. Where are you going to tell me to do where I'm accepted on all bases, let alone most? I can do the best I can but I don't really have the privilege where there's a focal point of how I am to focus on in regards to both acceptance of safety. There are some places in the world where I can be in danger for being a person of colour. There are others where I can be jailed and stoned for being gay. Even within western gay-friendly spaces my autism isn't going to be accepted either. **Conclusion:** Insecurities start from other people; people being cruel, commenting on you, etc. Confidence does not exist in a vacuum and is developed by socialisation and the advice of simply saying “don’t care about what other people think about you” is generally very crappy advice that isn’t applicable to people who have to actively care about what other people think about them in order to navigate their environment safely. This advice in general is said by people who have been brought up and/or currently live in environments where they don’t have to be very considerate, if at all, about what other people think about them to maintain a healthy level of self confidence, and it reeks of a lack of self awareness and privilege that this advice is said to people who may not and probably aren’t as lucky to be in such an environment. Manifestation of self confidence does not work and isn’t real. Assistant:You claim the advice is unscientific however in your description you don’t provide any evidence for that claim mostly just feelings and conjecture about how people are wired. I think the framing is the advise is the worst part because everyone cares what someone thinks about them. What I think they actually mean is not allowing yourself to be controlled by your perception of what others think about you. The truth is no one is thinking about you 99% of the time. We almost exclusively think about ourselves. One of the best pieces of advice I ever received is that you can’t control what other think, say, or do. The only think we have any control over his how we respond to others.

Human: Stay active in research after leaving academia? Hello everyone, I have gone through pretty much all the discussions on reddit about this difficult topic that is the transition from academia to the wilderness. There's one aspect of it that as far as can tell hasn't been covered, I hope you guys can help me with it. I'd preface by saying that I would never have thought that I would find myself thinking of leaving academia (after all it only happens to others, right?). But here I am getting ready for the big jump. I am theoretical physicist with 4 years of postdoctoral experience, quite recognized in my field, good publications, etc ... but I have almost no chance of landing a tenure-track position in the places where I want to live while remaining sane at the same time. And since getting one means more or less continuing the post-doc life for at least 5-7 years (i.e., stress, anxiety, no financial security, and no normal life) the situation is essentially hopeless for me. I just can't continue like this. Unfortunately. The post-doc years slowly and surely sucked all the energy out of me and gave me strong episodes of anxiety and stress (which took me a long time to identify them as such and start managing them). There's so much to say about academia and how broken it is but it's not my topic here. Finally, the worst happened this year; I lost my passion for research. I figured I'd better leave academia on my own terms and get a job/life I like than to postpone it a few more years and have no choice and dignity left. Yet the more I think that I will never be a professor, that I will no longer introduce myself as a physicist (i.e., identify myself as such - sadly what we do is usually what we are, for us and for the society), the more I am depressed. It's quite a shock. I have never felt so lonely in my life, it's something extremely personal and hard to talk about with non-academics like my partner or family and this makes the situation even more difficult. I even feel weird writing about it here, but I guess I need to hear your opinions. Anyway, sorry for this rant. The question I wanted to ask is: suppose I get a normal (yet interesting, I hope!) job and do the usual 9-5. What forbids me from doing physics as a 'hobby' afterwards? say 1 or 2 hours? it's not like postdoc rhythms, but since it's purely for fun who cares? 1 or 2 papers per year should be doable for sure. I imagine I can easily get an affiliation as a visitor of some institution for the articles. However, I have never seen this discussed, people who leave academia are considered dead (at least in physics). I have never heard of anyone working from outside academia. What do you think? ​ PS. Also if you have suggestions of interesting jobs for theoretical physicists please do mention them. (AI & data science are OK but would love to do something where I could do some research). ​ Assistant:I'd say it's impossible, but it's also not that tragic. And I speak from some experience, as I've been moving back and forth between academia and "normal jobs". I'd say your best bet is to reassemble the puzzle. Project to a different base; find a different set of elements that gives you the same sum. Say, you 1. love physics, 2. solving puzzles, and 3. you need money. Right now your job combines 1 and 2, but you seem to have long-term issue with 3. How's about you find a job that covers 2 and 3, and entertain 1 in some other way? Say, find some really fancy data science or AI job where you'd have to do research, real research, hard research. And volunteer at school to teach some kids physics. Or have a blog about physics. Or write a popular book about physics. Just find some way to do it. I don't think it is possible, or at least easy, to do real research while earning money on the side. I mean, for that to be true, your job has to be well-paying, intense (definitely not a usual 9-5, as you'll need more time than that), and mentally dull (because you want your mind to be free to think about physics). Jobs like that exist, but they are unusual. One could also do 13+2 (using my formula above): say, teach physics at school, and do research on the side. But judging from the fact that you never even mentioned teaching, it's not an option. So I'd go for a real fancy practical-research-oriented non-physics job, and kept in touch with physics one way or another.

Human: Stay active in research after leaving academia? Hello everyone, I have gone through pretty much all the discussions on reddit about this difficult topic that is the transition from academia to the wilderness. There's one aspect of it that as far as can tell hasn't been covered, I hope you guys can help me with it. I'd preface by saying that I would never have thought that I would find myself thinking of leaving academia (after all it only happens to others, right?). But here I am getting ready for the big jump. I am theoretical physicist with 4 years of postdoctoral experience, quite recognized in my field, good publications, etc ... but I have almost no chance of landing a tenure-track position in the places where I want to live while remaining sane at the same time. And since getting one means more or less continuing the post-doc life for at least 5-7 years (i.e., stress, anxiety, no financial security, and no normal life) the situation is essentially hopeless for me. I just can't continue like this. Unfortunately. The post-doc years slowly and surely sucked all the energy out of me and gave me strong episodes of anxiety and stress (which took me a long time to identify them as such and start managing them). There's so much to say about academia and how broken it is but it's not my topic here. Finally, the worst happened this year; I lost my passion for research. I figured I'd better leave academia on my own terms and get a job/life I like than to postpone it a few more years and have no choice and dignity left. Yet the more I think that I will never be a professor, that I will no longer introduce myself as a physicist (i.e., identify myself as such - sadly what we do is usually what we are, for us and for the society), the more I am depressed. It's quite a shock. I have never felt so lonely in my life, it's something extremely personal and hard to talk about with non-academics like my partner or family and this makes the situation even more difficult. I even feel weird writing about it here, but I guess I need to hear your opinions. Anyway, sorry for this rant. The question I wanted to ask is: suppose I get a normal (yet interesting, I hope!) job and do the usual 9-5. What forbids me from doing physics as a 'hobby' afterwards? say 1 or 2 hours? it's not like postdoc rhythms, but since it's purely for fun who cares? 1 or 2 papers per year should be doable for sure. I imagine I can easily get an affiliation as a visitor of some institution for the articles. However, I have never seen this discussed, people who leave academia are considered dead (at least in physics). I have never heard of anyone working from outside academia. What do you think? ​ PS. Also if you have suggestions of interesting jobs for theoretical physicists please do mention them. (AI & data science are OK but would love to do something where I could do some research). ​ Assistant:I was very near where you are now. If you want academic position, key thing is to give up "places you want to live". Did you apply for academic positions? There is the Ronin Institute though I'm not sure how active or useful it is.

Human: I'm a 30 year old idiot- what are some essential, but approachable/understandable, readings I can absorb and use as a basis to move forward? Preface: I'm a complete and utter 30 year old idiot who, in his three decades on earth, hasn't done anything, or really absorbed any of what he's been taught. I know absolutely nothing. But I want to change. I'm sure this isn't the place for this, but what the heck... I've just... floated through life. I've never contributed anything of any substance, have always looked for the easy way out, never really learned anything... and it has really been bugging me a great deal for quite some time now. I want to stop just merely getting through life, and want to immerse myself more deeply in all that life and the world has to offer. I don't want things to be easy anymore. I get frustrated at all the things I can't do, because I don't attempt to; because they're "hard". Anyways, one such thing is philosophy. I don't know what it is about it, but something about it has always appealed to me. Despite having taken a philosophy class way back in high school, absolutely nothing stuck on me, and I couldn't name, or describe, you a single philosophical concept. Yet the idea of it- whatever it is exactly- appeals to me. I want to absorb the concepts as best as wholly as possible and, hopefully, someday have complex debates about them with others who have a similar interest. My motives to want to dive into it might not make much sense, or might even seem shallow, but that's only because I can't really explain it- I don't want to have to though; I'd rather just get into it. I am an idiot- I have already established that for you-, and on top of that, I have an extremely difficult time absorbing + retaining information. I don't know that it's a learning disability, I've never been tested, I suspect it's just laziness. But again, I want to change- I am willing to change. The reason I mention this difficulty with absorbing info is that the few times I tried to tackle any philosophical work-- which I really couldn't tell you what it was--, I couldn't make it more than just a couple pages in. There was no point in even trying to pretend I had any clue. But that's also why I'm here; I'm hoping you might be able to suggest me some accessible/approachable/understandable works that maybe are considered "essential writings", which I can hopefully absorb and use as a foundation to move forward and tackle others. There are philosophers whose works interest me... and I know this from the first few sentences discussed in their Wikipedia or via some summary of their life/work on some YT channel. i.e. Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty, Cioran, of course Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc., etc. I shouldn't know some of those names, but I do, because I'm weird and get obsessed with loving the idea of knowing something- but I really want to know now, not just fake it. Please don't judge me- it's complicated. So what are the "basic" fundamental philosophical works I must absorb before moving onto the works of some of the aforementioned philosophers? How do you decide which direction to head in once you've gotten the essentials down? Also, what to do with all this knowledge once you've amassed it, other than take part in impressive debates? Is there any concrete way to implement all this knowledge into life? It all seems so abstract, that I wonder if it's anything more than a great big waste of time? I don't mean to be offensive in suggesting that, but I'm just wondering out loud. How do you use this knowledge? Can it be profound and life-changing? Sorry about my long post... and for being stupid. I look forward to your replies, and to getting started with philosophy for real. Assistant:>I am an idiot- I have already established that for you-, and on top of that, I have an extremely difficult time absorbing + retaining information. Hey there. So first of all I wanted to address this a little bit. So many people think they should be able to just dive in to complex books, whether they be philosophical or literary, without having done any prior training before hand, and subsequently can't concentrate or understand what's going on. This often leads people to getting put off and thinking, as you do, that they're not smart enough to understand these things. This is complete nonsense. The analogy I always think of is going to the gym. Diving in to any the primary texts of most of the philosophers you mentioned would be like trying to bench or squat some huge weight on your first day in the gym because some of the guys who have been training for years can do it. But realistically, you won't be able to even lift the weights off the floor and will become easily discouraged thinking you're weak. However, if you spend time building up to get to that point eventually you'll train your muscles to be strong enough to achieve your goal. The same applies to the brain. Reading is a skill that you have to maintain to keep good at, and if you stop reading for a significant period of time (much like stopping lifting weights or running or whatever) you will get worse at it. But that doesn't mean you're stupid or weak, it just means you're out of practice. Remember that. I know for sure that I've gone through period where I find it extremely difficult to concentrate on philosophy, despite having studied philosophy for over 10 years. Now also remember that using the internet the way we do regularly primes your brain for quick rewards. Your brain essentially gets programmed to seek out things that don't require sustained attention because the dopamine centres in our brain get adapted to skim reading and short quick videos. There are loads of studies on this phenomenon. *The Shallows: How the internet is changing our brain* by Nicolas Carr is a great book on this. Basically, if you want to get better at understanding philosophy you have to first learn how to read properly and how to absorb information with sustained attention. Sometimes using the internet less, or meditating before reading, or something similar to clear your mind really helps with that. >So what are the "basic" fundamental philosophical works I must absorb before moving onto the works of some of the aforementioned philosophers? How do you decide which direction to head in once you've gotten the essentials down? OK to answer your actual question. Most of Western philosophy is based on a tradition that started with Plato. So finding out as much as you can about Plato, especially his *Republic* is always a great starting point. There's tons of videos and info online that can help you with that. Plato is also really fun to read compared to some of denser later philosophy. Other than Plato, one of the fathers of modern philosophy is Descartes. His *Meditations* is almost universally taught in first year philosophy classes and it's essentially an exercise in scepticism which teaches you to think philosophically. Imo knowing about Descartes and Plato is pretty necessary for most later philosophy. However, it seems from your list that you're quite interested in existentialism (Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Sartre etc.). Jumping into Nietzsche can be really exciting because his writing is brilliant and you might get a lot from it despite not knowing a huge amount about philosophy. Some of his books are written partly as aphorisms which you can just read individually and ponder over. Where to start with Nietzsche is up for debate but a lot people recommend *Beyond Good and Evil* if you're looking for an overview of Nietzsche's thought. But bare in mind you won't understand a lot of it, but just enjoy the process. >Also, what to do with all this knowledge once you've amassed it, other than take part in impressive debates? Is there any concrete way to implement all this knowledge into life? It all seems so abstract, that I wonder if it's anything more than a great big waste of time? I don't mean to be offensive in suggesting that, but I'm just wondering out loud. How do you use this knowledge? Can it be profound and life-changing? Absolutely. Learning how to think critically can be immensely useful in day to day life. But that is more of a personal journey you'll have to go through. There are also lot's of practical applications in the fields of ethics and philosophy of science to name a couple. Understanding how certain systems operate from a philosophical perspective is really useful in lots of fields. Anyway hope that helps a little bit. Good luck getting started! Feel free to drop a reply if you have any questions.

Human: I'm a 30 year old idiot- what are some essential, but approachable/understandable, readings I can absorb and use as a basis to move forward? Preface: I'm a complete and utter 30 year old idiot who, in his three decades on earth, hasn't done anything, or really absorbed any of what he's been taught. I know absolutely nothing. But I want to change. I'm sure this isn't the place for this, but what the heck... I've just... floated through life. I've never contributed anything of any substance, have always looked for the easy way out, never really learned anything... and it has really been bugging me a great deal for quite some time now. I want to stop just merely getting through life, and want to immerse myself more deeply in all that life and the world has to offer. I don't want things to be easy anymore. I get frustrated at all the things I can't do, because I don't attempt to; because they're "hard". Anyways, one such thing is philosophy. I don't know what it is about it, but something about it has always appealed to me. Despite having taken a philosophy class way back in high school, absolutely nothing stuck on me, and I couldn't name, or describe, you a single philosophical concept. Yet the idea of it- whatever it is exactly- appeals to me. I want to absorb the concepts as best as wholly as possible and, hopefully, someday have complex debates about them with others who have a similar interest. My motives to want to dive into it might not make much sense, or might even seem shallow, but that's only because I can't really explain it- I don't want to have to though; I'd rather just get into it. I am an idiot- I have already established that for you-, and on top of that, I have an extremely difficult time absorbing + retaining information. I don't know that it's a learning disability, I've never been tested, I suspect it's just laziness. But again, I want to change- I am willing to change. The reason I mention this difficulty with absorbing info is that the few times I tried to tackle any philosophical work-- which I really couldn't tell you what it was--, I couldn't make it more than just a couple pages in. There was no point in even trying to pretend I had any clue. But that's also why I'm here; I'm hoping you might be able to suggest me some accessible/approachable/understandable works that maybe are considered "essential writings", which I can hopefully absorb and use as a foundation to move forward and tackle others. There are philosophers whose works interest me... and I know this from the first few sentences discussed in their Wikipedia or via some summary of their life/work on some YT channel. i.e. Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer, Derrida, Merleau-Ponty, Cioran, of course Nietzsche, Sartre, Kierkegaard, etc., etc. I shouldn't know some of those names, but I do, because I'm weird and get obsessed with loving the idea of knowing something- but I really want to know now, not just fake it. Please don't judge me- it's complicated. So what are the "basic" fundamental philosophical works I must absorb before moving onto the works of some of the aforementioned philosophers? How do you decide which direction to head in once you've gotten the essentials down? Also, what to do with all this knowledge once you've amassed it, other than take part in impressive debates? Is there any concrete way to implement all this knowledge into life? It all seems so abstract, that I wonder if it's anything more than a great big waste of time? I don't mean to be offensive in suggesting that, but I'm just wondering out loud. How do you use this knowledge? Can it be profound and life-changing? Sorry about my long post... and for being stupid. I look forward to your replies, and to getting started with philosophy for real. Assistant:Have you tried reading up on Stoic philosophy? Particularly Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus; they provide a simple philosophy for day-to-day life, their messages and style of writing easy to digest and heed. Hope this helps.

Human: I tried to fix a dish that wasn't cooked all of the way. Did I handle this properly? I made a Potato Salad this week. My coworker tasted some of it and he told me, "The potatoes don't taste like they're done all of the way. They're kind of hard and a little hard to chew." For this batch, one of our managers walked into the kitchen while the potatoes were cooking on the burner and he told me, "It smells like your potatoes are done." I just went with what he said and took them off the burner without really checking to see if they're done all of the way. I didn't want to serve this batch of Potato Salad, but I didn't want to let it go to waste. My other Supervisor told me, "It's already made up. It has all of the ingredients in it. There's not much you can do to fix it. It's not worth the effort." I thought, "I'll just put the Potato Salad in a strainer and rinse it with water to rinse away all of the ingredients. Then I'll put the potatoes back in a pot of boiling water to cook them longer then I'll just remake it." The Supervisor that told me don't worry about it saw me rinsing the potatoes in the sink trying to fix this batch and he didn't stop me so I thought he had no problem with what I was doing. I cooked those potatoes longer and got it to where I wanted them to be and made the Potato Salad over again. I was going to tell my coworker and supervisor what I did. This coworker said the same thing my supervisor said saying, "The Potato Salad was already made up, there's nothing you can do to fix it." This was out front. Before I was about to tell them, my supervisor proceeded to tell me, "Don't say it in front of customers." He pulled my coworker to the back and I followed them. He told her what I did. My coworker said, "No don't do that! Someone can get sick! That was a Cold Product that had Mayo and other ingredients in it, that you rinsed off, recooked and tried to reserve. I understand you didn't want it to go to waste, but you should've just threw that out. We can order more potatoes, it's not a problem." My supervisor proceeded to say, "You didn't listen to what I told you." I didn't serve this batch. It was sitting in our cooler. I threw it away like my coworker said. My supervisor proceeded to tell my coworker, "I tried to tell him not to do it, but he didn't listen. Thank you for informing him." The reason why I did this was because I thought it was fixable. When he said, "Don't put in the effort" I assumed he meant don't worry about it, but I had no problem doing it. I didn't know it was a potential health hazard. He never told me that. Also, why wouldn't he try to stop me when he saw me back in the kitchen trying to remake it? Anyway was this a bad move on my end? Was my coworker right? Assistant:Pro chef, 20 years. Yes, you were wrong. You shouldn’t have done that. You should have discarded the product and started over. So your coworker is kinda wrong also. They’re right that you should discard the product instead of fixing it, unless you absolutely do not have product to remake it and it would be a huge issue, even then… you get more product. As far as food safety, yeah that’s not a best practice… heating and cooling and heating can lead to increased risk of food borne Illness, but for some reason people are terrified of mayonnaise. It’s store bought and full of emulsifiers and preservatives. In reality you would probably not have gotten anyone sick, but it’s definitely not a best practice. The real issue with your idea is this: you were trying to save a few dollars worth of potatoes. Doesn’t sound from the post like it was 200-300lb of potato salad. More like 3-5lb or so. So you were spending a whole bunch of time and effort (read:$$$$$labor$$$) to save $4 worth of potatoes. If it took more than 15-20 minutes of work to save the potatoes then your labor ($$) already negated any product ($$) that you saved. Also the product would likely not come out to standard, would be sub par in some way, or simply not worth the effort ($$) to save. Also, you disregarded a direct order from a direct supervisor. Don’t do that. Chain of command is sacred, even if the person above you isn’t. Also, you talked about processes in front of customers. Don’t do that. No one wants to know how the hot dogs are made. Also - trust but verify. You made your potato salad without tasting a potato. That wasn’t good. You should have tasted a potato before even draining them. If they’re not done they need longer. Trust your palate, no one else’s. And definitely not someone saying it smells done in a walk by. It’s definitely admirable to try to reduce waste whenever possible, food waste especially. But you need to balance that with the other costs. If you make a soup out of chicken scraps and carrots ends and celery butts, it might have $0 going into the pot. But if it takes 4 hours ($15/hr) of trimming and messing with the balance to make the free soup, it really cost $60 for that 2 gallons of soup. If you start with $15 worth of fresh product and spend 30 min to make the same soup it really costs $22.50 for the 2 gallons. Time is money as much as food is. Don’t waste either!

Human: I tried to fix a dish that wasn't cooked all of the way. Did I handle this properly? I made a Potato Salad this week. My coworker tasted some of it and he told me, "The potatoes don't taste like they're done all of the way. They're kind of hard and a little hard to chew." For this batch, one of our managers walked into the kitchen while the potatoes were cooking on the burner and he told me, "It smells like your potatoes are done." I just went with what he said and took them off the burner without really checking to see if they're done all of the way. I didn't want to serve this batch of Potato Salad, but I didn't want to let it go to waste. My other Supervisor told me, "It's already made up. It has all of the ingredients in it. There's not much you can do to fix it. It's not worth the effort." I thought, "I'll just put the Potato Salad in a strainer and rinse it with water to rinse away all of the ingredients. Then I'll put the potatoes back in a pot of boiling water to cook them longer then I'll just remake it." The Supervisor that told me don't worry about it saw me rinsing the potatoes in the sink trying to fix this batch and he didn't stop me so I thought he had no problem with what I was doing. I cooked those potatoes longer and got it to where I wanted them to be and made the Potato Salad over again. I was going to tell my coworker and supervisor what I did. This coworker said the same thing my supervisor said saying, "The Potato Salad was already made up, there's nothing you can do to fix it." This was out front. Before I was about to tell them, my supervisor proceeded to tell me, "Don't say it in front of customers." He pulled my coworker to the back and I followed them. He told her what I did. My coworker said, "No don't do that! Someone can get sick! That was a Cold Product that had Mayo and other ingredients in it, that you rinsed off, recooked and tried to reserve. I understand you didn't want it to go to waste, but you should've just threw that out. We can order more potatoes, it's not a problem." My supervisor proceeded to say, "You didn't listen to what I told you." I didn't serve this batch. It was sitting in our cooler. I threw it away like my coworker said. My supervisor proceeded to tell my coworker, "I tried to tell him not to do it, but he didn't listen. Thank you for informing him." The reason why I did this was because I thought it was fixable. When he said, "Don't put in the effort" I assumed he meant don't worry about it, but I had no problem doing it. I didn't know it was a potential health hazard. He never told me that. Also, why wouldn't he try to stop me when he saw me back in the kitchen trying to remake it? Anyway was this a bad move on my end? Was my coworker right? Assistant:As a chef I love that you didn't wanna throw that away and waste it. As a chef I don't like that you spent more time/money on fixing it when it's cheap enough to throw out and start again. Sometimes the labor isn't worth it and this is one of them. The way you did it was not the best either, throwing the whole thing in the oven woulda been better

Human: My ex-roommate broke our apartment lease and left things in her room. I completed the lease and paid her share of expenses. I took the property with me to my new apartment. I sued for rent in small claims court, but she paid the money owed and I dropped the suit. Who legally owns the property? (VA) My former roommate took over a 12-month lease in my apartment from a previous roommate, then left without explanation a few months before the lease was up. I tried contacting her several times but got no response. I notified my apartment complex about the situation and was able to pay her share through the remaining three months on the lease, but she was never removed from the lease and had a key/open access to the apartment the entire time. She came back a few times to collect the items in her room immediately after I found out, but only when I was not home - from what I could tell, the last time items were moved out of the room was a two months before the lease ended. I made no formal/informal contact about her stuff - I assumed she would come back until everything was gone. ​ When the lease ended, I asked my apartment complex about the items. The leasing agent I spoke with said I could take the items with me or I would pay for their disposal from the apartment out of my security deposit. I wanted to give my ex-roommate a chance to collect her things, so I removed them from the apartment complex when I moved. I filed a civil lawsuit to collect her share of rent and expenses and I was intending on bringing her stuff to give her after court, but the week before the court date she contacted me, told me she was unable to make the court date and offered to pay a portion of the amount owed. The amount she offered covered almost all the money I was owed, so I accepted payment and dropped the lawsuit. But I still have her stuff - some of the items have value and could be sold to make up the court fees and other fees I incurred paying her share of the rent. I was planning on donating the rest. ​ Virginia landlord-tenant laws don't really cover this situation and I'm at a loss on what to do. Did she legally abandon this property? Legally, who does this stuff belong to? As former co-tenants, what obligations do I have to give her this property? I met this person online and we never had anything but a cordial relationship that is now strained. ​ Sorry for the length, but any help would be appreciated. Assistant:Under the law, abandoned property is for the landlord to handle, not a roommate. But that ship has sailed, and ultimately you were responsible in the sense that you couldn't properly surrender the property and leave those things there. If you want to read up on the law, here is a good overview. >Once you [the landlord] have determined that the rental unit has been abandoned, you must notify the tenant before getting rid of any of the personal items left behind at the rental unit. You can give the [former] tenant a separate ten-day notice that states that you will dispose of any items left in the rental unit within 24 hours after the ten-day notice period has ended (see Va. Code Ann. § 55-248.38:1). If you don’t hear back from the tenant within ten days, then you are free to dispose of the property. As of now, she owns it.

Human: My ex-roommate broke our apartment lease and left things in her room. I completed the lease and paid her share of expenses. I took the property with me to my new apartment. I sued for rent in small claims court, but she paid the money owed and I dropped the suit. Who legally owns the property? (VA) My former roommate took over a 12-month lease in my apartment from a previous roommate, then left without explanation a few months before the lease was up. I tried contacting her several times but got no response. I notified my apartment complex about the situation and was able to pay her share through the remaining three months on the lease, but she was never removed from the lease and had a key/open access to the apartment the entire time. She came back a few times to collect the items in her room immediately after I found out, but only when I was not home - from what I could tell, the last time items were moved out of the room was a two months before the lease ended. I made no formal/informal contact about her stuff - I assumed she would come back until everything was gone. ​ When the lease ended, I asked my apartment complex about the items. The leasing agent I spoke with said I could take the items with me or I would pay for their disposal from the apartment out of my security deposit. I wanted to give my ex-roommate a chance to collect her things, so I removed them from the apartment complex when I moved. I filed a civil lawsuit to collect her share of rent and expenses and I was intending on bringing her stuff to give her after court, but the week before the court date she contacted me, told me she was unable to make the court date and offered to pay a portion of the amount owed. The amount she offered covered almost all the money I was owed, so I accepted payment and dropped the lawsuit. But I still have her stuff - some of the items have value and could be sold to make up the court fees and other fees I incurred paying her share of the rent. I was planning on donating the rest. ​ Virginia landlord-tenant laws don't really cover this situation and I'm at a loss on what to do. Did she legally abandon this property? Legally, who does this stuff belong to? As former co-tenants, what obligations do I have to give her this property? I met this person online and we never had anything but a cordial relationship that is now strained. ​ Sorry for the length, but any help would be appreciated. Assistant:She owns her property. If it was hers before this it’s hers after. Separately she may owe you money for the events arising around the lease.

Human: (USA/CA/Modesto) Rented a room for 6 months with no problems until a new roommate moved in and life at home became a NIGHTMARE...ALL my belongings were stolen, damaged, or destroyed...Need legal help!! Hello. So I found a room for rent on Craigslist a little over 6 months ago and the 5 other housemates and I (including the owner/landlord) all got along and for the most part we all minded our own business, until a little over 2 months ago when the master bedroom became available and was taken by a woman who must be about 50-55 and was supposedly working in real estate. Well quickly she was fired, not long after moving all her stuff in and completely packing the garage with her extra junk, and I mean PACKED. She seemed boisterous but nice enough until only a week had passed and she started displaying psychotic behavior, like drinking malt liquor (She drank Mad Dog 20/20's as if they were fruit juice) as soon as she woke up and stayed boozing it up all day and night, every day. She quickly befriended another housemate (a 25 year old drop out with the mind of a 15 year old who was more than happy to get free booze, weed, and later on harder drugs to simply keep this sad alcoholic woman company...) and it became clear to me she enabled this kid for that very reason. She was loud, obnoxious, and very quick to become aggressive over anything, so I imagine she didn't have too many friends and that explained why she never went out to drink, instead opting to live in squalor. Every time I saw her room it was littered with beer cans, liquor bottles, several plates of half eaten food, and tons of miscellaneous garbage. Although this woman lived like a pig, I was able to avoid her at first. Trouble was around the corner though. The 25 year old roommate informed me that she was asking him to find her other drugs besides the pot she constantly smoked despite a cough that sounded near fatal. All day and night this woman coughed with her door wide open while the landlord was gone. I finally buckled and asked her if she would mind shutting her door while she was sick, since I was starting to catch a cold from her never ending coughing fits (my room was next to hers to boot) I worded this nicely, to which she immediately begins shouting aggressively things like "Why should I close my door? I don't have to do what you say. I'm not sick, how dare you call me sick! Who the fuck do you think you are you - blah blah blah and so on." I dropped the subject, texted the landlord what happened verbatim and put earplugs in. I should make it known that I am a recovering addict with over a year and 9 months clean now, and there were clear rules about drugs (besides pot) not being allowed on the premises, and tenants weren't allowed to be active junkies either, but that goes without saying. The landlord was extremely naive though, and as I noticed more and more red flags (loud snorting all through the night in her room, increased hostile confrontations, and drug baggies in the trash) he would brush me off every time I tried to warn him of drug activity in the house. I believe this is because her rent was twice what mine was, and he was a definite miser when it came to money. The situation got much worse. I left the house one day and came back to find it ransacked. My lock-box which held all my meds was gone. the remotes to my flat screen and bluray were gone. A few random things seemed to be missing, so I called my case manager (I receive mental health services as well as support for my recovery) and she came over immediately. When she walked through the door all hell broke loose. The alcoholic roomie called my case manager a stupid whore, a dumb drug addict, we were all a bunch of pathetic drug addicts she said, and her animosity was so intense we decided to video record her insane drug fueled ranting, at times worried she was going to become violent as she kept leaning into us and almost lunging...I tried to keep my mouth shut but I told her sternly to leave me the fuck alone, which didn't help. We packed a couple bags and I was put into a short-term safe house for a couple days. I texted the landlord that I would be gone and that I was worried about my stuff, which he assured me would be safe. Well, two days later I came back to pack my stuff...only to realize all my stuff was either stolen, vandalized, or completely destroyed. EVERY item of clothing I own besides the clothes I was wearing had been cut to pieces with scissors, and I had a LOT of clothes. They (The drunk and the 25 year old I assume) cut the cord to my TV, my bluray, my record player, broke my records, stole my massive DVD collection, stabbed my mattress excessively, cut my PILLOWS in half, and even sunk so low as to take pictures of family and of me performing in bands through the years, and CUT MY FACE OUT OF EACH ONE. They stole my vintage keyboard, a basketball, my newest pair of shoes, and I'm probably forgetting plenty of other things. I made an inventory of everything missing or destroyed I could remember and added the estimated value, which came out to $2,075...And that was a very low estimate. I rounded down...So basically, I'm devastated and have no idea what to do. My case manager helped me get into a 30-day stay transitional house run by the county, so for now I'm avoiding the local homeless shelter, but after my time's up at this house I don't know what will happen to me. I need legal aid. I have no idea where to start, other than making several police calls which didn't prove to be very useful. I have a case number, but I'm not sure what to do with it. The only evidence I have is the video my case manager took of the lady acting psychotic, my case manager's testimony, and pictures I took of my destroyed clothes and electronics. Sorry for the essay, but I want anyone with advice to have all the info. Assistant:Your property was stolen/vandalized. Definitely make police reports, give them copies of your evidence, and follow up with the police.

Human: (USA/CA/Modesto) Rented a room for 6 months with no problems until a new roommate moved in and life at home became a NIGHTMARE...ALL my belongings were stolen, damaged, or destroyed...Need legal help!! Hello. So I found a room for rent on Craigslist a little over 6 months ago and the 5 other housemates and I (including the owner/landlord) all got along and for the most part we all minded our own business, until a little over 2 months ago when the master bedroom became available and was taken by a woman who must be about 50-55 and was supposedly working in real estate. Well quickly she was fired, not long after moving all her stuff in and completely packing the garage with her extra junk, and I mean PACKED. She seemed boisterous but nice enough until only a week had passed and she started displaying psychotic behavior, like drinking malt liquor (She drank Mad Dog 20/20's as if they were fruit juice) as soon as she woke up and stayed boozing it up all day and night, every day. She quickly befriended another housemate (a 25 year old drop out with the mind of a 15 year old who was more than happy to get free booze, weed, and later on harder drugs to simply keep this sad alcoholic woman company...) and it became clear to me she enabled this kid for that very reason. She was loud, obnoxious, and very quick to become aggressive over anything, so I imagine she didn't have too many friends and that explained why she never went out to drink, instead opting to live in squalor. Every time I saw her room it was littered with beer cans, liquor bottles, several plates of half eaten food, and tons of miscellaneous garbage. Although this woman lived like a pig, I was able to avoid her at first. Trouble was around the corner though. The 25 year old roommate informed me that she was asking him to find her other drugs besides the pot she constantly smoked despite a cough that sounded near fatal. All day and night this woman coughed with her door wide open while the landlord was gone. I finally buckled and asked her if she would mind shutting her door while she was sick, since I was starting to catch a cold from her never ending coughing fits (my room was next to hers to boot) I worded this nicely, to which she immediately begins shouting aggressively things like "Why should I close my door? I don't have to do what you say. I'm not sick, how dare you call me sick! Who the fuck do you think you are you - blah blah blah and so on." I dropped the subject, texted the landlord what happened verbatim and put earplugs in. I should make it known that I am a recovering addict with over a year and 9 months clean now, and there were clear rules about drugs (besides pot) not being allowed on the premises, and tenants weren't allowed to be active junkies either, but that goes without saying. The landlord was extremely naive though, and as I noticed more and more red flags (loud snorting all through the night in her room, increased hostile confrontations, and drug baggies in the trash) he would brush me off every time I tried to warn him of drug activity in the house. I believe this is because her rent was twice what mine was, and he was a definite miser when it came to money. The situation got much worse. I left the house one day and came back to find it ransacked. My lock-box which held all my meds was gone. the remotes to my flat screen and bluray were gone. A few random things seemed to be missing, so I called my case manager (I receive mental health services as well as support for my recovery) and she came over immediately. When she walked through the door all hell broke loose. The alcoholic roomie called my case manager a stupid whore, a dumb drug addict, we were all a bunch of pathetic drug addicts she said, and her animosity was so intense we decided to video record her insane drug fueled ranting, at times worried she was going to become violent as she kept leaning into us and almost lunging...I tried to keep my mouth shut but I told her sternly to leave me the fuck alone, which didn't help. We packed a couple bags and I was put into a short-term safe house for a couple days. I texted the landlord that I would be gone and that I was worried about my stuff, which he assured me would be safe. Well, two days later I came back to pack my stuff...only to realize all my stuff was either stolen, vandalized, or completely destroyed. EVERY item of clothing I own besides the clothes I was wearing had been cut to pieces with scissors, and I had a LOT of clothes. They (The drunk and the 25 year old I assume) cut the cord to my TV, my bluray, my record player, broke my records, stole my massive DVD collection, stabbed my mattress excessively, cut my PILLOWS in half, and even sunk so low as to take pictures of family and of me performing in bands through the years, and CUT MY FACE OUT OF EACH ONE. They stole my vintage keyboard, a basketball, my newest pair of shoes, and I'm probably forgetting plenty of other things. I made an inventory of everything missing or destroyed I could remember and added the estimated value, which came out to $2,075...And that was a very low estimate. I rounded down...So basically, I'm devastated and have no idea what to do. My case manager helped me get into a 30-day stay transitional house run by the county, so for now I'm avoiding the local homeless shelter, but after my time's up at this house I don't know what will happen to me. I need legal aid. I have no idea where to start, other than making several police calls which didn't prove to be very useful. I have a case number, but I'm not sure what to do with it. The only evidence I have is the video my case manager took of the lady acting psychotic, my case manager's testimony, and pictures I took of my destroyed clothes and electronics. Sorry for the essay, but I want anyone with advice to have all the info. 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: [WA] I (23F) am afraid to go back to work after harassment from my coworker (57M) TL;DR at the end I am afraid to go back to work after enduring work place harassment. I am genuinely in fear for my safety. I would definitely leave if I could but I unfortunately don’t have a choice and this guy is now security where I work. I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, this guy lost his temper and said some weird things to me about touching me and my coworker. He never apologized just tried to blame it all on me. I told HR. HR didn’t seem helpful at all, in fact I think the lady had some sort of bias towards me. She would tell me to just continue to do my job but be okay with placing him in closer work environments to me. I just felt something was off with her like she also enjoyed seeing me fail and wanted me to just leave and find a different job. Things escalated and he lost his temper again, this time resulting in him being put on suspension for a few weeks because he lost his shit in front of my boss. People started glaring at me and asking what happened because they all saw him as a good guy. Some spread rumors that it was my fault, one person thankfully defended me. When he came back from suspension he was placed in another area I worked at, he never tried anything there, but at the other work place area he would leer or stare me down. One thing that really creeped me out is he would get really close to me as I walked by a few times, I told my boss, he didn’t do anything. I’m afraid that in order to get into my work when I go back, I will have to go through him. I heard that security was requiring people to have their temperature taken and what not in order to go into the facility. I have to go to work for a few more weeks unfortunately, there really is no negotiation. I would like some advice on how to handle this. I know I may just be paranoid though after all the bs I had to deal with and I am really not a fan of my work at all. I will definitely be leaving as soon as I can. If I did have to stop and have my temperature taken by him I could just have my phone on record in my pocket in case something happens. Luckily, I have also heard they have cameras at my work place now when they didn’t before. I could also tell HR instead of my boss right when something does happen. I really don’t want anything to happen though. He tries to paint himself as this good guy and unfortunately many people buy it. I’d really hate to have to go through all this again. Tbh, him and a few other people are the reason I have chosen to no longer do what I love. I was a cook, and unfortunately over the years that I have been a cook since I was 17, I haven’t worked in many places where there wasn’t some sort of drama or work place harassment in my industry; that goes for front of the house and back of the house. I know I love to cook and that I am great at it but its no longer the industry that I want to work in after all the bs I’ve dealt with. The ‘toughening up,’ that I’Ve done really just feels like I’m numbing the pain and ignoring how serious the situation really is in reality. Theres a lot more than just this guy I’m mentioning. I’ve also heard a lot of other stories from other people, specifically women, who have gone through similar experiences. Unfortunately until the work place environment changes (which it likely never will) I will not subject myself to this kind of treatment any longer, I can find somewhere better to spend my 8 hours days. TL;DR: Struggling with how to deal with work place harassment when none of the bosses or HR does much about it. I cannot leave for a few weeks after I go back but as soon as I can leave I will. This guy has said weird comments about touching my coworker and I. Tried to spread rumors about me being wrong, stared be down and tried to get way to close for comfort walking past me to intimidate me. Unfortunately he works security now and I may have to go through him to get my temperature checked to go to work. I am worried that I will have to deal with more bs, especially if he thinks he cannot get caught. I’m thinking I could carry my phone on record with me when I do see him but I’m not sure that would do much. Assistant:You are going to need to provide more information about the incident than just "he said some weird things" and "he lost his temper." What exactly did he say, what did you say, what were you doing when he said it, what was he doing when he said it, where did the incident happen, when did it happen, etc.

Human: [WA] I (23F) am afraid to go back to work after harassment from my coworker (57M) TL;DR at the end I am afraid to go back to work after enduring work place harassment. I am genuinely in fear for my safety. I would definitely leave if I could but I unfortunately don’t have a choice and this guy is now security where I work. I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible, this guy lost his temper and said some weird things to me about touching me and my coworker. He never apologized just tried to blame it all on me. I told HR. HR didn’t seem helpful at all, in fact I think the lady had some sort of bias towards me. She would tell me to just continue to do my job but be okay with placing him in closer work environments to me. I just felt something was off with her like she also enjoyed seeing me fail and wanted me to just leave and find a different job. Things escalated and he lost his temper again, this time resulting in him being put on suspension for a few weeks because he lost his shit in front of my boss. People started glaring at me and asking what happened because they all saw him as a good guy. Some spread rumors that it was my fault, one person thankfully defended me. When he came back from suspension he was placed in another area I worked at, he never tried anything there, but at the other work place area he would leer or stare me down. One thing that really creeped me out is he would get really close to me as I walked by a few times, I told my boss, he didn’t do anything. I’m afraid that in order to get into my work when I go back, I will have to go through him. I heard that security was requiring people to have their temperature taken and what not in order to go into the facility. I have to go to work for a few more weeks unfortunately, there really is no negotiation. I would like some advice on how to handle this. I know I may just be paranoid though after all the bs I had to deal with and I am really not a fan of my work at all. I will definitely be leaving as soon as I can. If I did have to stop and have my temperature taken by him I could just have my phone on record in my pocket in case something happens. Luckily, I have also heard they have cameras at my work place now when they didn’t before. I could also tell HR instead of my boss right when something does happen. I really don’t want anything to happen though. He tries to paint himself as this good guy and unfortunately many people buy it. I’d really hate to have to go through all this again. Tbh, him and a few other people are the reason I have chosen to no longer do what I love. I was a cook, and unfortunately over the years that I have been a cook since I was 17, I haven’t worked in many places where there wasn’t some sort of drama or work place harassment in my industry; that goes for front of the house and back of the house. I know I love to cook and that I am great at it but its no longer the industry that I want to work in after all the bs I’ve dealt with. The ‘toughening up,’ that I’Ve done really just feels like I’m numbing the pain and ignoring how serious the situation really is in reality. Theres a lot more than just this guy I’m mentioning. I’ve also heard a lot of other stories from other people, specifically women, who have gone through similar experiences. Unfortunately until the work place environment changes (which it likely never will) I will not subject myself to this kind of treatment any longer, I can find somewhere better to spend my 8 hours days. TL;DR: Struggling with how to deal with work place harassment when none of the bosses or HR does much about it. I cannot leave for a few weeks after I go back but as soon as I can leave I will. This guy has said weird comments about touching my coworker and I. Tried to spread rumors about me being wrong, stared be down and tried to get way to close for comfort walking past me to intimidate me. Unfortunately he works security now and I may have to go through him to get my temperature checked to go to work. I am worried that I will have to deal with more bs, especially if he thinks he cannot get caught. I’m thinking I could carry my phone on record with me when I do see him but I’m not sure that would do much. Assistant:I'm not sure if this would help, but in WA state you can file for a civil anti-harassment order with the courts. https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/wa/restraining-orders/all#node-37321 I'm not sure it can be used in the workplace -- the court may dismiss it. Doing so will involve your employer, so you may find yourself out of a job.

Human: I took in a dog that was being re-homed and previous owner wants it back bc I haven’t given her family on demand access to my home About 5 months ago I adopted a dog from an casual friend I knew back in my college days (I graduated in Winter of 2007 for reference). I had recently moved to the area for my fiancé’s job and would be home without much responsibility for the foreseeable future. My old “friend” happened to live within state. We had reconnected on social media and chatted a bit over the weeks as I was moving in. The subject of adopting her dog came up when she confided in me that her fiancé no longer had patience for the dog since they were living in a small one bedroom apartment with a newborn and 18 month old. Anyway, I was told that she was giving the dog away to an ex boyfriend who had a condition of adoption that would prohibit her from contacting him or trying to see the dog. I thought that was harsh and offered to take her and casually mentioned that since we were friendly it was still possible for her to see the dog when we had plans or got together. Anyway, fast-forward about 3 days and she decided that her whole family would come spend a Saturday at my house with the intention of leaving the dog and make sure she got along with my dog. However her toddler tormented both dogs to the point they wouldn’t come out from under the bed. The dogs got zero time to actually interact where we can observe them bc they were both terrified of her child. Honestly, the dogs weren’t the only ones, the kid destroyed my house all day and she didn’t even try to stop him. Now lunch is over and they booked it out of here without the dog at the end of a tiresome day. She leaves me a bag of the dogs belongings and some paperwork (blanket, bed, leash, what was left of her dog food). I sent pics and updates of her adjusting to her new life to be decent about it and she sent texts back saying it’s nice to see her girl “safe and at peace” bc it was “not a good situation” for her previously. A few weeks pass and she wants to visit, I say sure if the kids can stay with their father, come one over for a little while. But the entire first floor of my house is under construction and it’s not a toddler friendly set up at the moment. The response is a mixed bag of excuses why she can’t visit alone (her fiancé won’t let her drive alone) and cringeworthy texts basically trying to say the whole family should come visit and hey with the rising cost of living and some crazy world is ending conspiracy jargon, they should just stay with us and they we provide the living space and they provide having “lots of guns” 😳… THAT’S A HARD NO. What freaked me out more is that was lined up with a date she was supposed to get evicted, so I made it clear that I was in the middle of pretty serious renovations and under no circumstance would be having wild toddlers in that environment, as it is not safe. And just plain NO to the half-joking suggestion that I should be opening my doors to that insanity- not my problem. I know that might sound paranoid but I’m unfamiliar with laws in my new state, but back in NY I have had to go through a full eviction bc a friend came to spend the weekend and then refused to leave, police were called bc it got bad and I was directed to the court system to evict this person at my expense. So I am not taking any chances. Then yesterday, I get a barrage of unhinged voice messages on Facebook messenger that she hasn’t been able to come here and see the dog as much as she wants to and her other kids that she doesn’t even have custody of miss the dog and have the right to see it when they want too and she needs to see it today (last night). I declined bc I told her the way she was lashing out made me uncomfortable and I don’t want her in my home like this and that’s when she started threatening to come take the dog. I stood my ground and said that she can take me to court bc I’ve invested a lot of time and money and emotion into this dog and my dog has grown so attached to her that it’s unfair for her to just come take her away from a really good life bc I can’t host her family at the drop of a dime. I’ve offered her to come see the dog alone on multiple occasions and she says she’s not allowed to drive alone that far (1 freakin hour). To be clear: I was nice enough to tell her she could see the dog when we did have plans together but I never said that she, her fiancé and 4 kids can just demand to come over anytime they feel like it. Am I obligated to give regular dog visitation? Is that a thing? And do I have to give the dog back? She’s been here for almost half a year and we’ve made so much progress with her … now I’m terrified she’s going to harass me or try to stir up trouble (based on getting over 200 texts in the span of 90 min, long after I stopped replying). Assistant:> Am I obligated to give regular dog visitation? Is that a thing? And do I have to give the dog back? No, no, no. Frankly, I’d just block her/private my social media and invest in a home security system. Your location may be relevant.

Human: I took in a dog that was being re-homed and previous owner wants it back bc I haven’t given her family on demand access to my home About 5 months ago I adopted a dog from an casual friend I knew back in my college days (I graduated in Winter of 2007 for reference). I had recently moved to the area for my fiancé’s job and would be home without much responsibility for the foreseeable future. My old “friend” happened to live within state. We had reconnected on social media and chatted a bit over the weeks as I was moving in. The subject of adopting her dog came up when she confided in me that her fiancé no longer had patience for the dog since they were living in a small one bedroom apartment with a newborn and 18 month old. Anyway, I was told that she was giving the dog away to an ex boyfriend who had a condition of adoption that would prohibit her from contacting him or trying to see the dog. I thought that was harsh and offered to take her and casually mentioned that since we were friendly it was still possible for her to see the dog when we had plans or got together. Anyway, fast-forward about 3 days and she decided that her whole family would come spend a Saturday at my house with the intention of leaving the dog and make sure she got along with my dog. However her toddler tormented both dogs to the point they wouldn’t come out from under the bed. The dogs got zero time to actually interact where we can observe them bc they were both terrified of her child. Honestly, the dogs weren’t the only ones, the kid destroyed my house all day and she didn’t even try to stop him. Now lunch is over and they booked it out of here without the dog at the end of a tiresome day. She leaves me a bag of the dogs belongings and some paperwork (blanket, bed, leash, what was left of her dog food). I sent pics and updates of her adjusting to her new life to be decent about it and she sent texts back saying it’s nice to see her girl “safe and at peace” bc it was “not a good situation” for her previously. A few weeks pass and she wants to visit, I say sure if the kids can stay with their father, come one over for a little while. But the entire first floor of my house is under construction and it’s not a toddler friendly set up at the moment. The response is a mixed bag of excuses why she can’t visit alone (her fiancé won’t let her drive alone) and cringeworthy texts basically trying to say the whole family should come visit and hey with the rising cost of living and some crazy world is ending conspiracy jargon, they should just stay with us and they we provide the living space and they provide having “lots of guns” 😳… THAT’S A HARD NO. What freaked me out more is that was lined up with a date she was supposed to get evicted, so I made it clear that I was in the middle of pretty serious renovations and under no circumstance would be having wild toddlers in that environment, as it is not safe. And just plain NO to the half-joking suggestion that I should be opening my doors to that insanity- not my problem. I know that might sound paranoid but I’m unfamiliar with laws in my new state, but back in NY I have had to go through a full eviction bc a friend came to spend the weekend and then refused to leave, police were called bc it got bad and I was directed to the court system to evict this person at my expense. So I am not taking any chances. Then yesterday, I get a barrage of unhinged voice messages on Facebook messenger that she hasn’t been able to come here and see the dog as much as she wants to and her other kids that she doesn’t even have custody of miss the dog and have the right to see it when they want too and she needs to see it today (last night). I declined bc I told her the way she was lashing out made me uncomfortable and I don’t want her in my home like this and that’s when she started threatening to come take the dog. I stood my ground and said that she can take me to court bc I’ve invested a lot of time and money and emotion into this dog and my dog has grown so attached to her that it’s unfair for her to just come take her away from a really good life bc I can’t host her family at the drop of a dime. I’ve offered her to come see the dog alone on multiple occasions and she says she’s not allowed to drive alone that far (1 freakin hour). To be clear: I was nice enough to tell her she could see the dog when we did have plans together but I never said that she, her fiancé and 4 kids can just demand to come over anytime they feel like it. Am I obligated to give regular dog visitation? Is that a thing? And do I have to give the dog back? She’s been here for almost half a year and we’ve made so much progress with her … now I’m terrified she’s going to harass me or try to stir up trouble (based on getting over 200 texts in the span of 90 min, long after I stopped replying). Assistant:You are not obligated to facilitate this person's intrusion on your life. You own the dog now, legally. If they decide to pursue the return of the dog in court, you are allowed to request the amount you spent on care, boarding, and veterinary in compensation for your time. Most people would turn away upon seeing it's going to cost them $1k to get their dog back, plus legal fees.

Human: Please help, I'm 16, my mom just called the cops on my dad saying he abuses me but he didn't do anything wrong, they're going to come back and I don't know what to do. I asked a question here yesterday and thakns for the help received but now the situation has changed (for the worse) my mom has called the cops on my dad because I'm not visiting and I'm freaking out and I dont know what to do. She's sending 100s of texts every day and in some she said she would call the police and CPS on my dad but I didn't believe her, but she did it for real. I was home alone because my dad had left for work, I was just out of bed and there was a knock on the door and it was the police. They said they have a report that my dad is abusing me and locking me up inside the house so I can't visit my mom. It's not true at all she's the one who's harassing me and there's a good reason why I don't want to visit it's because her boyfriend wants me to watch porn with him and I don't want to. I told them many times it was my idea not to go but I'm not sure they believed me. My mom said she has started telling everyone she knows that I'm a liar so I'm sure she told them too. They asked if it's true that my dad doesn't want me to visit her and I said yes but that's because I asked him, usually he makes me go but now we're going to go to court to change the custody agreement. Anyway I've been told that I'm old enough (16) to decide if I want to visit or not. They wanted to talk to my dad but it's not like he can just leave work in the middle of the day. I showed them the texts she sent where she threatened to call them. They left but they will be back to talk to my dad now I'm freaking out, I don't want him arrested he's done nothing wrong. My mother was always difficult but she was not that bad but now she's going crazy and she wants to hurt us, first the texts and destroying and selling my property now this. I called my dad at work but he can't come back now they are short staffed already. I'm so terrified now I don't know what to do I'm sure she's going to lie and my dad is going to be in trouble but he's done nothing wrong. What should I do if the police come back? Assistant:Please take screenshots of all your mother's texts and email them to yourself. You are handing your phone to random people and you don't know what can happen. Those are evidence and you need as much as possible. You are also afraid to tell the cops about your mom's boyfriend before you don't have "evidence". Please do not worry about that. As you can see, your mom called the police on your dad with zero evidence herself. Stop speaking with your mother. Do not block her as you want her to text you more evidence. But don't reply or pick up gl hey phone calls. She has now accused your dad of horrible things. Who knows what will she can do with a wrong response from you. Don't give her anything to use against you. Please also get the officer's names and the case number (if there is one yet). This is more evidence that the lawyer will need to go after your mother.

Human: Please help, I'm 16, my mom just called the cops on my dad saying he abuses me but he didn't do anything wrong, they're going to come back and I don't know what to do. I asked a question here yesterday and thakns for the help received but now the situation has changed (for the worse) my mom has called the cops on my dad because I'm not visiting and I'm freaking out and I dont know what to do. She's sending 100s of texts every day and in some she said she would call the police and CPS on my dad but I didn't believe her, but she did it for real. I was home alone because my dad had left for work, I was just out of bed and there was a knock on the door and it was the police. They said they have a report that my dad is abusing me and locking me up inside the house so I can't visit my mom. It's not true at all she's the one who's harassing me and there's a good reason why I don't want to visit it's because her boyfriend wants me to watch porn with him and I don't want to. I told them many times it was my idea not to go but I'm not sure they believed me. My mom said she has started telling everyone she knows that I'm a liar so I'm sure she told them too. They asked if it's true that my dad doesn't want me to visit her and I said yes but that's because I asked him, usually he makes me go but now we're going to go to court to change the custody agreement. Anyway I've been told that I'm old enough (16) to decide if I want to visit or not. They wanted to talk to my dad but it's not like he can just leave work in the middle of the day. I showed them the texts she sent where she threatened to call them. They left but they will be back to talk to my dad now I'm freaking out, I don't want him arrested he's done nothing wrong. My mother was always difficult but she was not that bad but now she's going crazy and she wants to hurt us, first the texts and destroying and selling my property now this. I called my dad at work but he can't come back now they are short staffed already. I'm so terrified now I don't know what to do I'm sure she's going to lie and my dad is going to be in trouble but he's done nothing wrong. What should I do if the police come back? Assistant:Calm down breath, try and relax. You've already been given some good advice. I second writing down everything, creating a timeline. Details, examples, etc. Be as specific as you can. Show them all the texts, voicemails...everything. You have to tell them ALL of the uncomfortable details. Make sure you have the police documents everything and keep copies to take to the courts once they open again. Present yourself as the calm, rational, logical side of this. Your dad has your back, you'll be okay. Relax, you've got this.

Human: CMV: If Republicans Believe Impeachment of a Former President is Unconstitutional, Then They Should Be Pressing For Trump to Be Prosecuted in the Usual, Constitutional Way First off, I don't outright reject the notion that impeachment was never intended to be used against someone who has already left office. I think the point is arguable. However, I completely reject the notion that our founders intended that someone could commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States and then leave office to escape ever having to face accountability. From this I derive two points. First, Republicans should still be obligated to vote to convict if they believe he is guilty. They are essentially serving as the "jury" in the trial of the president. The jury does not decide matters of law. If I were called to individual juror duty, I can't vote "not guilty" because I think the judge was wrong in ruling a search unconstitutional or because the defendant might get the death penalty and I think that should be unconstitutional. In the same way, Republican senators cannot justify a "no" vote on the question of "did Donald Trump commit these crimes" by saying there should not have been a trial. In fact, in real jury trials we throw out jurors who have so stated they will vote no ahead of time--the 45 senators who voted that this impeachment trial was unconstitutional would have already been dismissed as states do to people who say they oppose the death penalty in death penalty cases. Second, if they persist in voting no due to "process" arguments, and they actually believe those arguments, they should be pressing for the charges and trial to be moved to whatever they think is the proper venue. That could be federal prosecution. If they really do believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were committed against the United States--as they have gone on record saying--then they cannot basically advocate for there being no consequences. They should explicitly state what body DOES have jurisdiction and advocate for it to take action. There are a couple of ways you might change my view. First, I guess you could argue that the Founders and our legal system really DID want to set it up where a president or other lawmaker could freely commit crimes while in office and then resign to escape consequences. That seems like a stretch to me but maybe you have a long lost letter of Alexander Hamilton somewhere where he says "you know we really should just let presidents do whatever so long as they're leaving office soon." Second, you could show that there are more than 33 GOP senators who are voting no because they believe the president did NOT commit any impeachable offenses. However, I do not see very many, if any, making this argument. Why more than 33? Because you need 17 GOP votes to convict and there are 50 GOP Senators. Third, I guess you can argue that even though it was never intended, it simply IS the case that a president at the end of a term is basically immune to any accountability whatsoever, but if that is the case you should also propose a remedy because that is insane. **In summation, the Republican "process" argument against impeachment is bunk as far as the trial. Either, like jurors, they vote on matters of fact alone and say whether or not they think Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors OR they start advocating for this trial to be moved to the proper venue or their process argument is bunk.** Assistant:First, I want to address this paragraph of your answer >Second, if they persist in voting no due to "process" arguments, and they actually believe those arguments, they should be pressing for the charges and trial to be moved to whatever they think is the proper venue. That could be federal prosecution. If they really do believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were committed against the United States--as they have gone on record saying--then they cannot basically advocate for there being no consequences. They should explicitly state what body DOES have jurisdiction and advocate for it to take action. It's not clear that Trump actually committed what would legally constitute incitement. He didn't call people to arms, he didn't tell them to break into the Capitol Building, he made a bunch of claims about the election being stolen and said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." This, nor anything else in his speech seems to meet the legal burden of incitement under 18 U.S.C. § 2102 >As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts. So, Trump's speech may have been ill-advised, destructive to the national fabric, and completely and wholly inappropriate, but there's a good argument that Trump didn't commit any actual crime. This leaves Congress as the only appropriate venue for actually hearing the accusations against Trump. Secondly, I want to address this paragraph >However, I completely reject the notion that our founders intended that someone could commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States and then leave office to escape ever having to face accountability. Resigning wouldn't necessary absolve Trump of accountability if he had committed a crime. There is nothing that I'm aware of in SCOTUS precedent or law to keep the Biden Justice Department from pursuing charges against President Trump. Now, I'm personally not convinced that incitement would be a feasible charge to bring (See above) and I don't think that pursuing an indictment of a former, rather polarizing president with a large base of popularity would be a step towards national unity and reconciliation, but theoretically charges could be pursued. The only thing taken off the table by resignation is impeachment and permanent disqualification from office. The line the GOP is drawing that impeachment can ONLY be used on sitting officials, we can't use impeachment down the line to punish people who became unpopular after the fact. I think that's a fair line, after all if the person resigns, they can still likely face legal repercussions if their actions were illegal and the government decides it's in their best interest to prosecute AND the accused official no longer enjoys the power of the office they had been occupied. Finally, I'll look at this paragraph >First, Republicans should still be obligated to vote to convict if they believe he is guilty. They are essentially serving as the "jury" in the trial of the president. The jury does not decide matters of law. If I were called to individual juror duty, I can't vote "not guilty" because I think the judge was wrong in ruling a search unconstitutional or because the defendant might get the death penalty and I think that should be unconstitutional. Aside from the Jury Nullification arguments already presented, I think the issue here is that there is a reasonable chance that courts will decide impeachment to be a political issue and ergo not justiciable. While we won't know if this is the case until the Supreme Court has the case before them, the Constitution does give the Senate *sole* power to try cases of impeachment with no avenue of appeal specified. If this were an actual court, the jury could render a verdict and you could raise process objections on appeal. There's no indication that the same process will exist with impeachment hearings heard by the Senate. This means that, if GOP Senators have process issues, the only place and time where they can be heard and raised is now. There is no 'well it'll get sorted on appeal,' because there likely can be no substantive appeal.A second point, what if the house had indicted Trump for something absurd, say, having bad hair. Should a Senator say, "well, he TECHNICALLY, is guilty so I have to vote yes"? Or is a senator allowed to say "I have a process objection to this trial because the accusation is absurd and not fitting of impeachment" and vote not guilty? Conversely, what if the house had impeached some random rioter. Surely, that person is guilty of rioting, but is the senator allowed to vote not guilty because they have process objections to impeaching a non-public figure. What I'm trying to illustrate is that Impeachment trials aren't the same as criminal trials. There's less protection for the defendants, specifically you don't have the right to an unbiased jury, you likely don't have any right of appeal, and you may not even need be accused of a real crime. Because of this, senators should be allowed to take in factors beyond the plain guilt or innocence in making their decision. Consider the Clinton Impeachment. President Clinton was almost certainly guilty of the actual crimes the House indicted him on, but nobody now is crying foul at how every Democrat voted against his conviction\*. I'm not saying we should have impeached President Clinton, only that Democratic and several GOP senators took into account factors beyond simple guilt and innocence in making their determinations \*edit: 5 Democrats voted with Republicans on 3 of 4 articles of impeachment, no senator voted for his *conviction.* Replaced impeachment with conviction

Human: CMV: If Republicans Believe Impeachment of a Former President is Unconstitutional, Then They Should Be Pressing For Trump to Be Prosecuted in the Usual, Constitutional Way First off, I don't outright reject the notion that impeachment was never intended to be used against someone who has already left office. I think the point is arguable. However, I completely reject the notion that our founders intended that someone could commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States and then leave office to escape ever having to face accountability. From this I derive two points. First, Republicans should still be obligated to vote to convict if they believe he is guilty. They are essentially serving as the "jury" in the trial of the president. The jury does not decide matters of law. If I were called to individual juror duty, I can't vote "not guilty" because I think the judge was wrong in ruling a search unconstitutional or because the defendant might get the death penalty and I think that should be unconstitutional. In the same way, Republican senators cannot justify a "no" vote on the question of "did Donald Trump commit these crimes" by saying there should not have been a trial. In fact, in real jury trials we throw out jurors who have so stated they will vote no ahead of time--the 45 senators who voted that this impeachment trial was unconstitutional would have already been dismissed as states do to people who say they oppose the death penalty in death penalty cases. Second, if they persist in voting no due to "process" arguments, and they actually believe those arguments, they should be pressing for the charges and trial to be moved to whatever they think is the proper venue. That could be federal prosecution. If they really do believe that high crimes and misdemeanors were committed against the United States--as they have gone on record saying--then they cannot basically advocate for there being no consequences. They should explicitly state what body DOES have jurisdiction and advocate for it to take action. There are a couple of ways you might change my view. First, I guess you could argue that the Founders and our legal system really DID want to set it up where a president or other lawmaker could freely commit crimes while in office and then resign to escape consequences. That seems like a stretch to me but maybe you have a long lost letter of Alexander Hamilton somewhere where he says "you know we really should just let presidents do whatever so long as they're leaving office soon." Second, you could show that there are more than 33 GOP senators who are voting no because they believe the president did NOT commit any impeachable offenses. However, I do not see very many, if any, making this argument. Why more than 33? Because you need 17 GOP votes to convict and there are 50 GOP Senators. Third, I guess you can argue that even though it was never intended, it simply IS the case that a president at the end of a term is basically immune to any accountability whatsoever, but if that is the case you should also propose a remedy because that is insane. **In summation, the Republican "process" argument against impeachment is bunk as far as the trial. Either, like jurors, they vote on matters of fact alone and say whether or not they think Trump committed high crimes and misdemeanors OR they start advocating for this trial to be moved to the proper venue or their process argument is bunk.** Assistant:On point 1, jury nullification is a thing. Jurors can vote not guilty, for literally no reason or for bad reasons. On point 2, prosecutorial jurisdiction is complex. It's entirely possible that there is no proper venue. While probably unintended, it's possible that this is simply a loophole in the law. Perhaps an amendment could be passed to close it, but you couldn't apply it retroactively.

Human: [Texas] My son’s ex-girlfriend’s parents are threatening to sue me because my son (apparently) took her virginity in my house My 16 year old son has an ex-girlfriend (they were 15-16 during their relationship. A lot of this is basically just from what I’ve heard from the parties involved, so I am not sure about if there is to more to it then what I know. Apparently shortly after the girlfriend turned 16 (January of this year) my son (already 16 at this point) and her, well had sex in my house. Until this week, I had no idea this happened, and certainly did not encourage my son to peruse sexual intercourse with this girl (or anyone), though I have had factual and realistic discussions with him regarding sex, safe sex, and that he would have to decide with his significant other when moving to that stage of the relationship is appropriate and how far they want to take any relationship. I only know this happened because a few days ago I received a letter from the girlfriend’s father informing me of of a couple specific points (he claims to be a lawyer, I have never met him): 1) That on (date) my son violated his daughter’s (insert name) chastity and raped her. 2) That he and his wife were working with their daughter and a therapist so that his daughter would realize that this action was rape and justified legal/police intervention. 3) That under Texas law, seeing as the location indicated was on my property, I could be sued for damages incurred by my “blatant disregard to her womanhood,” specifically her apparent inability to be wed within the Christian church and emotional trauma related to her lack of understanding that such a sexual action was rape. Of course, I sat my son down and talked to him about this. He admitted that they had been sexually active during their relationship - twice - with the first time having been in his bedroom at our home. He stated that it was completely consensual, and that he had been in contact with her since they broke up (in March) and was aware that her parents had found out, and were trying to get her to report it as rape, but that she had no intention of doing so because it was not rape and was 100% consensual. He had text messages showing this as well (with her specifically stating that all sexual acts were mutually agreed upon, even one stating that he should keep these text messages safe just in case her parents tried to do something). I just want to know if I could be held liable for the fact my son took his girlfriend’s virginity on my property in Texas. By the way, not sure if it is relevant, but her family are strict Mormons and the “therapist” they mentioned in the letter is apparently, according to her, her priest who is apparently treating her horribly. Assistant:No this is ridiculous. If you are actually sued you should consult an attorney. Beyond that ignore them.

Human: [Texas] My son’s ex-girlfriend’s parents are threatening to sue me because my son (apparently) took her virginity in my house My 16 year old son has an ex-girlfriend (they were 15-16 during their relationship. A lot of this is basically just from what I’ve heard from the parties involved, so I am not sure about if there is to more to it then what I know. Apparently shortly after the girlfriend turned 16 (January of this year) my son (already 16 at this point) and her, well had sex in my house. Until this week, I had no idea this happened, and certainly did not encourage my son to peruse sexual intercourse with this girl (or anyone), though I have had factual and realistic discussions with him regarding sex, safe sex, and that he would have to decide with his significant other when moving to that stage of the relationship is appropriate and how far they want to take any relationship. I only know this happened because a few days ago I received a letter from the girlfriend’s father informing me of of a couple specific points (he claims to be a lawyer, I have never met him): 1) That on (date) my son violated his daughter’s (insert name) chastity and raped her. 2) That he and his wife were working with their daughter and a therapist so that his daughter would realize that this action was rape and justified legal/police intervention. 3) That under Texas law, seeing as the location indicated was on my property, I could be sued for damages incurred by my “blatant disregard to her womanhood,” specifically her apparent inability to be wed within the Christian church and emotional trauma related to her lack of understanding that such a sexual action was rape. Of course, I sat my son down and talked to him about this. He admitted that they had been sexually active during their relationship - twice - with the first time having been in his bedroom at our home. He stated that it was completely consensual, and that he had been in contact with her since they broke up (in March) and was aware that her parents had found out, and were trying to get her to report it as rape, but that she had no intention of doing so because it was not rape and was 100% consensual. He had text messages showing this as well (with her specifically stating that all sexual acts were mutually agreed upon, even one stating that he should keep these text messages safe just in case her parents tried to do something). I just want to know if I could be held liable for the fact my son took his girlfriend’s virginity on my property in Texas. By the way, not sure if it is relevant, but her family are strict Mormons and the “therapist” they mentioned in the letter is apparently, according to her, her priest who is apparently treating her horribly. Assistant:> I just want to know if I could be held liable for the fact my son took his girlfriend’s virginity on my property in Texas. No you cannot. The parents are blowing smoke and you have no concerns. There is nothing actionable they can take, their daughter provided sound advice I hope you followed: > He had text messages showing this as well (with her specifically stating that all sexual acts were mutually agreed upon, even one stating that he should keep these text messages safe just in case her parents tried to do something). Ignore the parents, but don't ignore a suit if one happens to be brought upon you.

Human: [Connecticut] My Psychiatrist is refusing to fill my prescription for -needed- medication. What can I do? Let me start off by saying I go to a Government run outpatient program. Every 2-3 months, they get a new Psychiatrist and my old one leaves for a better paying position. The problem lies in the fact that since my old Psychiatrist left, my new one is now -refusing- to fill my medications that I've been on since before this Doctor came in. My old doctor left 2 months ago(He had been there for 6 months prior). Last month, this doctor had no problem filling my medication. Well, I was supposed to see him on October 6th of this month. I cannot drive, as I have physical health problems as well as mental. So, my therapist or my case manager is supposed to drive me into see the psychiatrist. No one came on the 6th to bring me to the doctor. Something about a scheduling error... Well, I ran out of medicine and called in for a refill. I was informed by my pharmacy that I would be receiving the refill on Wednesday, the 25th. I had called them on Saturday, the 21st, and only had 3 pills left of one medicine. I figured it'd be fine, just 1 day really without that medicine since I take it in the morning. I call my doctor on Wednesday and leave a voicemail with the nurse asking to have the doctor just write a script for 3 months of medication, since I've been on it for a while and I've never had any ill side effects or anything. They called back at 4pm to tell me that the doctor doesn't feel comfortable writing the script for my anti-depressants because he hasn't seen me. One of the drugs causes with-drawl. Bupropion. I've been feeling the effects of it. I've also read up on it and sudden discontinuation can cause severe reactions, even seizures. I'm agitated, I'm scared, I'm depressed. If I said I wasn't suicidal I'd be lying. I'll be checking into the hospital sometime within the week if this isn't sorted. Worst of all, the only open appointment this new doctor has is the 1st of DECEMBER. That's an entire month without my medications. What can I do, from a legal stand point? My doctor just took me off my medications cold turkey with no substantial warning. I've had no time to prepare, and both the with drawl symptoms and the symptoms from mental illness are making my skin crawl and my brain itch. This is unbearable. Is there any way I can get in to see the doctor quicker? Is he allowed to do this? Assistant:I would recommend cross posting this to a subreddit about your illness and see what strategies you might learn about there to assist you cope. My husband has been through this more than once. We have learned the doctor could incur liability if he prescribed medications without a proper examination, but he will not get into trouble for not refilling them even if it has an adverse effect on you. I could say more but I believe anything else I could say would fall outside of the scope of this subreddit.

Human: [Connecticut] My Psychiatrist is refusing to fill my prescription for -needed- medication. What can I do? Let me start off by saying I go to a Government run outpatient program. Every 2-3 months, they get a new Psychiatrist and my old one leaves for a better paying position. The problem lies in the fact that since my old Psychiatrist left, my new one is now -refusing- to fill my medications that I've been on since before this Doctor came in. My old doctor left 2 months ago(He had been there for 6 months prior). Last month, this doctor had no problem filling my medication. Well, I was supposed to see him on October 6th of this month. I cannot drive, as I have physical health problems as well as mental. So, my therapist or my case manager is supposed to drive me into see the psychiatrist. No one came on the 6th to bring me to the doctor. Something about a scheduling error... Well, I ran out of medicine and called in for a refill. I was informed by my pharmacy that I would be receiving the refill on Wednesday, the 25th. I had called them on Saturday, the 21st, and only had 3 pills left of one medicine. I figured it'd be fine, just 1 day really without that medicine since I take it in the morning. I call my doctor on Wednesday and leave a voicemail with the nurse asking to have the doctor just write a script for 3 months of medication, since I've been on it for a while and I've never had any ill side effects or anything. They called back at 4pm to tell me that the doctor doesn't feel comfortable writing the script for my anti-depressants because he hasn't seen me. One of the drugs causes with-drawl. Bupropion. I've been feeling the effects of it. I've also read up on it and sudden discontinuation can cause severe reactions, even seizures. I'm agitated, I'm scared, I'm depressed. If I said I wasn't suicidal I'd be lying. I'll be checking into the hospital sometime within the week if this isn't sorted. Worst of all, the only open appointment this new doctor has is the 1st of DECEMBER. That's an entire month without my medications. What can I do, from a legal stand point? My doctor just took me off my medications cold turkey with no substantial warning. I've had no time to prepare, and both the with drawl symptoms and the symptoms from mental illness are making my skin crawl and my brain itch. This is unbearable. Is there any way I can get in to see the doctor quicker? Is he allowed to do this? Assistant:I went to a new doctor in a new city I moved to and got a script for buproprion same day. No idea why new doc would be worried about it. Hell, I've even been able to purchase a few days worth direct from pharmacy which I use when I ran out without a script since Dr visit was delayed. Find a new doctor. Pain in ass but that's life.

Human: Inherited a house I didn't know about and now dad wants me to sign it over to him so he can "set up a trust fund"...any advice appreciated (x-post from r/personal finance) A little background: I will be 30 years old next week, and I live in an apartment with my 31 year old brother. We both still have a lot of student loan debt and other expenses, but we manage to get by. Five years ago, our mother died of cancer. My dad, who I used to be very close with, suddenly became like a whole different person (as sometimes happens following a tragedy), and a year after mom dies he starts dating this other woman. They move very quickly, planning a trip to Europe within a couple weeks of meeting one another, and within six months he's basically moved in with her. At this point, my brother and I were still living at home trying to save some money while paying off some our college loans (I was 26 and bro was 27), and suddenly dad wants us to move out ASAP so he can sell the house. I found out much later that she was the one pulling the strings and urging him to kick us out, that we were just "freeloaders" (even though we were giving dad as much money as we could afford a month to help with expenses while still saving/paying down debt). Sidenote: she has been divorced 3 times now, dad will be her 4th marriage. Red flag. So that's what we do. I find a nice apartment within our price range and we move out. So now it's 3 years later, my dad is ready to marry this woman in 3 weeks, and I get a call out of the blue from him (we rarely speak even though both my brother and I are in the wedding). Turns out one of the houses (he has two) dad rents out in Louisiana (we live in MA) was actually in my mom's name and my brother and I's name, meaning that when she died 5 years ago, we inherited it. This is the first I've heard of it. So his reason for the call was to tell us that he wants to "save us the headache of dealing with a house" and instead set up a trust fund with the money from the house, but in order to do so, we have to sign the house over to him before the wedding, and he wants us to meet with him and a lawyer within the next week or so. I will admit I'm pretty ignorant to stuff of this nature since I've never had to deal with it before, so at first glance I didn't question this and told him okay, that's nice, because I really don't want to deal with a house either. I didn't really think more about it until this morning when I mentioned it to a couple of my coworkers and they were like "whooaa wait a minute, you guys are over 30, why would you need a trust fund when you should just get the money?" They also know the ongoing dramatic saga that has been my relationship with my father over the last 5 years, so they told me it sounded like him and his fiance want the money before the wedding. I don't know what to think. Is there something I'm missing? What questions should I be asking? I really don't want to destroy whatever is left of my relationship with my father if I can avoid it, but I also don't want to throw away the possibility of finally being able to pay down our debt and live a more comfortable life. I've been dreaming about not living paycheck to paycheck for years. Assistant:Tell him you'll only consider it if he pays you the 5 years of back rental income, lump sum, immediately. If he does, then you can say, "I considered it, and I'm not gonna do it." That's your house. You're nearly 30. You're not a kid. Not even close. There's no way he needs to control your property. You need to do what you need to do to get control of it. Also, to get the rental income coming to YOU, not your dad. I get that you don't want to destroy the relationship, but that's exactly what he's doing... he's trying to take what's yours and benefit from it, while claiming he's doing it "for your own good."

Human: Inherited a house I didn't know about and now dad wants me to sign it over to him so he can "set up a trust fund"...any advice appreciated (x-post from r/personal finance) A little background: I will be 30 years old next week, and I live in an apartment with my 31 year old brother. We both still have a lot of student loan debt and other expenses, but we manage to get by. Five years ago, our mother died of cancer. My dad, who I used to be very close with, suddenly became like a whole different person (as sometimes happens following a tragedy), and a year after mom dies he starts dating this other woman. They move very quickly, planning a trip to Europe within a couple weeks of meeting one another, and within six months he's basically moved in with her. At this point, my brother and I were still living at home trying to save some money while paying off some our college loans (I was 26 and bro was 27), and suddenly dad wants us to move out ASAP so he can sell the house. I found out much later that she was the one pulling the strings and urging him to kick us out, that we were just "freeloaders" (even though we were giving dad as much money as we could afford a month to help with expenses while still saving/paying down debt). Sidenote: she has been divorced 3 times now, dad will be her 4th marriage. Red flag. So that's what we do. I find a nice apartment within our price range and we move out. So now it's 3 years later, my dad is ready to marry this woman in 3 weeks, and I get a call out of the blue from him (we rarely speak even though both my brother and I are in the wedding). Turns out one of the houses (he has two) dad rents out in Louisiana (we live in MA) was actually in my mom's name and my brother and I's name, meaning that when she died 5 years ago, we inherited it. This is the first I've heard of it. So his reason for the call was to tell us that he wants to "save us the headache of dealing with a house" and instead set up a trust fund with the money from the house, but in order to do so, we have to sign the house over to him before the wedding, and he wants us to meet with him and a lawyer within the next week or so. I will admit I'm pretty ignorant to stuff of this nature since I've never had to deal with it before, so at first glance I didn't question this and told him okay, that's nice, because I really don't want to deal with a house either. I didn't really think more about it until this morning when I mentioned it to a couple of my coworkers and they were like "whooaa wait a minute, you guys are over 30, why would you need a trust fund when you should just get the money?" They also know the ongoing dramatic saga that has been my relationship with my father over the last 5 years, so they told me it sounded like him and his fiance want the money before the wedding. I don't know what to think. Is there something I'm missing? What questions should I be asking? I really don't want to destroy whatever is left of my relationship with my father if I can avoid it, but I also don't want to throw away the possibility of finally being able to pay down our debt and live a more comfortable life. I've been dreaming about not living paycheck to paycheck for years. Assistant:You've already gotten good advice in the other thread. Don't sign the house over. Your father has acted like this house was his for five years and taken the income from it, though he knew it wasn't his. On the other hand, he may have paid the property taxes, may have kept up the house, etc. So that's a good thing. You and your brother should probably speak with a lawyer and figure out how to reassert control over the property and decide what to do with it.

Human: My uncle died, leaving me "in charge of" my mentally disabled cousin in his informal will. I was just contacted by the facility he has been living in for the past 4 years to advise me that I was named as the family member to contact in case of my uncle's death. Where to go from here? in California My uncle died about 2 weeks ago. His son, my cousin, is 24 years old and is severally mentally disabled. He is completely non-verbal and has frequent violent outbursts. He has been living in a small facility for about 4 years now. My uncle has been paying the facility directly the entire time. They are in California, I am in WA state. Last week my mom forwarded me an email from a lawyer claiming to represent my uncle. It includes an "informal" will. "Informal" because it is literally scrawled on the back of some random papers, and the exact phrase in it that pertains to me is "*wut2do22* should be in charge of *cousin* if I die and she should have any of the money I have left over for taking care of him". I emailed the lawyer back, asked him exactly what this meant for me right now and he basically said that he was looking into clarifying a few things in the will and would get back to me shortly, and that if I wanted legal advice as far as conservatorship/etc goes I should seek my own lawyer. The second part of that makes sense, he doesn't work for free, but I do not understand what he meant by clarifying some things in the will. Is a will written by somebody without the involvement of an attorney/notary/typical will people still valid? Am I going to automatically become the guardian/conservator for my cousin? I should add here, that although I love my cousin and am definitely going to be making the effort to be more involved in his life, none of this had been discussed with me at all. My uncle was having medical issues for a while now, and we are not very close. He and my mother don't get along very well, and for better or worse we have not been in each other's lives much. I do not know why he would have said that in his will, other than the fact that I don't know if he has anybody else he could name (ex wife, cousin's mother, died a while ago). So, the facility my cousin lives at called me today and told me that I'm named as the family emergency contact. They were really nice, gave me a bunch of options as far payment extension and charity goes, and told me the due date for the next bill. This place is around $5500/month. I work PT while in school, my income (including my loan) is right around $1200/mo when you divide it up. Even if they halved the bill for this month, I couldn't come close to making it, and then there would be the month after that... So what do I do? Is there some way to keep my cousin in the facility that he's been comfortably living in for 4 years? Am I automatically responsible for him, as a guardian? A conservator? Conservatorship seems like it has a lot to do with financial aspects, which aren't really relevant here as my cousin does not have any assets - and although I do not know what my uncle's financial situation was when he died, he had declared bankruptcy a few years ago and had gotten himself into more debt fairly recently. I'm at such a loss of what to do here. My mom is willing to pitch in some money for a lawyer, but our combined amount we can spend is around $500 right now. And that could just be going to try to pay the bill at the facility, so at this point I'm going to try to look into a law office at the school in a nearby city to see if they could offer free advice. In the meantime, if anybody could shed some light on the situation, that would be much appreciated. Assistant:1. You have 0 obligation to your cousin. 2. You are not your cousin's guardian and you dont even have power of attorney to legally make decisions for your cousin. Your cousin is literally an independent adult right now who is not capable of making decisions. 3. You have 0 legal obligation to pay your cousin's bills and if the facility misled you to make you think that the bills are now yours then that facility is ran by assholes scammers. Again, you have 0 legal liability for any of your cousin's bills. 4. You dont need to get a lawyer at all UNLESS....you want to get power of attorney for your cousin or to become your cousin's legal guardian. If you dont want to do these things then dont waste a dime on a lawyer. 5. Your cousin is literally on their own and has Social Security Disability payments. Your options are: A. find a place that will take care of your cousin in exchange for his SSD payments. You can try to find the best place. B. Let your cousin live with you and you try to care for him using his SSD income payments. Get a lawyer to get guardianship or POA. C. Do nothing and let the current facility either decide to let him live there for SSD payments or for them to find a place to ship him to. I suggest option A first and then option C as a last resort. I would not even consider option B. My aunt had downs syndrome and was never capable of any kind of language, basically a 6 month year old for 50 years until she passed away last July. My grandma was a stay at home mom and took care of her 24/7. I can tell you right now, if my grandma passed first. I would find the best home for her to live (with SSD payments) and would not even consider trying to take care of my aunt or paying for her. No way would I sign up to care for someone 24/7. All I can say is good luck and start googling for a care facility that will take your cousin for SSD payments. Do not even attempt to pay this facility $5,500 a month (66,000 a year). That is insane and not your legal obligation in any way.

Human: My uncle died, leaving me "in charge of" my mentally disabled cousin in his informal will. I was just contacted by the facility he has been living in for the past 4 years to advise me that I was named as the family member to contact in case of my uncle's death. Where to go from here? in California My uncle died about 2 weeks ago. His son, my cousin, is 24 years old and is severally mentally disabled. He is completely non-verbal and has frequent violent outbursts. He has been living in a small facility for about 4 years now. My uncle has been paying the facility directly the entire time. They are in California, I am in WA state. Last week my mom forwarded me an email from a lawyer claiming to represent my uncle. It includes an "informal" will. "Informal" because it is literally scrawled on the back of some random papers, and the exact phrase in it that pertains to me is "*wut2do22* should be in charge of *cousin* if I die and she should have any of the money I have left over for taking care of him". I emailed the lawyer back, asked him exactly what this meant for me right now and he basically said that he was looking into clarifying a few things in the will and would get back to me shortly, and that if I wanted legal advice as far as conservatorship/etc goes I should seek my own lawyer. The second part of that makes sense, he doesn't work for free, but I do not understand what he meant by clarifying some things in the will. Is a will written by somebody without the involvement of an attorney/notary/typical will people still valid? Am I going to automatically become the guardian/conservator for my cousin? I should add here, that although I love my cousin and am definitely going to be making the effort to be more involved in his life, none of this had been discussed with me at all. My uncle was having medical issues for a while now, and we are not very close. He and my mother don't get along very well, and for better or worse we have not been in each other's lives much. I do not know why he would have said that in his will, other than the fact that I don't know if he has anybody else he could name (ex wife, cousin's mother, died a while ago). So, the facility my cousin lives at called me today and told me that I'm named as the family emergency contact. They were really nice, gave me a bunch of options as far payment extension and charity goes, and told me the due date for the next bill. This place is around $5500/month. I work PT while in school, my income (including my loan) is right around $1200/mo when you divide it up. Even if they halved the bill for this month, I couldn't come close to making it, and then there would be the month after that... So what do I do? Is there some way to keep my cousin in the facility that he's been comfortably living in for 4 years? Am I automatically responsible for him, as a guardian? A conservator? Conservatorship seems like it has a lot to do with financial aspects, which aren't really relevant here as my cousin does not have any assets - and although I do not know what my uncle's financial situation was when he died, he had declared bankruptcy a few years ago and had gotten himself into more debt fairly recently. I'm at such a loss of what to do here. My mom is willing to pitch in some money for a lawyer, but our combined amount we can spend is around $500 right now. And that could just be going to try to pay the bill at the facility, so at this point I'm going to try to look into a law office at the school in a nearby city to see if they could offer free advice. In the meantime, if anybody could shed some light on the situation, that would be much appreciated. Assistant:> and that if I wanted legal advice as far as conservatorship/etc goes I should seek my own lawyer. This isn't about working for free. It's about a conflict of interest. He likely can't represent your uncle's estate *and* your interests. > Is a will written by somebody without the involvement of an attorney/notary/typical will people still valid? Potentially, yes. > Am I going to automatically become the guardian/conservator for my cousin? I can't see how that would be even remotely legal, but I'm not a family lawyer and not licensed in either state.

Human: My family is abusive and I want to emancipate myself I'm a 16 year old girl. I live with my aunt and uncle and cousins. My maternal grandfather also stays with us. My parents passed away in a car accident two years ago - I was in the car but I survived - and I was taken in by my maternal aunt. My dad grew up an orphan so there is no family on his side. The last two years have been hell for me. Not only because I still can't get over losing my parents (I cry a lot) but also because the situation with my aunt and her family has been an awful experience. My mom was actually estranged from her family. She was white, and my dad was black. Her family never approved - they disowned her when she decided to marry my dad. They have never really "forgiven" my mom and I guess I'm a walking and talking representation of her "mistake." They have told me just that on several occasions. That my existence is a mistake. I get called "halfbreed" and other racist stuff. And I'm constantly on the receiving end of verbal abuse. Sometimes it gets physical. Sometimes it feels like I'm trapped in a minefield. I have to be so careful about where I step cause the repercussions may be explosive. My "uncle" has also made inappropriate sexual advances towards me. He has groped me before and disguised it as "being sloppy with his movements." I can't live like this anymore. I'm an absolute emotional mess. I wanna emancipate myself but I don't know how to go about it. I know the odds of getting emancipation rely a lot on the minor being able to show they can be financially independent. I'm close with a set of twins at school - I'm dating the boy and the girl is my best friend. Their parents own a farm and I work regularly with the family. I'm also into photography and I've been doing real good with shooting weddings. They are very lucrative and I've saved up a substantial amount. With summer at an end and winter coming up, not so many weddings anymore but I also do like family shoots and other portraits; that also supplements my income. The parents of my boyfriend and my best friend know my situation and they said they can offer me lodging as an employee. I've also recorded my family being emotionally abusive towards me. I don't know if that is enough to get me emancipated. I would really appreciate advice. Thank you Assistant:I also want to suggest, if you think there's a chance the family could be vindictive, to keep your valuable (particularly your photography equipment) at your friends' place. If you have a joint bank account with one of these family members, they could potentially withdraw or transfer all of the money. You should consider transferring it to an account with someone you trust and then to a single account once you are 18.

Human: My family is abusive and I want to emancipate myself I'm a 16 year old girl. I live with my aunt and uncle and cousins. My maternal grandfather also stays with us. My parents passed away in a car accident two years ago - I was in the car but I survived - and I was taken in by my maternal aunt. My dad grew up an orphan so there is no family on his side. The last two years have been hell for me. Not only because I still can't get over losing my parents (I cry a lot) but also because the situation with my aunt and her family has been an awful experience. My mom was actually estranged from her family. She was white, and my dad was black. Her family never approved - they disowned her when she decided to marry my dad. They have never really "forgiven" my mom and I guess I'm a walking and talking representation of her "mistake." They have told me just that on several occasions. That my existence is a mistake. I get called "halfbreed" and other racist stuff. And I'm constantly on the receiving end of verbal abuse. Sometimes it gets physical. Sometimes it feels like I'm trapped in a minefield. I have to be so careful about where I step cause the repercussions may be explosive. My "uncle" has also made inappropriate sexual advances towards me. He has groped me before and disguised it as "being sloppy with his movements." I can't live like this anymore. I'm an absolute emotional mess. I wanna emancipate myself but I don't know how to go about it. I know the odds of getting emancipation rely a lot on the minor being able to show they can be financially independent. I'm close with a set of twins at school - I'm dating the boy and the girl is my best friend. Their parents own a farm and I work regularly with the family. I'm also into photography and I've been doing real good with shooting weddings. They are very lucrative and I've saved up a substantial amount. With summer at an end and winter coming up, not so many weddings anymore but I also do like family shoots and other portraits; that also supplements my income. The parents of my boyfriend and my best friend know my situation and they said they can offer me lodging as an employee. I've also recorded my family being emotionally abusive towards me. I don't know if that is enough to get me emancipated. I would really appreciate advice. Thank you Assistant:> I wanna emancipate myself but I don't know how to go about it. Unless you can 100% financially support yourself, as in being able to provide your own housing, food, clothing, insurance, etc... all on your own, with no assistance from anyone, *AND* attend school full-time, emancipation will never happen. If you are being physically, sexually, or emotionally abused, call CPS. Or, speak to a mandated reporter, like a physician, school nurse, teacher, guidance counselor, etc... and they will help you to contact the appropriate authorities.

Human: How much of Philosophy is incompatible with Marxism (or a mistaken endeavour)? I’ll try to make that clearer. I was educated in the history of philosophy, broadly speaking classical Western—Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Searle, Rawls, Nagel, Russell, Nozick, Parfit, with some detours into Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, etc. We never studied Marx, however, and my understanding of political philosophy came from the metaphysical-distributive mode. I’ve recently been getting into Marx, and what is shocking to me is that I can’t seem to reconcile just what he is. Sometimes I feel like an entire world was ignored by Philosophy, and that to understand Marx means basically throwing out large swaths of the history of philosophy—that Marx basically operates in a way similar to Kant in that he shows how experience is mediated; unlike Kant, he thinks it’s mediated by the capitalist system, which creates a worldview. It’s here where I get troubled, because it implies that idealist philosophy generally—from Kant to Rawls and on—is starting from the flawed premise, perhaps akin to the Heidegger idea of being “thrown” into an already existing state of affairs. I guess what it’s showing in a sense is not just that two economic systems are opposed—socialist and capitalist—and also not just that one favors individuals and one favors groups, but that one actually engineers the way thought is generated. To be blunt, it makes me wonder if all that philosophy I studied was actually fruit from a poison tree. This is such a large question—it’s hard to wrap your mind around it, because it entails the very possibility of objectivity (can you abstract your subjectivity with some tool to arrive at an objective understanding), but on the one hand it seems very simplistic—how can Marx be correct when he’s not really dealing with things like moral luck, is/ought, personal identity, justified true belief—he seems almost basic; but on the other hand, when Marxism makes sense, it suggests that a lot of that philosophy is just a mistake. I haven’t felt quite this shaken since I really “got” Aristotle once or twice, or when I “understood” Pragmatism (including its contradictions). I’m kind of at sea a bit here—I’m immersing myself in Marx and Chomsky and Bakunin and Murray Bookchin to help understand where I am exactly—but has anyone else had this sort of experience? Is this a common step? I always used to feel like Rawls was the be-all of political philosophy, and that his communitarian critics were just goodie goodies, but now I’m almost feeling like all of that work was elaborate justifications of the “thrownness,” and that Marx has made it all seem almost trivial. Assistant:>I’ve recently been getting into Marx, and what is shocking to me is that I can’t seem to reconcile just what he is. Sometimes I feel like an entire world was ignored by Philosophy, and that to understand Marx means basically throwing out large swaths of the history of philosophy—that Marx basically operates in a way similar to Kant in that he shows how experience is mediated; unlike Kant, he thinks it’s mediated by the capitalist system, which creates a worldview. It’s here where I get troubled, because it implies that idealist philosophy generally—from Kant to Rawls and on—is starting from the flawed premise, perhaps akin to the Heidegger idea of being “thrown” into an already existing state of affairs. Don't you see how naturally Marx compares with many different currents in philosophy? You yourself are drawing these comparisons! Marx was certainly not the first and not the last philosopher to proclaim the end of philosophy, and yet, here we still are, having absorbed all those criticisms. >I guess what it’s showing in a sense is not just that two economic systems are opposed—socialist and capitalist—and also not just that one favors individuals and one favors groups, but that one actually engineers the way thought is generated. To be blunt, it makes me wonder if all that philosophy I studied was actually fruit from a poison tree. Historical Materialism is an interesting and surprising thesis, but as with all other genealogical demaskings of philosophy (nietzschean, freudian, heideggerian, derridean, feuerbachian, rortyan), there always seems to be something left that cannot be accounted for. In the abstract, one can find appealing the idea that "all" philosophy is "nothing but" the result of ideology/depth psychology/an optic metaphor run wild/etc., but in practice, when actually reading the texts, it becomes very hard in concrete practice to see how, say, greek ontology is inescapably rooted in the parameters set by a seafaring democratic slave economy etc. Certainly those facts about greek society can be incorporated to great effect in interpretations of greek philosophy, and yet the experience of reading Plato or Aristotle, at least to my mind, attests to the transcendence of this thought. It is much easier for everyone involved to take historical materialism as a useful heuristic that works very well in some cases but less well in others. This takes a huge burden off of Marx while allowing us philosophers to have our cake and eat it too.

Human: How much of Philosophy is incompatible with Marxism (or a mistaken endeavour)? I’ll try to make that clearer. I was educated in the history of philosophy, broadly speaking classical Western—Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Searle, Rawls, Nagel, Russell, Nozick, Parfit, with some detours into Hegel, Heidegger, Derrida, etc. We never studied Marx, however, and my understanding of political philosophy came from the metaphysical-distributive mode. I’ve recently been getting into Marx, and what is shocking to me is that I can’t seem to reconcile just what he is. Sometimes I feel like an entire world was ignored by Philosophy, and that to understand Marx means basically throwing out large swaths of the history of philosophy—that Marx basically operates in a way similar to Kant in that he shows how experience is mediated; unlike Kant, he thinks it’s mediated by the capitalist system, which creates a worldview. It’s here where I get troubled, because it implies that idealist philosophy generally—from Kant to Rawls and on—is starting from the flawed premise, perhaps akin to the Heidegger idea of being “thrown” into an already existing state of affairs. I guess what it’s showing in a sense is not just that two economic systems are opposed—socialist and capitalist—and also not just that one favors individuals and one favors groups, but that one actually engineers the way thought is generated. To be blunt, it makes me wonder if all that philosophy I studied was actually fruit from a poison tree. This is such a large question—it’s hard to wrap your mind around it, because it entails the very possibility of objectivity (can you abstract your subjectivity with some tool to arrive at an objective understanding), but on the one hand it seems very simplistic—how can Marx be correct when he’s not really dealing with things like moral luck, is/ought, personal identity, justified true belief—he seems almost basic; but on the other hand, when Marxism makes sense, it suggests that a lot of that philosophy is just a mistake. I haven’t felt quite this shaken since I really “got” Aristotle once or twice, or when I “understood” Pragmatism (including its contradictions). I’m kind of at sea a bit here—I’m immersing myself in Marx and Chomsky and Bakunin and Murray Bookchin to help understand where I am exactly—but has anyone else had this sort of experience? Is this a common step? I always used to feel like Rawls was the be-all of political philosophy, and that his communitarian critics were just goodie goodies, but now I’m almost feeling like all of that work was elaborate justifications of the “thrownness,” and that Marx has made it all seem almost trivial. Assistant:Keep in mind quite a few thinkers are given short shrift--if they're mentioned at all--in most Philosophy departments. I was listening to a Philosophy podcast and one of the hosts who went to a large American state university (U of Michigan, iirc) rattled off a list of French thinkers who he'd never heard of, including Deleuze. Personally, I think Rorty--whatever his other flaws--was on to something when he wrote that Marx would be as well known as, say, Herbert Spencer had some political adventurers not invoked his name for their movement and then shown its "success" by taking over the country which makes up one-sixth of Earth's landmass.

Human: Sister (25) has been finding her clothes with semen on them, most evidence points to it being our uncle. What can she do? Let me start by saying our uncle is around 65 and had a stroke that caused him to be on a feeding tube three years ago, but has lived with our parents for over 10 years. My sister also lives with our parents because she’s currently in school. My younger brother (22) lives with my parents as well. They live in the state of Massachusetts, as do I. This whole fiasco started about in October, where my sister left her a clean set of clothes on her bed for when she got out of the shower, and her underwear went missing while she was in the shower. She looked everywhere in her room but didn’t find it, so she put another one after drying up. After getting dressed, she finds her underwear covered in semen underneath the kitchen sink. She immediately screams for my brother to come into the kitchen, where she shows him the underwear but he says it wasn’t him. The only other person in the house at the time was our uncle, because the outside cameras show no cars in the driveway other than my sister’s. They confront uncle about it but he says it wasn’t him, so nothing comes out of it. Fast forward a day after that, and my sister again leaves out her clothes on her bed for after she’s out of the shower. She makes sure to lock her door and brings the key with her into the bathroom, where she also locks the door. The only one in the house at that time was our uncle and our mother. Sister comes out to find her door open, and her underwear is missing. She screams for my mom who rushes to her room. Sister tells my mom what happened the day before, then tells her she’s afraid it happened again. Our mother was furious, and goes to look under the sink where my sister found her underwear last time. Sure enough, there’s her underwear covered in semen again. This continues to happen once a week over the course of a month, so my sister decides to change her door and lock. This stops her clothes from going missing for about three months. So now it’s January and my sister, brother, and parents all go out for dinner with me for my birthday , but our uncle stays home because he “isn’t feeling well”. When they return home, my sister finds two of her shirts on her bed covered in semen. She’s had enough and yells at my uncle telling him to leave her alone or she’ll call the police, but Uncle says it wasn’t him and goes into his room. My sister decides to buy 3 EXTRA LOCKS for her door the day after for extra security, and gives her spare key to me since I live in my own house. Ever since then it hasn’t happened, but my sister is very afraid that our uncle might try and rape her. She refuses to shower at our parents house so she goes to her friends house to shower. I let her sleep over my house whenever I can, but I fear for her safety. My mother doesn’t want to kick out our uncle because he can’t work and needs special food packs for his feeding tube. What kind of legal action, if any, can we take? I’m willing to buy a camera to catch him in the act if need be, but I am very worried for my sister’s safety. Assistant:You can put him in a nursing home. He is old enough and on bad enough shape. Your sister has the right to feel safe at her parents. Your uncles care could be covered by the state. Check into medicare and medicaid. They will usually pay for nursing home care.

Human: Sister (25) has been finding her clothes with semen on them, most evidence points to it being our uncle. What can she do? Let me start by saying our uncle is around 65 and had a stroke that caused him to be on a feeding tube three years ago, but has lived with our parents for over 10 years. My sister also lives with our parents because she’s currently in school. My younger brother (22) lives with my parents as well. They live in the state of Massachusetts, as do I. This whole fiasco started about in October, where my sister left her a clean set of clothes on her bed for when she got out of the shower, and her underwear went missing while she was in the shower. She looked everywhere in her room but didn’t find it, so she put another one after drying up. After getting dressed, she finds her underwear covered in semen underneath the kitchen sink. She immediately screams for my brother to come into the kitchen, where she shows him the underwear but he says it wasn’t him. The only other person in the house at the time was our uncle, because the outside cameras show no cars in the driveway other than my sister’s. They confront uncle about it but he says it wasn’t him, so nothing comes out of it. Fast forward a day after that, and my sister again leaves out her clothes on her bed for after she’s out of the shower. She makes sure to lock her door and brings the key with her into the bathroom, where she also locks the door. The only one in the house at that time was our uncle and our mother. Sister comes out to find her door open, and her underwear is missing. She screams for my mom who rushes to her room. Sister tells my mom what happened the day before, then tells her she’s afraid it happened again. Our mother was furious, and goes to look under the sink where my sister found her underwear last time. Sure enough, there’s her underwear covered in semen again. This continues to happen once a week over the course of a month, so my sister decides to change her door and lock. This stops her clothes from going missing for about three months. So now it’s January and my sister, brother, and parents all go out for dinner with me for my birthday , but our uncle stays home because he “isn’t feeling well”. When they return home, my sister finds two of her shirts on her bed covered in semen. She’s had enough and yells at my uncle telling him to leave her alone or she’ll call the police, but Uncle says it wasn’t him and goes into his room. My sister decides to buy 3 EXTRA LOCKS for her door the day after for extra security, and gives her spare key to me since I live in my own house. Ever since then it hasn’t happened, but my sister is very afraid that our uncle might try and rape her. She refuses to shower at our parents house so she goes to her friends house to shower. I let her sleep over my house whenever I can, but I fear for her safety. My mother doesn’t want to kick out our uncle because he can’t work and needs special food packs for his feeding tube. What kind of legal action, if any, can we take? I’m willing to buy a camera to catch him in the act if need be, but I am very worried for my sister’s safety. Assistant:--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/throwawayhelp7182836 Title: **Sister (25) has been finding her clothes with semen on them, most evidence points to it being our uncle. What can she do?** Original Post: > Let me start by saying our uncle is around 65 and had a stroke that caused him to be on a feeding tube three years ago, but has lived with our parents for over 10 years. My sister also lives with our parents because she’s currently in school. My younger brother (22) lives with my parents as well. > > This whole fiasco started about in October, where my sister left her a clean set of clothes on her bed for when she got out of the shower, and her underwear went missing while she was in the shower. She looked everywhere in her room but didn’t find it, so she put another one after drying up. After getting dressed, she finds her underwear covered in semen underneath the kitchen sink. She immediately screams for my brother to come into the kitchen, where she shows him the underwear but he says it wasn’t him. The only other person in the house at the time was our uncle, because the outside cameras show no cars in the driveway other than my sister’s. They confront uncle about it but he says it wasn’t him, so nothing comes out of it. > > > Fast forward a day after that, and my sister again leaves out her clothes on her bed for after she’s out of the shower. She makes sure to lock her door and brings the key with her into the bathroom, where she also locks the door. The only one in the house at that time was our uncle and our mother. Sister comes out to find her door open, and her underwear is missing. She screams for my mom who rushes to her room. Sister tells my mom what happened the day before, then tells her she’s afraid it happened again. Our mother was furious, and goes to look under the sink where my sister found her underwear last time. Sure enough, there’s her underwear covered in semen again. > > > This continues to happen once a week over the course of a month, so my sister decides to change her door and lock. This stops her clothes from going missing for about three months. So now it’s January and my sister, brother, and parents all go out for dinner with me for my birthday , but our uncle stays home because he “isn’t feeling well”. When they return home, my sister finds two of her shirts on her bed covered in semen. She’s had enough and yells at my uncle telling him to leave her alone or she’ll call the police, but Uncle says it wasn’t him and goes into his room. My sister decides to buy 3 EXTRA LOCKS for her door the day after for extra security, and gives her spare key to me since I live in my own house. > > > Ever since then it hasn’t happened, but my sister is very afraid that our uncle might try and rape her. She refuses to shower at our parents house so she goes to her friends house to shower. I let her sleep over my house whenever I can, but I fear for her safety. My mother doesn’t want to kick out our uncle because he can’t work and needs special food packs for his feeding tube. What kind of legal action, if any, can we take? I’m willing to buy a camera to catch him in the act if need be, but I am very worried for my sister’s safety. > > --- LocationBot 4.31977192 | Report Issues

Human: I got a job! After a hellish year. This is a long story, but I've wanted to tell it. I'm a regular lurker and commenter on this sub but creating an alt account to maintain my anonymity. The story has a happy ending, but it took a long time to get there. I finished my PhD in 2016 in Geography. I came out of one of the top graduate Geography programs in the US, but from a university that doesn't rank as 'elite'. Not all colleges and universities have Geography departments in the US and so people with Geography PhDs are often hired in departments that are interdisciplinary (such as environmental studies or international studies). I started applying for jobs in 2014-2015 while ABD and had a few phone and Skype interviews but nothing beyond that. I applied to all types of institution, in lots of different kinds of departments. I really didn't care about rank or anything like that, I just wanted a job. In 2015-2016, still ABD, I kept applying with no luck, and began to despair. I imagined a different life for myself outside of academia and began to mobilize some alternative options for myself. At the end of the Spring that year, I defended my dissertation, a few days later I half heartedly applied for one more job and got it! It was an NTT Instructor position at a large well-known research university in the US. I moved myself to a new place where I didn't know anyone in the summer of 2016 and started my first faculty position in an R1 Geography department that fall semester. Soon after I got to the new place, I met with my new colleagues and was told that they intended to hire a tenure track position for exactly the type of research that I do. Of course, I was immediately very excited about this. I really liked these people, loved my new students, and could envision a future for myself at this new university. From the time I got there in fall, 2016, I worked to distinguish myself. I published all of my dissertation that first year, and was able to submit some other publications as well. I consistently had stellar teaching evaluations. I began developing my next research project. My colleagues seemed supportive and I received very encouraging feedback about everything I was doing. Multiple people told me they wanted me to have the tenure track position when it came up. I tried to take this with a grain of salt, but of course I was very hopeful. In the fall of 2017, my department posted the ad for the new tenure track hire. It was clearly written around what I do. It was quite obvious, even to the point that friends and colleagues elsewhere were emailing me to figure out if the job was for me or if they should bother applying. I advised people to apply, because I knew that I wouldn't be given any particular advantage over other applicants. Nonetheless, I was very hopeful. But, I didn't want to think of it as guaranteed and I did continue to apply elsewhere for TT positions. I didn't have much luck. I was shortlisted at another R1 Geography program and (as anyone who has been on the market for awhile knows), applying for jobs is enormously time consuming and emotionally draining. After January, I stopped applying to other jobs and decided to let the chips fall where they would. I made it to the campus visit stage in the TT search at my university. I felt like my interview went well. Throughout the process I was very aware of everything else that was happening (a common challenge for the internal candidate). I knew when search committee meetings were happening, I knew when other candidates were visiting, I knew something of the internal dynamics of the search. For complicated reasons, the search was drawn out, a final candidate interviewed a month after the initial interviews happened. Members of the search committee were out of the country off and on. It was about 2.5 months from the time of my interview to the time when they actually made a decision about the job. Meanwhile, I organized a conference on themes that related directly to the position. I continued to work on publishing, provided quality educational experiences for my students, and generally do my thing well. But I was under an intense amount of pressure. My insomnia was terrible. I was dealing with some crippling anxiety. I was socially isolated because everyone I knew in this new place was either a colleague or a grad student in my department. It seemed like a bad idea to unload my stress on anyone in my department while the search was underway, so I kept my distance and spent a lot of time alone. It was honestly one of the hardest times in my life. Being alone in a new place, not being able to reach out to the few friends I had made there, and feeling like everything I did professionally was being judged. I felt that I had to do everything right so that they would give me this TT job. I was a mess emotionally, but managed to keep it to myself and appear as if I was doing fine professionally. They didn't give me the job. Worse, they didn't give it to anyone. It was a failed search. No one would ever give me a straight answer about why. My colleagues were mostly gaslighting me and acting as if I should not be impacted by how this all played out. Senior colleagues said things like, "I had lots of jobs I didn't get" and tried to act as if they knew my experience. But they didn't. They all got TT jobs within a year of finishing their PhDs (most straight out of grad school) none of them had to go through what early career people do today. A couple colleagues even offered to help me improve my application materials so that when they re-run the search next year I would be better prepared. I tried to be polite and not burn bridges, but all of this was insulting and hurtful. I'd already made it to the campus visit stage. I felt that they had their opportunity for me to be a part of their department long term and they didn't take it. So why would I bother putting myself through another year of that hell? As I saw it, my only pathway forward was to leave. But the NTT position I was in wasn't terrible so I couldn't just take anything. I knew it was a long shot but I applied to a few jobs that were posted in April. I got 2 on site interviews. One of them was an amazing good fit at an R1 near where I did my PhD. It's a great city that I love and I have friends in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End Assistant:GEOGRAPHERS UNITE! Congratulations! The job hunt is scary and disheartening and humbling, but you made it! I have only one question: Physical geography or Human geography? ;)

Human: I got a job! After a hellish year. This is a long story, but I've wanted to tell it. I'm a regular lurker and commenter on this sub but creating an alt account to maintain my anonymity. The story has a happy ending, but it took a long time to get there. I finished my PhD in 2016 in Geography. I came out of one of the top graduate Geography programs in the US, but from a university that doesn't rank as 'elite'. Not all colleges and universities have Geography departments in the US and so people with Geography PhDs are often hired in departments that are interdisciplinary (such as environmental studies or international studies). I started applying for jobs in 2014-2015 while ABD and had a few phone and Skype interviews but nothing beyond that. I applied to all types of institution, in lots of different kinds of departments. I really didn't care about rank or anything like that, I just wanted a job. In 2015-2016, still ABD, I kept applying with no luck, and began to despair. I imagined a different life for myself outside of academia and began to mobilize some alternative options for myself. At the end of the Spring that year, I defended my dissertation, a few days later I half heartedly applied for one more job and got it! It was an NTT Instructor position at a large well-known research university in the US. I moved myself to a new place where I didn't know anyone in the summer of 2016 and started my first faculty position in an R1 Geography department that fall semester. Soon after I got to the new place, I met with my new colleagues and was told that they intended to hire a tenure track position for exactly the type of research that I do. Of course, I was immediately very excited about this. I really liked these people, loved my new students, and could envision a future for myself at this new university. From the time I got there in fall, 2016, I worked to distinguish myself. I published all of my dissertation that first year, and was able to submit some other publications as well. I consistently had stellar teaching evaluations. I began developing my next research project. My colleagues seemed supportive and I received very encouraging feedback about everything I was doing. Multiple people told me they wanted me to have the tenure track position when it came up. I tried to take this with a grain of salt, but of course I was very hopeful. In the fall of 2017, my department posted the ad for the new tenure track hire. It was clearly written around what I do. It was quite obvious, even to the point that friends and colleagues elsewhere were emailing me to figure out if the job was for me or if they should bother applying. I advised people to apply, because I knew that I wouldn't be given any particular advantage over other applicants. Nonetheless, I was very hopeful. But, I didn't want to think of it as guaranteed and I did continue to apply elsewhere for TT positions. I didn't have much luck. I was shortlisted at another R1 Geography program and (as anyone who has been on the market for awhile knows), applying for jobs is enormously time consuming and emotionally draining. After January, I stopped applying to other jobs and decided to let the chips fall where they would. I made it to the campus visit stage in the TT search at my university. I felt like my interview went well. Throughout the process I was very aware of everything else that was happening (a common challenge for the internal candidate). I knew when search committee meetings were happening, I knew when other candidates were visiting, I knew something of the internal dynamics of the search. For complicated reasons, the search was drawn out, a final candidate interviewed a month after the initial interviews happened. Members of the search committee were out of the country off and on. It was about 2.5 months from the time of my interview to the time when they actually made a decision about the job. Meanwhile, I organized a conference on themes that related directly to the position. I continued to work on publishing, provided quality educational experiences for my students, and generally do my thing well. But I was under an intense amount of pressure. My insomnia was terrible. I was dealing with some crippling anxiety. I was socially isolated because everyone I knew in this new place was either a colleague or a grad student in my department. It seemed like a bad idea to unload my stress on anyone in my department while the search was underway, so I kept my distance and spent a lot of time alone. It was honestly one of the hardest times in my life. Being alone in a new place, not being able to reach out to the few friends I had made there, and feeling like everything I did professionally was being judged. I felt that I had to do everything right so that they would give me this TT job. I was a mess emotionally, but managed to keep it to myself and appear as if I was doing fine professionally. They didn't give me the job. Worse, they didn't give it to anyone. It was a failed search. No one would ever give me a straight answer about why. My colleagues were mostly gaslighting me and acting as if I should not be impacted by how this all played out. Senior colleagues said things like, "I had lots of jobs I didn't get" and tried to act as if they knew my experience. But they didn't. They all got TT jobs within a year of finishing their PhDs (most straight out of grad school) none of them had to go through what early career people do today. A couple colleagues even offered to help me improve my application materials so that when they re-run the search next year I would be better prepared. I tried to be polite and not burn bridges, but all of this was insulting and hurtful. I'd already made it to the campus visit stage. I felt that they had their opportunity for me to be a part of their department long term and they didn't take it. So why would I bother putting myself through another year of that hell? As I saw it, my only pathway forward was to leave. But the NTT position I was in wasn't terrible so I couldn't just take anything. I knew it was a long shot but I applied to a few jobs that were posted in April. I got 2 on site interviews. One of them was an amazing good fit at an R1 near where I did my PhD. It's a great city that I love and I have friends in the area. The interview was like a great blind date. I loved it there and I could tell that their department was really excited about me. The day after I got back from my interview, I had an informal offer from the chair and after a bit of negotiation, I signed the offer letter and am now on my way to a TT position in a place I am very excited about. I really can't get over my good fortune here, especially after such a hellish year. So, after 4 years on the job market and a terrible experience an internal candidate, I finally got the job. It felt great to email my current colleagues brief polite emails about my imminent departure. If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading. I am mostly posting this for my own catharsis, but also for grad students with academic aspirations and others still on the market. Good luck to all, the market is brutal and demoralizing. The End Assistant:CONGRATS! Persistence and hard work pays off! Enjoy some R&R with the comfort of knowing they want you!

Human: Is asking for $30/hr too much? [CA] I'm 22M. Graduated 6/21 but began working at a Community Bank in Southern California in 11/20. The market here is not like Los Angeles or a big city. It's a small town and average income is a lot lower. I started part-time at $15/hr for a few months then switched to $17/hr when I went full-time. I've been in a Jr. Credit Analyst role since beginning. I recently made a post asking Reddit if I was underpaid and they all agreed I was. So I've decided to ask for a raise and even transition of roles (become a Credit Analyst with more responsibility or a Loan Officer) to $30/hr. Huge jump... I know. But also I feel like I got a very low starting point. Here is the rough speech I drafted up today: **I began working at the bank before completing my bachelor’s degree and since then have gained a lot of experience and exposure. I’ve worked on Josh’s, Cindy’s, yours, and a few of Jon’s deals and have taken initiative by going to trainings paid for by the bank and even going as far to pay for some on my own to further learn and become a more valuable asset. I’ve now completed my four-year coursework, demonstrated that I have an ambition to learn, exemplified professionalism & a good attitude in the workplace, and am ready for more responsibility. So my question is how can I provide $30/hr worth of value? What do you consider $30/hr worth of value and how attainable is that?** A few important pieces of information: * I've known the Chief Credit Officer for 5+ years and am best friends with his son, who I met through a program for students with Autism. His wife and I speak a lot and she says he has my interest in mind. But he's a rationale guy too and if he thinks I'm crazy for asking for $30/hr he'll tell me. * CCO and I have spoke of moving to a Loan Officer role and he has implied he can make that happen. Has said let me talk with the CEO, I have brought it up a few times and he has said he is waiting for the budget meeting. It already passed and I haven't heard anything. Am I crazy for asking for this? What can I remove, add, or rephrase when asking for higher pay and more responsibility? What are your general thoughts on the situation? Thank you so much in advance :)) Assistant:So your pitch is a lot about what you’ve done … but has nothing about what you’ve done *for your employer.* Pump that up with concrete results and accomplishments - increased X by Y%, improved performance by X% over the prior year, beat goal by X%, increased revenue by $10,000, stuff like that. You need to demonstrate your actual value. As others have said, your ask has to be credible. If you go too high for this market, you’ll potentially hurt yourself for years to come by being known as “the kid who wanted $60 grand a few months out of college.” Why is $30 an hour your target?

Human: Is asking for $30/hr too much? [CA] I'm 22M. Graduated 6/21 but began working at a Community Bank in Southern California in 11/20. The market here is not like Los Angeles or a big city. It's a small town and average income is a lot lower. I started part-time at $15/hr for a few months then switched to $17/hr when I went full-time. I've been in a Jr. Credit Analyst role since beginning. I recently made a post asking Reddit if I was underpaid and they all agreed I was. So I've decided to ask for a raise and even transition of roles (become a Credit Analyst with more responsibility or a Loan Officer) to $30/hr. Huge jump... I know. But also I feel like I got a very low starting point. Here is the rough speech I drafted up today: **I began working at the bank before completing my bachelor’s degree and since then have gained a lot of experience and exposure. I’ve worked on Josh’s, Cindy’s, yours, and a few of Jon’s deals and have taken initiative by going to trainings paid for by the bank and even going as far to pay for some on my own to further learn and become a more valuable asset. I’ve now completed my four-year coursework, demonstrated that I have an ambition to learn, exemplified professionalism & a good attitude in the workplace, and am ready for more responsibility. So my question is how can I provide $30/hr worth of value? What do you consider $30/hr worth of value and how attainable is that?** A few important pieces of information: * I've known the Chief Credit Officer for 5+ years and am best friends with his son, who I met through a program for students with Autism. His wife and I speak a lot and she says he has my interest in mind. But he's a rationale guy too and if he thinks I'm crazy for asking for $30/hr he'll tell me. * CCO and I have spoke of moving to a Loan Officer role and he has implied he can make that happen. Has said let me talk with the CEO, I have brought it up a few times and he has said he is waiting for the budget meeting. It already passed and I haven't heard anything. Am I crazy for asking for this? What can I remove, add, or rephrase when asking for higher pay and more responsibility? What are your general thoughts on the situation? Thank you so much in advance :)) Assistant:Expect 10% or the minimum of the role you are going into - whichever is greater.

Human: CMV: The same traits which are necessary for the development of a meaningful friendship are necessary for the development of a meaningful relationship. Thus, there is no way in which two members of the opposite sex can remain platonic best friends, unless it is an issue of attractiveness. I'm a guy, and all of my close friends are guys. I have some friends that are girls, but they are mostly acquaintances. I am currently not single; I have been dating my girlfriend for two years, and I consider her one of my best friends. I love her dearly and I intend to marry her. All of her close friends are girls as well. I don't believe that 'women and men can't be friends'. For normal friends, it makes perfect sense; in the sense that someone has dozens of friends, people that you enjoy the company of and make small talk with, but don't really know that well. You know, you never really hang out one on one, it's just a very casual and relatively distant friendship. But I *do* believe that 'women and men cannot be close friends'. Because it doesn't make any sense. The person you love *needs* to be your best friend. Your wife or husband *is* your best friend. This is a core principle of any healthy, long-term relationship. So, if you met someone that was your best friend, and they were a member of the opposite sex, why *wouldn't* you want to become romantically involved with them? In these cases, I 100% believe it is a matter of physical attraction. If your best friend of the opposite sex was a god/goddess, then you would absolutely fall in love with them. I don't believe in "oh I love him, but not like that" or "I see her like a sister". No, I've seen plenty of childhood friendships evolve into romantic relationships. How could you be so close with someone of the opposite sex, yet have no romantic intentions? In my opinion, I think it's a matter of dishonesty, and it's as really as simple as people not wanting to admit that they are shallow (which is fine, everybody is shallow). I don't want to hear anecdotal evidence unless it's thoroughly explained. But I'm totally open to having my view changed. Feel free to ask me any questions about my personal experiences or any clarifications on my thoughts. _____ > *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:Here are some traits that will end/prevent a relationship, but may not effect close friendship: * Fidelity to previous partners * Desire to have and raise children * Long term plans (travel the world/settle somewhere comfortable) * Religious beliefs * Conflicts with family members * Financial responsibility There are many things you can easily ignore as a friend, but significantly affect your life in a romantic relationship.

Human: CMV: The same traits which are necessary for the development of a meaningful friendship are necessary for the development of a meaningful relationship. Thus, there is no way in which two members of the opposite sex can remain platonic best friends, unless it is an issue of attractiveness. I'm a guy, and all of my close friends are guys. I have some friends that are girls, but they are mostly acquaintances. I am currently not single; I have been dating my girlfriend for two years, and I consider her one of my best friends. I love her dearly and I intend to marry her. All of her close friends are girls as well. I don't believe that 'women and men can't be friends'. For normal friends, it makes perfect sense; in the sense that someone has dozens of friends, people that you enjoy the company of and make small talk with, but don't really know that well. You know, you never really hang out one on one, it's just a very casual and relatively distant friendship. But I *do* believe that 'women and men cannot be close friends'. Because it doesn't make any sense. The person you love *needs* to be your best friend. Your wife or husband *is* your best friend. This is a core principle of any healthy, long-term relationship. So, if you met someone that was your best friend, and they were a member of the opposite sex, why *wouldn't* you want to become romantically involved with them? In these cases, I 100% believe it is a matter of physical attraction. If your best friend of the opposite sex was a god/goddess, then you would absolutely fall in love with them. I don't believe in "oh I love him, but not like that" or "I see her like a sister". No, I've seen plenty of childhood friendships evolve into romantic relationships. How could you be so close with someone of the opposite sex, yet have no romantic intentions? In my opinion, I think it's a matter of dishonesty, and it's as really as simple as people not wanting to admit that they are shallow (which is fine, everybody is shallow). I don't want to hear anecdotal evidence unless it's thoroughly explained. But I'm totally open to having my view changed. Feel free to ask me any questions about my personal experiences or any clarifications on my thoughts. _____ > *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:It is fully possible for two people to choose to be friends, even if they are attracted to each other (being attracted does not negate friendship, nor progress it to the "next" level). People have done this for thousands of years. History goes against your unwavering claim.

Human: My husband died and his exwife has just left the kids here Hi everyone, Just over a month ago, my husband passed away. He has three kids with his ex wife, who spend half of their time with us (ages 7-13), and he and I have twin two year olds together. He had a life insurance policy in his ex-wife's name so that she would be able to take care of the kids in the event of his death (she would probably struggle otherwise to keep her house without child support payments). The kids were all staying with us when it happened, and wanted to stay through all of the activity in the weeks after. I was happy to have them, and she agreed. I don't remember those first few weeks very well. After a few weeks I asked her what her plans were and when she wanted to pick them up, and she talked with the kids and then told me a week. They agreed that that was what they wanted and had asked her for. In this conversation I suggested continuing a 50/50 plan informally, which she seemed open too. A week passed (with bizarrely very little contact from her - she usually calls the kids every day). I called her at the end, and she told me that she couldn't come to get them, as she was in Ireland (???) and would be there for travel after "a good while". She says she needs this trip for her mental health as her ex-husband had just died. I'm at a loss. I don't know what to do other than I guess keep going and hope she comes back? Finances are going to be a huge issue, especially with all five of them full time. And then there's just the day-to-day hourly work of being a good parent, and I need to work, and I think I'm still in shock, and once it wears off I don't know how I will function. I don't know what to do. My first priority is whatever the hell is best for all of the kids. If that means taking the older three in full time, okay. My question there is: what's the legality of it? Is there anything I can do to stop her from blowing back into town in a few months and stopping me from ever seeing them? Secondarily: money. I'm doing okay enough that I could keep the house even without my husband's income, but I don't know how much I'll be able to save for things like college, future expenses, etc. Probably not very much, and the older three really need money being put into their college accounts. Can I legally require her to contribute, especially if the kids are with me full time? ~~~~ tldr: My husband died. A month later his ex-wife is off in Ireland doing g*d knows what, and has left my step kids with me. I want to know where I stand legally. Assistant:WOW. OK, Dad passed away and mom doesn't want them. OUCH. I feel sorry for those 3 children. I am not a lawyer but am familiar with some of this. 1. Call the police and report the 3 children that she abandoned. I'd be surprised if she really was in Ireland. If she is out of the country, she may be extraditable. She is, at least, responsible for their child support after all. 2. Contact Social Security and apply for survivors benefits for you and your 2 children. A. You will need to set up a representative payee checking account for each child. Direct deposit their checks. You will need to keep track of every single penny spent. (I kept every single receipt) Social Security can and will audit the accounts should there ever be suspicion that the money is not being spent for the childrens benefit or their mom decides to accuse you of keeping the money. If you don't need the money to care for them, one of the legal types here can suggest the best way to put the money away for college. Again, you will need a paper trail. 3. If you want to keep her 3 kids, contact a lawyer to walk you through that legal process. The state will want to keep them together and give them to a family member. Other family members, including their mother, will have the opportunity to request custody and plead their case. 4. Once you have legal custody of the children, apply for their survivors benefits. They should receive backpay to their fathers date of death. 5. Get those kids into counseling.

Human: My husband died and his exwife has just left the kids here Hi everyone, Just over a month ago, my husband passed away. He has three kids with his ex wife, who spend half of their time with us (ages 7-13), and he and I have twin two year olds together. He had a life insurance policy in his ex-wife's name so that she would be able to take care of the kids in the event of his death (she would probably struggle otherwise to keep her house without child support payments). The kids were all staying with us when it happened, and wanted to stay through all of the activity in the weeks after. I was happy to have them, and she agreed. I don't remember those first few weeks very well. After a few weeks I asked her what her plans were and when she wanted to pick them up, and she talked with the kids and then told me a week. They agreed that that was what they wanted and had asked her for. In this conversation I suggested continuing a 50/50 plan informally, which she seemed open too. A week passed (with bizarrely very little contact from her - she usually calls the kids every day). I called her at the end, and she told me that she couldn't come to get them, as she was in Ireland (???) and would be there for travel after "a good while". She says she needs this trip for her mental health as her ex-husband had just died. I'm at a loss. I don't know what to do other than I guess keep going and hope she comes back? Finances are going to be a huge issue, especially with all five of them full time. And then there's just the day-to-day hourly work of being a good parent, and I need to work, and I think I'm still in shock, and once it wears off I don't know how I will function. I don't know what to do. My first priority is whatever the hell is best for all of the kids. If that means taking the older three in full time, okay. My question there is: what's the legality of it? Is there anything I can do to stop her from blowing back into town in a few months and stopping me from ever seeing them? Secondarily: money. I'm doing okay enough that I could keep the house even without my husband's income, but I don't know how much I'll be able to save for things like college, future expenses, etc. Probably not very much, and the older three really need money being put into their college accounts. Can I legally require her to contribute, especially if the kids are with me full time? ~~~~ tldr: My husband died. A month later his ex-wife is off in Ireland doing g*d knows what, and has left my step kids with me. I want to know where I stand legally. Assistant:Wow, I am very sorry for the troubles youre going through. You seem incredibly level headed even in grief! The audacity of that woman to "need to travel" as her EX HUSBAND has passed. I cannot imagine your frustration! I grew up in a single income household, and although I wasnt forced or needed to, I worked and would give my mom half the money I made through middle school and highschool....maybe talk to the children when the time is right. If not for bills, but to make themselves feel independent and Im sure it would take some stress off. I hope the best for you!

Human: I was hit on by the much-older coworker who is training me at my new job. Is speaking to HR an overreaction? [CA] I'm torn over whether or not I'm overreacting to an incident with a coworker, and whether going to HR is the right decision. Backstory: I started at a company a little while ago, and LOVE my new job. My tasks often require me to be alone with my supervisor or the coworker who is training me (in areas like storage rooms, empty offices, etc.). I'm significantly younger (25) and physically smaller than them, and the only woman, but I've never felt uncomfortable— until this week. **The other day, I asked the coworker who is training me (mid-fifties, married with kids) an innocuous question about a work procedure. The moment the only other person present left the (enclosed, windowless) room, he straight-up interrupted me and said, "Just between you and me...and I hope you don't take this offensively, but... I think you're** ***hot***." Past experience has made me scared of angering men who hit on me, so I just said "thank you", made a joke (I don't see myself as attractive, but I didn't want to encourage more compliments by saying it), and laughed it off. **He seemed to think I was happy he told me and made jokes about how happy I must be that he "finally said it" (?????).** After half an hour of pretending to go through emails while I had tremendous anxiety, I went to lunch and cried. I've started wearing baggy cardigans over my work shirts to hide my body a little more, and timing certain tasks for when he's present so I can have a moment of peace. I find myself not volunteering for things as much in case he offers to join me. When he wants to show me something, I find myself trying to get it over with as soon as possible so we're no longer alone. **I'm just unbearably anxious and uncomfortable.** **My job depends on his training and his feedback to our boss and I'm worried that if I tell him off, it'll not only make the workplace** ***more*** **uncomfortable, but also inspire him to retaliate by telling our boss I didn't do things adequately, etc.** I've made an appointment to speak with someone from HR, but now that the appointment is made, I'm doubting myself. I'm not asking for action to be taken, but I want a record in case another incident like this occurs. **Am I overreacting by going to HR, or is this something an HR rep would want an employee to speak to them about?** Assistant:I'm a male and I've been a manager for a very long time. I agree with posters who are saying, talk to HR. Think of it this way: Eventually you will have to make it clear to this supervisor that you are not interested. If he's like most unreasonably delusional men, he will continue to escalate until he finally asks you out on a date or worse tries to get physical, at which point you'll have no other option but to go to HR anyhow, only the situation will be way worse at that point. So, you might as well go to HR now. That way there is some chance of heading this off before it gets worse, and if it does get worse, you are now somewhat more protected from getting fired yourself, in case he gets hostile or retaliatory and accuses you of some untrue things. Now, all that said, do not assume that HR knows what they are doing. They probably don't given this sounds like a place they are not used to having woman employees. So, you should seek out someone more experienced among your family and friends to also lean on for advice. You should also familiarize yourself with the basics of the psychology and laws related to workplace discrimination. Know your rights.

Human: I was hit on by the much-older coworker who is training me at my new job. Is speaking to HR an overreaction? [CA] I'm torn over whether or not I'm overreacting to an incident with a coworker, and whether going to HR is the right decision. Backstory: I started at a company a little while ago, and LOVE my new job. My tasks often require me to be alone with my supervisor or the coworker who is training me (in areas like storage rooms, empty offices, etc.). I'm significantly younger (25) and physically smaller than them, and the only woman, but I've never felt uncomfortable— until this week. **The other day, I asked the coworker who is training me (mid-fifties, married with kids) an innocuous question about a work procedure. The moment the only other person present left the (enclosed, windowless) room, he straight-up interrupted me and said, "Just between you and me...and I hope you don't take this offensively, but... I think you're** ***hot***." Past experience has made me scared of angering men who hit on me, so I just said "thank you", made a joke (I don't see myself as attractive, but I didn't want to encourage more compliments by saying it), and laughed it off. **He seemed to think I was happy he told me and made jokes about how happy I must be that he "finally said it" (?????).** After half an hour of pretending to go through emails while I had tremendous anxiety, I went to lunch and cried. I've started wearing baggy cardigans over my work shirts to hide my body a little more, and timing certain tasks for when he's present so I can have a moment of peace. I find myself not volunteering for things as much in case he offers to join me. When he wants to show me something, I find myself trying to get it over with as soon as possible so we're no longer alone. **I'm just unbearably anxious and uncomfortable.** **My job depends on his training and his feedback to our boss and I'm worried that if I tell him off, it'll not only make the workplace** ***more*** **uncomfortable, but also inspire him to retaliate by telling our boss I didn't do things adequately, etc.** I've made an appointment to speak with someone from HR, but now that the appointment is made, I'm doubting myself. I'm not asking for action to be taken, but I want a record in case another incident like this occurs. **Am I overreacting by going to HR, or is this something an HR rep would want an employee to speak to them about?** Assistant:Go to HR. That's blatant harassment, not a comment that could be taken the wrong way. The fact that the guy is joking about it, keeps bringing it up shows it wasn't a momentary lapse in judgement either. If you haven't already, start making notes of what he says and when in a little notebook. He's the one making the workplace uncomfortable, not you.

Human: My mother has been seperated from my father for 30 years. Now that she just found out he is dead, she wants to alter his death certificate because his partner of 17 years said he was not married. Now she wants my ID and signature to request the death certificate. Does she need this to remarry? My mother left my father when I was 1. They married in FL. and had only been together a couple of years. When I was born they moved back to NY where my grandparents to lived. They worked together at my father's business until they split and we moved to the UK. Allegedly they made a deal that my mother would not seek child support if he never sought visitation. Once the deal was struck we got on a plane, they never divorced. Eventually we moved back to Fl. I got to see him for a couple weeks when in my early teens after he moved NY to FL in the hopes of maybe starting a relationship with me. I wanted that and we spent free time together for a couple of weeks. My mother promptly moved us out of the country again for 6 months, and then to SC. We had never been to SC before and had no reason to go there. We stayed loosely in touch,, and when I was 24 I was able to rekindle a relationship with him. I would visit whenever I was in the area, and I met his partner C. He and his SO started or continued the business together in FL. and remained in Fl. They were together 17 years. I texted my father recently only to get a response from C (my father's SO). C informed me that he had passed suddenly. I asked if there were any small trinquet like an old shirt or jacket or even a photo that I could have to remember him by. She seemed at first very concerned, said they really didn't have a lot and went on about how the business was in debt and she was struggling. I assured her I wanted nothing of value from them, only momentos. She sent me some photos. She seemed concerned that I would try for some of his estate, if there was one. I told my mother (BS) that Dad had passed. She of course made it about her, saying she was a widow now. She has been dating my brothers father for about 17 or 18 years and NEVER spoke with my father, even when I was meeting him as a kid. Now about a month later, BS has started harassing me about sending a photocopy of my license 200x zoomed and signed and dated so that she can get Dads death certificate. She said I have to do it because I am immediate family, and said there was an urgent deadline. I asked why, and she said that C had falsified the death certificate saying that dad was not married, and this now prevents BS from being able to remarry my brothers father. I was hesitant, and have been trying to look up the laws about seperation vs legal seperation and divorce/annulment. While looking this up, I start to get heavy pressure from BS to hurry up and do it because she has already filed the request for me online and needs my document. I am sure if she had a copy already she would've just forged it. She messages reminding me that she needs it right away repeatedly, I give her reasons why I am busy, which I have been. Finally she sent a message while I am at work. The text preview on FB says something to the effect of "Nevermind I don't need your ID. C falsified documents and now I am going to have to take the bitch to court to prove that we were married..." Red flags are waving and I immediately try to click the message, but she has already deleted it, leaving he last message to me an urge to hurry up and send my ID. I ask her what the message said, she lies and says "I was going to apologize that the insurance check I forwarded to you never made it, but then I thought better of it." I persisted and said "No, the thing about C" No response, 2 days go by and she sends me a screenshot about how her request is going to time out because she didn't send my documents. I responded "you didn't answer my question" and she says "what does that have to do with this?" TLDR; My mother is manipulative and frequently lies to get her way. My recently deceased father's SO is concerned that my mother/me might try to take my father's business. My mother has started asking me for documents to get his death certificate so she can change it. If my mother's end goal was to remarry her long term SO, how can I assist her in doing so without risking her trying to steal a business away from his long term partner? I don't mind helping her to be able to marry, but I do not want to be involved if she may be trying to argue that she is entitled as his wife in any way. I don't see why there would be a sudden rush to get his death certificate when they have been seperated for 30 years. And why would she need to change the death certificate? Isn't an incorrect death certificate still proof that the husband is dead? Any and all advise on how to handle this would be appreciated. Assistant:I suspect mother is attempting to gain access to his estate. If he was dead, then it wouldn’t matter whether they had divorced or not, in regards to a new marriage.

Human: My mother has been seperated from my father for 30 years. Now that she just found out he is dead, she wants to alter his death certificate because his partner of 17 years said he was not married. Now she wants my ID and signature to request the death certificate. Does she need this to remarry? My mother left my father when I was 1. They married in FL. and had only been together a couple of years. When I was born they moved back to NY where my grandparents to lived. They worked together at my father's business until they split and we moved to the UK. Allegedly they made a deal that my mother would not seek child support if he never sought visitation. Once the deal was struck we got on a plane, they never divorced. Eventually we moved back to Fl. I got to see him for a couple weeks when in my early teens after he moved NY to FL in the hopes of maybe starting a relationship with me. I wanted that and we spent free time together for a couple of weeks. My mother promptly moved us out of the country again for 6 months, and then to SC. We had never been to SC before and had no reason to go there. We stayed loosely in touch,, and when I was 24 I was able to rekindle a relationship with him. I would visit whenever I was in the area, and I met his partner C. He and his SO started or continued the business together in FL. and remained in Fl. They were together 17 years. I texted my father recently only to get a response from C (my father's SO). C informed me that he had passed suddenly. I asked if there were any small trinquet like an old shirt or jacket or even a photo that I could have to remember him by. She seemed at first very concerned, said they really didn't have a lot and went on about how the business was in debt and she was struggling. I assured her I wanted nothing of value from them, only momentos. She sent me some photos. She seemed concerned that I would try for some of his estate, if there was one. I told my mother (BS) that Dad had passed. She of course made it about her, saying she was a widow now. She has been dating my brothers father for about 17 or 18 years and NEVER spoke with my father, even when I was meeting him as a kid. Now about a month later, BS has started harassing me about sending a photocopy of my license 200x zoomed and signed and dated so that she can get Dads death certificate. She said I have to do it because I am immediate family, and said there was an urgent deadline. I asked why, and she said that C had falsified the death certificate saying that dad was not married, and this now prevents BS from being able to remarry my brothers father. I was hesitant, and have been trying to look up the laws about seperation vs legal seperation and divorce/annulment. While looking this up, I start to get heavy pressure from BS to hurry up and do it because she has already filed the request for me online and needs my document. I am sure if she had a copy already she would've just forged it. She messages reminding me that she needs it right away repeatedly, I give her reasons why I am busy, which I have been. Finally she sent a message while I am at work. The text preview on FB says something to the effect of "Nevermind I don't need your ID. C falsified documents and now I am going to have to take the bitch to court to prove that we were married..." Red flags are waving and I immediately try to click the message, but she has already deleted it, leaving he last message to me an urge to hurry up and send my ID. I ask her what the message said, she lies and says "I was going to apologize that the insurance check I forwarded to you never made it, but then I thought better of it." I persisted and said "No, the thing about C" No response, 2 days go by and she sends me a screenshot about how her request is going to time out because she didn't send my documents. I responded "you didn't answer my question" and she says "what does that have to do with this?" TLDR; My mother is manipulative and frequently lies to get her way. My recently deceased father's SO is concerned that my mother/me might try to take my father's business. My mother has started asking me for documents to get his death certificate so she can change it. If my mother's end goal was to remarry her long term SO, how can I assist her in doing so without risking her trying to steal a business away from his long term partner? I don't mind helping her to be able to marry, but I do not want to be involved if she may be trying to argue that she is entitled as his wife in any way. I don't see why there would be a sudden rush to get his death certificate when they have been seperated for 30 years. And why would she need to change the death certificate? Isn't an incorrect death certificate still proof that the husband is dead? Any and all advise on how to handle this would be appreciated. Assistant:While you can choose not to accept anything from the estate, you are likely entitled to some of your bio-dad's estate as his offspring. It would be beneficial for you to have a copy of the death certificate if you are able to order one. You need to find out the state and county where he died. The vital records office in that county should be able to provide you with copies. Reasons to get a death certificate may include accessing pension benefits, claiming life insurance, settling estates, getting married (if a widow or widower needs to prove that their previous partner has passed), or arranging for a funeral. As some of these entities require ORIGINAL death certificates, it’s a good idea to get several when you place an order.

Human: Bounty hunters entered the wrong home I live in California. 7 bounty hunters who were dressed like the swat team who I thought were police the whole time broke my bedroom window while I was asleep (both window panes including a bent outer screen indicating that they pried the screen open before they broke the window) and then came into my home against my will. They told me they were looking for someone with a name I hadn’t ever heard. I don’t know this person and have never seen them a day in my life. I then asked them to show me a picture and again told them I don’t know who tf that is and he doesn’t live here! They told me that they’re coming in regardless of whether I want them to so we can “do this the easy way or the hard way”. This whole situation was so random and bizarre it’s 1am and I still can’t get past what happened today still has me panicking with anxiety. I have glass in my foot making it hard to walk since I have to limp and just the sheer terror of initially thinking it was a burglar. They all treated me as if I were lying and hiding a boyfriend or something. They kept trying to trip me up in a “lie” and I was so confused while they were using dumb police interrogation tactics. Only me and my 10 year old child live here and they broke his bedroom window which was near my head when I fell asleep in his room but thankfully no cuts in my face. Just my foot and almost my cats paws. As they’re storming my apartment shouting for “Larry so and so” they’re asking me where my child is what his name is what his dads name is and his dads address and all kinds of crazy sh*t! Trying to get all my personal info beyond my name that I gave them. I offered to show them my lease, my USPS informed delivery to show this person gets no mail here and I told them there are cameras where they can easily see he has never been here and isn’t inside. They didn’t identify themselves to me even know I kept referring to them as police since I thought they were but they finally said “we’re not police” but nothing else. I didn’t know they were bounty hunters until someone told me they were after the fact. I wasn’t given the ability to look at the arrest warrant either to even verify that the address is my address. I looked up the persons info who they’re looking for and it shows an address in another city that an apt building but it shows 5 different apt #’s under his list of previous residences which leads me to believe he lived at both complexes and gave all those random unit #’s out to obviously conceal his real address since he likes to go on the run and not show up to court. They also lied and said that they broke 1 window pane and failed to mention that they broke both but also bent up the screen. They also lied and said that they provided their info yet I don’t know any of their names or what bail company they are so I have no idea how to get my address removed! Otherwise it’ll be an endless cycle of them storming my home looking for a whole stranger. They said that they’re paying for the window so obviously they know they weren’t within their right otherwise they wouldn’t be paying for it. This is criminal to me though because how can they break through my window for someone they have never seen here? They didn’t hear any voices either because I was asleep. I didn’t have the TV on either. Now I’m left with my window still open at 1 in the morning because maintenance at my Apts never showed up and I can’t get this glass out of my foot. Sorry this was long and maybe kind of ranty but thank you for reading all the way through and enlightening me on the law regarding this. The officer I called to make a report simply said “I don’t know anything about bounty hunter laws so you’ll have to call them to see what they “policy” is” lmao as if a “policy” is above the law and as if they’re going to admit to me that they broke it. The police offered me No insight in regards to how I go about clearing this address issue up so it doesn’t happen in the future. They all keep saying to call the bail company yet can’t give me the name of it because they say they don’t have it. Even if I did call them how would they remove my address when I’ve already told them face to face that that person doesn’t live here and that I don’t even know them? I’ve already told them this and they don’t believe me so at the end of the day Police are refusing my report for them intentionally breaking the window and they’re not telling me how to prevent it in the future. Literally no one except door dash drivers and uber drivers have my address. I’ve always been private about my home in general. I don’t know why this person used my addess other than me assuming they’re giving a fake address because they never planned on going to court and don’t want county hunters at THEIR door. Smh. Police tell me that they “broke the window civilly so since there is no intent, it’s not criminal”. How the hell do you bend the screen door framing then proceed to break both window panes in a “CIVIL MANNER”?! Assistant:Not even the police would have the right to forcibly enter your property under the circumstances described here. Call the police, report them for breaking & entering, and get in touch with a lawyer.

Human: Bounty hunters entered the wrong home I live in California. 7 bounty hunters who were dressed like the swat team who I thought were police the whole time broke my bedroom window while I was asleep (both window panes including a bent outer screen indicating that they pried the screen open before they broke the window) and then came into my home against my will. They told me they were looking for someone with a name I hadn’t ever heard. I don’t know this person and have never seen them a day in my life. I then asked them to show me a picture and again told them I don’t know who tf that is and he doesn’t live here! They told me that they’re coming in regardless of whether I want them to so we can “do this the easy way or the hard way”. This whole situation was so random and bizarre it’s 1am and I still can’t get past what happened today still has me panicking with anxiety. I have glass in my foot making it hard to walk since I have to limp and just the sheer terror of initially thinking it was a burglar. They all treated me as if I were lying and hiding a boyfriend or something. They kept trying to trip me up in a “lie” and I was so confused while they were using dumb police interrogation tactics. Only me and my 10 year old child live here and they broke his bedroom window which was near my head when I fell asleep in his room but thankfully no cuts in my face. Just my foot and almost my cats paws. As they’re storming my apartment shouting for “Larry so and so” they’re asking me where my child is what his name is what his dads name is and his dads address and all kinds of crazy sh*t! Trying to get all my personal info beyond my name that I gave them. I offered to show them my lease, my USPS informed delivery to show this person gets no mail here and I told them there are cameras where they can easily see he has never been here and isn’t inside. They didn’t identify themselves to me even know I kept referring to them as police since I thought they were but they finally said “we’re not police” but nothing else. I didn’t know they were bounty hunters until someone told me they were after the fact. I wasn’t given the ability to look at the arrest warrant either to even verify that the address is my address. I looked up the persons info who they’re looking for and it shows an address in another city that an apt building but it shows 5 different apt #’s under his list of previous residences which leads me to believe he lived at both complexes and gave all those random unit #’s out to obviously conceal his real address since he likes to go on the run and not show up to court. They also lied and said that they broke 1 window pane and failed to mention that they broke both but also bent up the screen. They also lied and said that they provided their info yet I don’t know any of their names or what bail company they are so I have no idea how to get my address removed! Otherwise it’ll be an endless cycle of them storming my home looking for a whole stranger. They said that they’re paying for the window so obviously they know they weren’t within their right otherwise they wouldn’t be paying for it. This is criminal to me though because how can they break through my window for someone they have never seen here? They didn’t hear any voices either because I was asleep. I didn’t have the TV on either. Now I’m left with my window still open at 1 in the morning because maintenance at my Apts never showed up and I can’t get this glass out of my foot. Sorry this was long and maybe kind of ranty but thank you for reading all the way through and enlightening me on the law regarding this. The officer I called to make a report simply said “I don’t know anything about bounty hunter laws so you’ll have to call them to see what they “policy” is” lmao as if a “policy” is above the law and as if they’re going to admit to me that they broke it. The police offered me No insight in regards to how I go about clearing this address issue up so it doesn’t happen in the future. They all keep saying to call the bail company yet can’t give me the name of it because they say they don’t have it. Even if I did call them how would they remove my address when I’ve already told them face to face that that person doesn’t live here and that I don’t even know them? I’ve already told them this and they don’t believe me so at the end of the day Police are refusing my report for them intentionally breaking the window and they’re not telling me how to prevent it in the future. Literally no one except door dash drivers and uber drivers have my address. I’ve always been private about my home in general. I don’t know why this person used my addess other than me assuming they’re giving a fake address because they never planned on going to court and don’t want county hunters at THEIR door. Smh. Police tell me that they “broke the window civilly so since there is no intent, it’s not criminal”. How the hell do you bend the screen door framing then proceed to break both window panes in a “CIVIL MANNER”?! Assistant:Please see more current information in the replies. ~~From:~~ ~~https://fugitiverecovery.com/bail-bond-laws/overview/~~ >~~License required. In September 1999, A 243, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, was passed which added section 1299 to the Penal Code. This law provides for the regulation of bail fugitive recovery persons, defined as a person given written authorization by a bail or depositor of bail and contracted to investigate, surveil, locate, and arrest a bail fugitive and any person employed to assist the bail or depositor of bail to do same. The law requires that the bail fugitive recovery person be at least 18 years old and complete 2 power of arrest courses. This law requires that a person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive notify local law enforcement of his intent to apprehend 6 hours prior.~~ **~~This law prohibits a bail fugitive recovery person from forcibly entering a premises for that purpose except pursuant to certain existing provisions of law governing arrest by a private person.~~** ~~Any person authorized to apprehend a bail fugitive is required to carry certification of completion of required courses and training programs, and shall not wear a badge or law enforcement type apparel, not carry a firearm or weapon except in compliance with state law. Violation of this statute is a misdemeanor. The law remains in effect only until January 1, 2005 subject to another statute deleting or extending that date. (Penal Code, Part 2, Title 10, Chapter 1, Article 5.5, Section 1299 and Insurance Code, Section 1810.7) In addition, a bounty hunter or bond agent who captures a defendant in California must go through extradition procedures to transport him interstate. \[CA Penal Code 847.5 (1995 West); Ouzts v Maryland Nat’l Ins.Co. 505 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1974)\]. After an arrest of a defendant on bail, the surety must deliver him to the court or the police within 48 hours if it occurs in California. If it occurs out of state, the surety must deliver the defendant within 48 hours of returning to California. (CA Penal Code 1301). UCEA~~

Human: My [28m] family insists on forcing my grandfather [78m] through medical cancer treatment and acts infantalizes him, take away his choice, and he's too sweet to stop them but told me privately he just "wants to die with dignity in his own house" My grandfather has been getting forgetful for a few years now. He practically raised me when I was a kid and has always been the strongest and most capable man I've ever known. He was a naval officer for decades, he ran companies, he was an avid traveller, a sailor with his own yaght winning many races. He was a handyman who built his own house from scratch, who could fix anything, do whatever he set his mind on. He was involved in civil rights. He could hear a piano tune play and immediately recreate it even without any formal training whatsoever. Now for years this brilliant man has been trapped in a body that is increasingly weaker and more frail. It breaks my heart. Last week when I visited him, he took my hand in his hand, pulled me closer to him and said: "I'm not afraid to die. But if I do, can you make sure it's in my own house, in my own bed, and with dignity?" I hate the way my mother, father and cousins, uncles and aunties talk about my grandfather and his condition. Not to mention my grandmother who for years has overfed him on pills and medications half of which I'm sure only made him worse, more desoriented and weaker. They infantalize him. They treat him like a big child. Like someone with hardly a will of his own. No respect. He wants to die with dignity. If the cancer gets worse, chances are he will be put in a hospital. Surgery and chemo may cause his mind to deteriorate at a faster rate. Which would be the worst thing they could ever do to a proud and strong man. Just because he's forgetful at times does not mean he is a child without a will of his own. Now my grandfather is the kindest soul you could imagine. And my grandmother's word is everything to him. He will go along with whatever she says, even if it's not what he wants. I have no allies in my family, which is quite large and loves my grandfather to death, to the degree that they overlook his quality of life and his own choices. They're blind and deaf to any arguments I make and at the same time I have a hard time talking privately to my grandfather without my grandma being present. **TL;DR:** My grandfather has cancer. His health, mental and physical, is in decline but he wants to die with honor and dignity and it looks like my family won't allow him that choice. **EDIT:** My location is Louisiana. Assistant:While you grandfather is mentally competent he needs to meet with an attorney and draw up advanced directives and a power of attorney. The advanced directives can be a DNR or living will and the POA can give you the power to overrule *all* of your family when he declines to the point that he is no longer mentally competent. The POA will override your grandma's status as his wife and give medical decision making power to the one he names.

Human: My [28m] family insists on forcing my grandfather [78m] through medical cancer treatment and acts infantalizes him, take away his choice, and he's too sweet to stop them but told me privately he just "wants to die with dignity in his own house" My grandfather has been getting forgetful for a few years now. He practically raised me when I was a kid and has always been the strongest and most capable man I've ever known. He was a naval officer for decades, he ran companies, he was an avid traveller, a sailor with his own yaght winning many races. He was a handyman who built his own house from scratch, who could fix anything, do whatever he set his mind on. He was involved in civil rights. He could hear a piano tune play and immediately recreate it even without any formal training whatsoever. Now for years this brilliant man has been trapped in a body that is increasingly weaker and more frail. It breaks my heart. Last week when I visited him, he took my hand in his hand, pulled me closer to him and said: "I'm not afraid to die. But if I do, can you make sure it's in my own house, in my own bed, and with dignity?" I hate the way my mother, father and cousins, uncles and aunties talk about my grandfather and his condition. Not to mention my grandmother who for years has overfed him on pills and medications half of which I'm sure only made him worse, more desoriented and weaker. They infantalize him. They treat him like a big child. Like someone with hardly a will of his own. No respect. He wants to die with dignity. If the cancer gets worse, chances are he will be put in a hospital. Surgery and chemo may cause his mind to deteriorate at a faster rate. Which would be the worst thing they could ever do to a proud and strong man. Just because he's forgetful at times does not mean he is a child without a will of his own. Now my grandfather is the kindest soul you could imagine. And my grandmother's word is everything to him. He will go along with whatever she says, even if it's not what he wants. I have no allies in my family, which is quite large and loves my grandfather to death, to the degree that they overlook his quality of life and his own choices. They're blind and deaf to any arguments I make and at the same time I have a hard time talking privately to my grandfather without my grandma being present. **TL;DR:** My grandfather has cancer. His health, mental and physical, is in decline but he wants to die with honor and dignity and it looks like my family won't allow him that choice. **EDIT:** My location is Louisiana. Assistant:Contact the Governor’s Office of Elderly Affairs in Louisiana: http://goea.louisiana.gov/ Health care power of attorney forms are available on their website: http://goea.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/LouisianaHCPOA.pdf

Human: Neighbor is afraid of our dogs and won't rest until she gets us in trouble for something TL;DR Old lady neighbor is terrified of our well behaved dogs who stay entirely in our property, and is just waiting to catch us on any kind of violation because she wants them taken away. Is there anything we can do to safeguard ourselves against a spiteful dog-hater? ​ I live with my family in a rented property outside of Reno, NV. We've been here a little under a year now, and since near the beginning of our stay we've had issues with our neighbor, an older lady. We have three dogs, a golden mix, a collie, and an akita mix. None of them are huge or aggressive dogs, but we have a large fenced property and they will bark at people passing by. They also bark at the neighbor when she is out in her yard, but we try to be attentive and call them in whenever we hear them barking. She also has a dog that barks as much or more than ours, some sort of collie mix. ​ Some months back we received a visit from animal control saying that they'd received noise complaints about our dogs barking too much and being aggressive, and our chickens getting into our neighbor's yard. The officer did a quick inspection and found no issues or violations, and had no complaints about the temperaments of our dogs. He said this was an "educational visit" as there was nothing we were actually in violation of, but warned us to make sure our dogs don't bark too much. ​ We paid a visit in person to our neighbor to see if there was a way we could resolve things on a personal level without involving the law. We told her it would have been more neighborly for her to come to us before reporting issues to animal control, and that we were perfectly willing to make reasonable accommodations. We're very careful not to escalate situations and we tried to be very gentle, but our neighbor did not want to listen to reason. She went on and on about how our dogs were monsters and would "charge her" at the fence, and how she'd had a peaceful life until we moved in and we'd "ruined her paradise", and how our dogs didn't have jobs so they just ran wild. Her friend was even in the house with her urging her to consider our good intentions, but she was just getting more hysterical. We wound up leaving and within the next few days we took steps to fix any potential issues. We used construction netting to fence off an additional 6-10 feet of our own yard all along the property line (which is by no means a small area), started being even more vigilant about bringing the dogs in anytime we heard a little barking or saw the neighbor out in her yard, and requested that the landlord think about putting in a fence, possibly splitting the cost with the neighbor. We haven't heard anything about the potential of a fence, and we don't really have the money to make such a large project happen even if the landlord was ok with it. The netting has given more space between her yard and our dogs, and kept the chickens from getting into her yard (the only reason they did is because she piles all her horse's manure right at the fence near our bedroom window and the chickens liked the bugs in it). She still screams at our dogs and stares daggers at us, but we hoped that was the end of things. ​ Today we had another visit from animal control, which was much more candid. I walked out and got our dogs, who were mildly barking at the officer, but they came up to me halfway down the driveway and I took them inside. Chatting with the officer, he said that he has been getting more complaints. He spoke with her personally and she said, "Can you please just find ANY violation?" The officer said she was very upset but there was absolutely nothing he could see wrong with our animals or the way we were doing things. She apparently then said to him, "Fine, I guess when their dogs come over here and kill my dog, then there will be a violation!" He decided to visit for another "educational visit", but really it was a courtesy to us, informing us that we've got a very angry neighbor who will be watching us like a hawk for any potential issue, all because she's afraid of our good boys. ​ Where we stand now is on the right side of the law, but definitely feeling very nervous. We've had insane neighbors before who have vandalized our property and we had one of our dogs get suddenly ill and pass away after eating something it found just inside our fence on that neighbor's property line. That was a different location and situation, but we're understandably nervous about a repeat occurring. I don't think our dogs would ever do anything without major provocation, but it's really unfortunate that we can't feel comfortable in our own home letting our dogs out into the yard. ​ Is there any sort of action we could take, some sort of personal safeguard beyond just keeping our dogs cooped up inside, or is there someone we should talk to to create an official record just in case something happens? The officer said we'd be in the clear unless our dogs were getting over the fence, but are there any potential pitfalls we should look out for? Assistant:Do you think your dogs would bark if there was a fence that completely obstructed their view of the neighbor? Do a search for "privacy fence" and "hurricane fence". This may be an expensive fix and your HOA (if you have one) may not like it. It shouldn't be on you to fix their problems, but it's an idea.

Human: Neighbor is afraid of our dogs and won't rest until she gets us in trouble for something TL;DR Old lady neighbor is terrified of our well behaved dogs who stay entirely in our property, and is just waiting to catch us on any kind of violation because she wants them taken away. Is there anything we can do to safeguard ourselves against a spiteful dog-hater? ​ I live with my family in a rented property outside of Reno, NV. We've been here a little under a year now, and since near the beginning of our stay we've had issues with our neighbor, an older lady. We have three dogs, a golden mix, a collie, and an akita mix. None of them are huge or aggressive dogs, but we have a large fenced property and they will bark at people passing by. They also bark at the neighbor when she is out in her yard, but we try to be attentive and call them in whenever we hear them barking. She also has a dog that barks as much or more than ours, some sort of collie mix. ​ Some months back we received a visit from animal control saying that they'd received noise complaints about our dogs barking too much and being aggressive, and our chickens getting into our neighbor's yard. The officer did a quick inspection and found no issues or violations, and had no complaints about the temperaments of our dogs. He said this was an "educational visit" as there was nothing we were actually in violation of, but warned us to make sure our dogs don't bark too much. ​ We paid a visit in person to our neighbor to see if there was a way we could resolve things on a personal level without involving the law. We told her it would have been more neighborly for her to come to us before reporting issues to animal control, and that we were perfectly willing to make reasonable accommodations. We're very careful not to escalate situations and we tried to be very gentle, but our neighbor did not want to listen to reason. She went on and on about how our dogs were monsters and would "charge her" at the fence, and how she'd had a peaceful life until we moved in and we'd "ruined her paradise", and how our dogs didn't have jobs so they just ran wild. Her friend was even in the house with her urging her to consider our good intentions, but she was just getting more hysterical. We wound up leaving and within the next few days we took steps to fix any potential issues. We used construction netting to fence off an additional 6-10 feet of our own yard all along the property line (which is by no means a small area), started being even more vigilant about bringing the dogs in anytime we heard a little barking or saw the neighbor out in her yard, and requested that the landlord think about putting in a fence, possibly splitting the cost with the neighbor. We haven't heard anything about the potential of a fence, and we don't really have the money to make such a large project happen even if the landlord was ok with it. The netting has given more space between her yard and our dogs, and kept the chickens from getting into her yard (the only reason they did is because she piles all her horse's manure right at the fence near our bedroom window and the chickens liked the bugs in it). She still screams at our dogs and stares daggers at us, but we hoped that was the end of things. ​ Today we had another visit from animal control, which was much more candid. I walked out and got our dogs, who were mildly barking at the officer, but they came up to me halfway down the driveway and I took them inside. Chatting with the officer, he said that he has been getting more complaints. He spoke with her personally and she said, "Can you please just find ANY violation?" The officer said she was very upset but there was absolutely nothing he could see wrong with our animals or the way we were doing things. She apparently then said to him, "Fine, I guess when their dogs come over here and kill my dog, then there will be a violation!" He decided to visit for another "educational visit", but really it was a courtesy to us, informing us that we've got a very angry neighbor who will be watching us like a hawk for any potential issue, all because she's afraid of our good boys. ​ Where we stand now is on the right side of the law, but definitely feeling very nervous. We've had insane neighbors before who have vandalized our property and we had one of our dogs get suddenly ill and pass away after eating something it found just inside our fence on that neighbor's property line. That was a different location and situation, but we're understandably nervous about a repeat occurring. I don't think our dogs would ever do anything without major provocation, but it's really unfortunate that we can't feel comfortable in our own home letting our dogs out into the yard. ​ Is there any sort of action we could take, some sort of personal safeguard beyond just keeping our dogs cooped up inside, or is there someone we should talk to to create an official record just in case something happens? The officer said we'd be in the clear unless our dogs were getting over the fence, but are there any potential pitfalls we should look out for? Assistant:Install cameras and build a tall privacy fence if you can. Next step would be to threaten legal action. I'm not sure you can in this scenario, but you can sure as hell convince her you can!

Human: CMV: Students pursuing certain degree/major paths at the university level should not be given extra time on an exam for things like test anxiety. Ok so I am very much hoping that someone on here can really change my view because I do feel awful saying this, but it’s been something on my mind. So here’s where I’m at: I go to one of the top universities in the US, and our undergraduate program is heavily dominated by pre-med folk. Because it’s an elite university, there are a good chunk of students from wealthy families here. While my school was not specifically indicted by the whole college admissions scandal a year ago, I can’t help but see some of the privileges wealth can buy in getting ahead in competitive programs, and wonder whether there are some more insidious ways people are helping their children (aside from lying that their kids are on sports teams lol). Two of my good friends at this school are pre-med and have extra time accommodations on exams due to test anxiety. Both come from wealthy East Coast families and both are VERY smart (I don’t think they would be at this school if they weren’t!). I am not pre-med so I don’t take the classes a huge portion of the undergraduate population does, but I obviously know and speak with a lot of pre-meds, and word always spreads like wildfire after chemistry tests, and the general consensus is always that they are insanely hard because everything is too rushed and many people don’t finish on time. My two friends, however, have never complained to me of this. At the beginning of the year, before I found out about their accommodations (I only found out because they were in the same class as me second semester and were not present in the exam room with me, so I asked where they were and they explained), I was just really in awe of how they could fly through an exam and get impeccable grades on them. Then after I learned about the accommodations, I found myself thinking “Oh, that explains it”. My friends don’t seem like very anxious people, but I don’t want to speak too much on that, as I have an general anxiety diagnosis as well and I am fully aware that the face you present to the world does not necessarily correlate with your personal struggles. My issue is that both of my friends are pre-med. Both want to be surgeons. If they cannot complete a chemistry exam within the time given due to the undue stress it puts them under, how are they going to handle surgery, when someone’s very life is at risk? You can’t ask for extra time on that. I don’t think that accommodations based on test anxiety should never be allowed. I recognize that there are lots of jobs like engineers, computer scientists, businesspeople, etc. who do not perform their jobs under the same stressful conditions as a timed examination, and can simply work on whatever project they’ve been given at a slower pace, or whatever it may be. My issue is that some professions do not afford this, and so students should not be able to get these accommodations if they are studying to enter one of these professions. The jobs that comes to mind is surgeon/doctor, and a courtroom lawyer. If you cannot operate under stressful conditions, I don’t think you could do these jobs. It is because of my own anxiety that I am not pursuing a career in either of these fields, because I understand I am not cut out for these fields. I do not respond well to stress at all, and I know these demanding jobs would be a detriment both to me mentally and to whoever I was trying to help. This is fine, as there are a myriad of other jobs I can have. I guess it comes down to the fact that I, as an anxiety sufferer, cannot imagine that someone who gets so anxious while taking a written exam (that one can argue at the end of the day means very little) that they have to have extra time (one has double the time) to do it could even consider a profession where you have to make snap decisions about someone’s life. My friends do better on exams by virtue of the fact that they are no longer rushed and have time to complete and fully think through all the questions, so a part of me wonders whether the accommodation is just another way of keeping GPAs high for medical school. To me it feels like a blind person trying to become a surgeon, both have limitations that mean they are not suited for the job at hand. That’s totally okay, they can receive accommodations necessary to perform other jobs. I think that a student should be able to have accommodations for test anxiety or they should be able to pursue a high-stress career, but not both. Note: The accommodations I’m talking about are strictly related to extra time/special conditions (ex a quiet room without distractions) and not accommodations based on things like physical disabilities, dyslexia, etc. Assistant:Tests are very, very different to on the job tasks though, even under stressful conditions. For most people, tests at university are the most important and difficult things they have done in their entire life up to that point, and if they fuck it up the course of their entire remaining life is irreversibly altered. This is compounded by the fact tests are generally an awful way of actually examining people too. Primarily, tests are mostly theory, not practical. Some people do really well on tests and terrible in practical scenarios. For others, it's the opposite. And your example I think is a good example of the fact a test is not very relevant to practical too. What does someone's ability in memorising Chemistry have to do with their ability in performing surgery? I get some anxiety driving a car because I'm not very experienced at it and it seems intimidating even though the costs of failure are *relatively* low. However, I don't get anxiety while I'm doing labwork, because I know what I'm doing in that (most of the time) even though the costs of failure are potentially much higher. Remember that anxiety stems from the brain worrying too much. If the brain has the time and space to worry, it'll worry. People who have anxiety often perform *better* under more stressful conditions simply because they don't have the time or attention to devote to worrying. It's not a perfect example, but it's functional: I'm actually better at doing coursework in crunch time than I am when I'm relaxed, because when it's the week before the due date I don't have the luxury of spending time worrying about what could go wrong, I just have to *do it*.

Human: CMV: Students pursuing certain degree/major paths at the university level should not be given extra time on an exam for things like test anxiety. Ok so I am very much hoping that someone on here can really change my view because I do feel awful saying this, but it’s been something on my mind. So here’s where I’m at: I go to one of the top universities in the US, and our undergraduate program is heavily dominated by pre-med folk. Because it’s an elite university, there are a good chunk of students from wealthy families here. While my school was not specifically indicted by the whole college admissions scandal a year ago, I can’t help but see some of the privileges wealth can buy in getting ahead in competitive programs, and wonder whether there are some more insidious ways people are helping their children (aside from lying that their kids are on sports teams lol). Two of my good friends at this school are pre-med and have extra time accommodations on exams due to test anxiety. Both come from wealthy East Coast families and both are VERY smart (I don’t think they would be at this school if they weren’t!). I am not pre-med so I don’t take the classes a huge portion of the undergraduate population does, but I obviously know and speak with a lot of pre-meds, and word always spreads like wildfire after chemistry tests, and the general consensus is always that they are insanely hard because everything is too rushed and many people don’t finish on time. My two friends, however, have never complained to me of this. At the beginning of the year, before I found out about their accommodations (I only found out because they were in the same class as me second semester and were not present in the exam room with me, so I asked where they were and they explained), I was just really in awe of how they could fly through an exam and get impeccable grades on them. Then after I learned about the accommodations, I found myself thinking “Oh, that explains it”. My friends don’t seem like very anxious people, but I don’t want to speak too much on that, as I have an general anxiety diagnosis as well and I am fully aware that the face you present to the world does not necessarily correlate with your personal struggles. My issue is that both of my friends are pre-med. Both want to be surgeons. If they cannot complete a chemistry exam within the time given due to the undue stress it puts them under, how are they going to handle surgery, when someone’s very life is at risk? You can’t ask for extra time on that. I don’t think that accommodations based on test anxiety should never be allowed. I recognize that there are lots of jobs like engineers, computer scientists, businesspeople, etc. who do not perform their jobs under the same stressful conditions as a timed examination, and can simply work on whatever project they’ve been given at a slower pace, or whatever it may be. My issue is that some professions do not afford this, and so students should not be able to get these accommodations if they are studying to enter one of these professions. The jobs that comes to mind is surgeon/doctor, and a courtroom lawyer. If you cannot operate under stressful conditions, I don’t think you could do these jobs. It is because of my own anxiety that I am not pursuing a career in either of these fields, because I understand I am not cut out for these fields. I do not respond well to stress at all, and I know these demanding jobs would be a detriment both to me mentally and to whoever I was trying to help. This is fine, as there are a myriad of other jobs I can have. I guess it comes down to the fact that I, as an anxiety sufferer, cannot imagine that someone who gets so anxious while taking a written exam (that one can argue at the end of the day means very little) that they have to have extra time (one has double the time) to do it could even consider a profession where you have to make snap decisions about someone’s life. My friends do better on exams by virtue of the fact that they are no longer rushed and have time to complete and fully think through all the questions, so a part of me wonders whether the accommodation is just another way of keeping GPAs high for medical school. To me it feels like a blind person trying to become a surgeon, both have limitations that mean they are not suited for the job at hand. That’s totally okay, they can receive accommodations necessary to perform other jobs. I think that a student should be able to have accommodations for test anxiety or they should be able to pursue a high-stress career, but not both. Note: The accommodations I’m talking about are strictly related to extra time/special conditions (ex a quiet room without distractions) and not accommodations based on things like physical disabilities, dyslexia, etc. Assistant:I'm an instructor. At their heart, tests are a way of evaluating how much students have learned -- nothing more, nothing less. In small classes, instructors can accommodate this by using alternative methods to figure out whether students understand the material. This isn't possible in large classes. A student with test anxiety who is not given extra time will not be able to demonstrate their mastery of the information. Extra time can show that they know their stuff, *so being given extra time better reflects what the exam is designed to measure in the first place*. I am not convinced that someone's testing anxiety would be reflected in their medical practice.

Human: 52 year old white female. 140 lbs 5'11" smoker, non drinker, no drugs. Diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. Soon to be discharged, symptomatic, no idea what to do next. Hello all, if this is the wrong thread to ask this in I am very sorry, but I am appreciative if someone could point me in the right direction. This will be a little lengthy because I'm trying to be detail-oriented, and I'll put a too long didn't read at the bottom. For about a week and a half, my mom had dizziness and nausea that would come on whenever she started moving around. Since it seemed to be getting worse I took her to the ER. There they did an ECG, blood work, and a quick physical while we waited on results. Everything checked out fine and she was diagnosed with vertigo and given Meclizine and told if the medicine didn't work to see an ear nose and throat doctor. She began taking the medicine which didn't help after the first couple of days, and around day 3 or 4 after taking them whenever she stood up, she would vomit them and whatever else she ate up. A little over a week later her symptoms were much worse, she basically became bedridden only getting up to use the bathroom. I later came to find out that any time she opened her eyes it made the symptoms much worse. So back to the ER we went. This time the ER gave us results, the DR this time seemed more concerned about her symptoms. He had a CT scan done of her head. After some time he came back and said, I have bad news, there's a mass in your brain I'm transferring you to another hospital (It's about 50 miles down the road). The reasoning I later came to find out was because our local hospital doesn't have neurosurgeons. We get up there around 3 or 4 am on a Friday morning the neurosurgeons do another CT scan as well as a MRI. Their results said there were 3 lesions( One 3cm, 2.5cm, and 1cm) and they suspect that they're malignant tumors. Most likely from the lungs since shes a smoker. They kept asking her if she knew where she was, what year it was, what her name was, etc( I'm assuming because of the location of the lesions)Surgery was off the table because there was more than 1, and they started her on steroids to help get her brain swelling down. After the x-rays, they were more confident that what we're dealing with is stage 4 lung cancer, but we wouldn't know till a biopsy is done. The biopsy came back, metastatic nsclc. The next course of action was to continue giving her steroids, wait on the finer details of the biopsy to start a treatment plan. Which then turned into, let's start brain radiation and then go from there. They scheduled her for 10 days worth of radiation, Monday - Friday. One of the days they had some sort of technical difficulty so she didn't get treatment. This Friday would be her last day, but since she missed a day the new end day is Monday(18th). After her last treatment, the Dr wants to discharge her from the hospital. Which is great, but no, not really, She is still very much symptomatic, she can't keep her eyes open for more than a minute or two. She can't get in or out of the bed, she can barely feed her self, she can't bathe, use the restroom, walk, and can barely stand. She's been referring to her self as Hellen Keller(fortunately she has an amazing attitude about all of this.) Quick back story and we'll get to where I really need a point in the right direction for all of this. My mom has been out of work for around 10 years. She worked construction her whole life and throw in a couple of car wrecks her body is shot. She became my dependant around the time she quit working. She applied for social security disability 2x but was denied both times(a patient advocate applied for her about a week ago). I also have recently become unemployed so neither of us has insurance to help with any of this. Which is where things get fun for a multitude of reasons. As I said the hospital she's been at for all of this is 50 miles north of us. We fall outside of their tax code so there is only so much that can be done as far as any type of medical assistance. The hospital we went to for the ER trips is literally 4 miles down the road. However, the local hospital doesn't want anything to do with her. Also apparently they are unable to give her the care and treatment that she needs, even though they have multiple cancer centers and are part of the Mayo Clinic Care Network. With all of that said, I have no idea what to do, who to ask, or where to go. Can they discharge her even though she's still very much symptomatic? Is there anyone I can ask at my local hospital to find out why they won't help her or won't help her? Is this something palliative care can help with? Basically, if anyone that reads this can point me in the right direction of anything I would be very much grateful. TLDR: Mom was feeling off, it got bad, brain mass, transferred to a hospital 50 miles away, driving back and forth for the past 2.5 weeks to be with her, mass turned out to be 3 lesions, metastatic non small cell lung cancer, 10 days of brain radiation, she's going to be discharged on Monday, still very symptomatic, she can't take care of her self, we live in a dump so not healthy for healing, no insurance, both unemployed, current doctor said local hospital either can't/won't help. What do? Assistant:Sorry you and your family have been placed in this situation. From a medical standpoint it's tough to say based on this what the right next step is. Ideally she should be seen by a medical oncologist (chemo doc, not radiation doc) to be assessed for whether she is strong enough for chemotherapy and what type of treatments would be best. Unfortunately it sounds like she is pretty debilitated, and this type of cancer at this stage would be incurable even under the best of circumstances, but sometimes people can benefit meaningfully from some type of chemotherapy. Hopefully physical therapy/rehab docs also would see her to decide on how to get her stronger to potentially be able to receive whatever chemotherapy might be recommended. Palliative care doctors can help either with symptom management during treatment, or with transitioning to palliative care/hospice if she isn't going to get any more chemo/radiation. Realistically, the inpatient social worker and/or the doctors that are seeing her should still provide some guidance on whatever resources might be available in your local area. Agree with the other poster that she should be Medicaid-eligible. Sometimes other hospitals in the area may have charity care available, or there may be a safety net hospital nearby. What is available varies quite a bit depending on exactly where you live though, so again talking to her social worker is probably the first step to take.

Human: 52 year old white female. 140 lbs 5'11" smoker, non drinker, no drugs. Diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. Soon to be discharged, symptomatic, no idea what to do next. Hello all, if this is the wrong thread to ask this in I am very sorry, but I am appreciative if someone could point me in the right direction. This will be a little lengthy because I'm trying to be detail-oriented, and I'll put a too long didn't read at the bottom. For about a week and a half, my mom had dizziness and nausea that would come on whenever she started moving around. Since it seemed to be getting worse I took her to the ER. There they did an ECG, blood work, and a quick physical while we waited on results. Everything checked out fine and she was diagnosed with vertigo and given Meclizine and told if the medicine didn't work to see an ear nose and throat doctor. She began taking the medicine which didn't help after the first couple of days, and around day 3 or 4 after taking them whenever she stood up, she would vomit them and whatever else she ate up. A little over a week later her symptoms were much worse, she basically became bedridden only getting up to use the bathroom. I later came to find out that any time she opened her eyes it made the symptoms much worse. So back to the ER we went. This time the ER gave us results, the DR this time seemed more concerned about her symptoms. He had a CT scan done of her head. After some time he came back and said, I have bad news, there's a mass in your brain I'm transferring you to another hospital (It's about 50 miles down the road). The reasoning I later came to find out was because our local hospital doesn't have neurosurgeons. We get up there around 3 or 4 am on a Friday morning the neurosurgeons do another CT scan as well as a MRI. Their results said there were 3 lesions( One 3cm, 2.5cm, and 1cm) and they suspect that they're malignant tumors. Most likely from the lungs since shes a smoker. They kept asking her if she knew where she was, what year it was, what her name was, etc( I'm assuming because of the location of the lesions)Surgery was off the table because there was more than 1, and they started her on steroids to help get her brain swelling down. After the x-rays, they were more confident that what we're dealing with is stage 4 lung cancer, but we wouldn't know till a biopsy is done. The biopsy came back, metastatic nsclc. The next course of action was to continue giving her steroids, wait on the finer details of the biopsy to start a treatment plan. Which then turned into, let's start brain radiation and then go from there. They scheduled her for 10 days worth of radiation, Monday - Friday. One of the days they had some sort of technical difficulty so she didn't get treatment. This Friday would be her last day, but since she missed a day the new end day is Monday(18th). After her last treatment, the Dr wants to discharge her from the hospital. Which is great, but no, not really, She is still very much symptomatic, she can't keep her eyes open for more than a minute or two. She can't get in or out of the bed, she can barely feed her self, she can't bathe, use the restroom, walk, and can barely stand. She's been referring to her self as Hellen Keller(fortunately she has an amazing attitude about all of this.) Quick back story and we'll get to where I really need a point in the right direction for all of this. My mom has been out of work for around 10 years. She worked construction her whole life and throw in a couple of car wrecks her body is shot. She became my dependant around the time she quit working. She applied for social security disability 2x but was denied both times(a patient advocate applied for her about a week ago). I also have recently become unemployed so neither of us has insurance to help with any of this. Which is where things get fun for a multitude of reasons. As I said the hospital she's been at for all of this is 50 miles north of us. We fall outside of their tax code so there is only so much that can be done as far as any type of medical assistance. The hospital we went to for the ER trips is literally 4 miles down the road. However, the local hospital doesn't want anything to do with her. Also apparently they are unable to give her the care and treatment that she needs, even though they have multiple cancer centers and are part of the Mayo Clinic Care Network. With all of that said, I have no idea what to do, who to ask, or where to go. Can they discharge her even though she's still very much symptomatic? Is there anyone I can ask at my local hospital to find out why they won't help her or won't help her? Is this something palliative care can help with? Basically, if anyone that reads this can point me in the right direction of anything I would be very much grateful. TLDR: Mom was feeling off, it got bad, brain mass, transferred to a hospital 50 miles away, driving back and forth for the past 2.5 weeks to be with her, mass turned out to be 3 lesions, metastatic non small cell lung cancer, 10 days of brain radiation, she's going to be discharged on Monday, still very symptomatic, she can't take care of her self, we live in a dump so not healthy for healing, no insurance, both unemployed, current doctor said local hospital either can't/won't help. What do? Assistant:I’m so sorry about your Mom.

Human: CMV: The upcoming Jubilee celebrations marks the 10 year cycle of state institutions, particularly Britsh media, forcefeeding us - the British general public - the idea that the class system and aristocracy is intrinsically part of the British identity and its bullshit. I've lived on this great island for 32 years and happy to be British for reasons such as security, culture, its landscapes and the opportunity to have a good life. The Queen has barely registered on the periphery in those 32 years apart from her face being printed on the money I buy stuff with. British media have an unhealthy obsession with the Royal Family, having a frenzy over something as innocuous as a rope cutting ceremony up to scandal, which the British press are known to pounce on and exacerbate. I have no interest in any of this and nor does anyone I encounter in my day to day. Its not talked about by the water cooler. Young Mums don't gather to gossip about it over coffee. The majority of us don't give a shit about the Queen and her family. I am working class and have moved to and lived in different British cities mostly in the North that are very multicultural, economically rich and poor, depending on the area and usually have a rich historical heritage and history of culture and art that are still thriving to this day. I now live in Bristol in the economically richer South, a city that ticks the same boxes. Things like multiculturalism, our musical and historical heritage and nightlife I identify as being British in my lived experienced. But then, other countries can latch on to the same things to paint a picture of their national identity which makes it confusing. For many of us, British identity is ambiguous and hard to define but I think part of it is rooted in our history and culture. The type of people on British TV right now who claim that the Queen "does alot of good for the country"; a collection of media pundits, Tory politicians, church-goers, over 60's, majority white commentators from rural towns who claim this without pointing to anything tangible, outside of representing our country in international ceremonies. The media is highly complicit in forcing this agenda on us incessantly, but I believe that most of the regular folk interviewed who are for the Queen earnestly believe she does do alot of good and they view the Royals very positively. Part of the reason they believe this however, I fear, is to supplement that large blank space in the middle of our sense of national identity with the Royals which are the ultimate symbol of class divide and aristocracy. How are these endearing qualities to be proud of when defining our sense of nationality? The Royals have had little to no experience of my lived experienced of being British and if the media didn't ram them in our faces in almost every newsycle, the majority of us would feel even more detached from them and possibly pay more attention to public money going towards Jubilee celebrations. TLDR: I've lived in Britain in 32 years and the Royals have had no influence on my experience of Britain. British media are highly complicit in ramming the Royals down our throat from the mediocre, to scandal, to outwardly pro-Royal agenda. British identity is hard to define and we supplement that with the Royals which are the ultimate symbol of class divide and aristocracy which is troubling. Assistant:As someone not from Britain or any of its subsidiaries, I can say that the queen is your image to me. When I think of England, my mind quickly goes to your royalty of stature. They are your image, your identity. Sure, there are plenty of other things like your awful idea of bread, the constant rain and the sarcastic almost depressed humor (which I'm trying to exemplify here), but the queen is a big part of why I think of Britain as a major power. It's not easy to show the effect a monarch has, and its effect will probably wane a bit when your famous Queen Elizabeth goes out of office. But there certainly is an effect to your international standing, simply by having the monarchy. Are there things wrong with the monarchs of yours and my country? Yeah definitely. Should that be addressed? Yeah duh. But I believe they do have a net positive effect on the country still.

Human: CMV: The upcoming Jubilee celebrations marks the 10 year cycle of state institutions, particularly Britsh media, forcefeeding us - the British general public - the idea that the class system and aristocracy is intrinsically part of the British identity and its bullshit. I've lived on this great island for 32 years and happy to be British for reasons such as security, culture, its landscapes and the opportunity to have a good life. The Queen has barely registered on the periphery in those 32 years apart from her face being printed on the money I buy stuff with. British media have an unhealthy obsession with the Royal Family, having a frenzy over something as innocuous as a rope cutting ceremony up to scandal, which the British press are known to pounce on and exacerbate. I have no interest in any of this and nor does anyone I encounter in my day to day. Its not talked about by the water cooler. Young Mums don't gather to gossip about it over coffee. The majority of us don't give a shit about the Queen and her family. I am working class and have moved to and lived in different British cities mostly in the North that are very multicultural, economically rich and poor, depending on the area and usually have a rich historical heritage and history of culture and art that are still thriving to this day. I now live in Bristol in the economically richer South, a city that ticks the same boxes. Things like multiculturalism, our musical and historical heritage and nightlife I identify as being British in my lived experienced. But then, other countries can latch on to the same things to paint a picture of their national identity which makes it confusing. For many of us, British identity is ambiguous and hard to define but I think part of it is rooted in our history and culture. The type of people on British TV right now who claim that the Queen "does alot of good for the country"; a collection of media pundits, Tory politicians, church-goers, over 60's, majority white commentators from rural towns who claim this without pointing to anything tangible, outside of representing our country in international ceremonies. The media is highly complicit in forcing this agenda on us incessantly, but I believe that most of the regular folk interviewed who are for the Queen earnestly believe she does do alot of good and they view the Royals very positively. Part of the reason they believe this however, I fear, is to supplement that large blank space in the middle of our sense of national identity with the Royals which are the ultimate symbol of class divide and aristocracy. How are these endearing qualities to be proud of when defining our sense of nationality? The Royals have had little to no experience of my lived experienced of being British and if the media didn't ram them in our faces in almost every newsycle, the majority of us would feel even more detached from them and possibly pay more attention to public money going towards Jubilee celebrations. TLDR: I've lived in Britain in 32 years and the Royals have had no influence on my experience of Britain. British media are highly complicit in ramming the Royals down our throat from the mediocre, to scandal, to outwardly pro-Royal agenda. British identity is hard to define and we supplement that with the Royals which are the ultimate symbol of class divide and aristocracy which is troubling. Assistant:At the very least, all the hype over the Jubilee will bring in a fair number of tourists that haven't been travelling the past few years boosting the local economies where the events take place. That is how I, an outsider, look at the royal family these days: as a tourist trap. The question is, do they make the country money as a tourist trap?

Human: My friends house was stolen [OH] LOCATION: OHIO Hello, I am writing this on behalf of my friend and co-worker who is fully aware I am posting this. Below is a description of the situation, taken and edited for privacy, from a post he made alerting his friends and family of what has happened. >My husband and I were recently paid a visit last month by someone claiming to own our home. "I'm sorry..this is going to sound really crazy and I know you have lived here a long time, but I own this house." Which just happens to be the home we purchased 8 years ago and where our family have been living and paying our mortgage. I immediately asked him to leave our property and contacted our local police department while he angrily began taking pictures of our house and vehicle in the driveway. To my surprise when I searched our county auditor's web page, there were indeed two transfers made in July of this year. We were never made aware of or signed any transfer of ownership. When I contacted our mortgage company to whom we make payments, they were not aware of any title changes either but they did make it clear that we are still responsible to make all of our mortgage payments. > >We made a trip to our county records department but no one could answer how our home was seemingly purchased right out from under us and the deeds transferred without us or the mortgage bank being involved. The department head and supervisor at the records department were just as baffled as we were. The previous owner who sold us the home is deceased and the original lender is no longer in business. We then received legal council and filed a police report last month due to multiple very aggressive attempts to gain access to our home by a man claiming to represent the "current owners." Apparently, our house should never have been sold to us and has recently been sold right out from underneath us. We were advised to submit a title insurance claim and begin preparations to move. > >We found out that there was a case that involved our house and the “Detroit Fire and Police Pension property scam” out of Michigan. That case opened in 2008 and the final judgement was made 4 years later. We purchased our home using a “Survivorship Warranty Deed” with what we assumed was a clean title, but we were wrong. We have requested that the corporation evict our family and not return to our home again. Fortunately, no one has returned since. We were alarmed when the supposed "new owners" received their first piece of mail at our residence which happened to be a water bill. They have made yet another transfer WITHOUT NOTICE. I got in contact with the water company only to get an apologetic, "I am sorry Mrs. #####., Only the owners can change it back and we can not give you any balance or account information." While they have sought legal counsel, they are desperately seeking any additional information they can get regarding this situation. Everyone they speak with seems baffled by what has happened. I will run all questions through him before responding for complete accuracy. Assistant:Disclaimer: This is not legal advice, and shouldn't be taken as such. I am not your lawyer and am not licensed to practice in Ohio. I am a title insurance claims attorney. Speaking generally, in circumstances where someone becomes aware of a potential title defect, they should notify their title insurer immediately (title policies typically have a notice provision, and failing to give timely notice may jeopardize coverage). Like all forms of insurance contracts, there are conditions, stipulations and other limitations (for example, an owners policy 'limit' will be the sales price when someone purchases a home) so retaining a separate, local real estate lawyer is often both advisable and necessary. Good luck to you and your friend.

Human: My friends house was stolen [OH] LOCATION: OHIO Hello, I am writing this on behalf of my friend and co-worker who is fully aware I am posting this. Below is a description of the situation, taken and edited for privacy, from a post he made alerting his friends and family of what has happened. >My husband and I were recently paid a visit last month by someone claiming to own our home. "I'm sorry..this is going to sound really crazy and I know you have lived here a long time, but I own this house." Which just happens to be the home we purchased 8 years ago and where our family have been living and paying our mortgage. I immediately asked him to leave our property and contacted our local police department while he angrily began taking pictures of our house and vehicle in the driveway. To my surprise when I searched our county auditor's web page, there were indeed two transfers made in July of this year. We were never made aware of or signed any transfer of ownership. When I contacted our mortgage company to whom we make payments, they were not aware of any title changes either but they did make it clear that we are still responsible to make all of our mortgage payments. > >We made a trip to our county records department but no one could answer how our home was seemingly purchased right out from under us and the deeds transferred without us or the mortgage bank being involved. The department head and supervisor at the records department were just as baffled as we were. The previous owner who sold us the home is deceased and the original lender is no longer in business. We then received legal council and filed a police report last month due to multiple very aggressive attempts to gain access to our home by a man claiming to represent the "current owners." Apparently, our house should never have been sold to us and has recently been sold right out from underneath us. We were advised to submit a title insurance claim and begin preparations to move. > >We found out that there was a case that involved our house and the “Detroit Fire and Police Pension property scam” out of Michigan. That case opened in 2008 and the final judgement was made 4 years later. We purchased our home using a “Survivorship Warranty Deed” with what we assumed was a clean title, but we were wrong. We have requested that the corporation evict our family and not return to our home again. Fortunately, no one has returned since. We were alarmed when the supposed "new owners" received their first piece of mail at our residence which happened to be a water bill. They have made yet another transfer WITHOUT NOTICE. I got in contact with the water company only to get an apologetic, "I am sorry Mrs. #####., Only the owners can change it back and we can not give you any balance or account information." While they have sought legal counsel, they are desperately seeking any additional information they can get regarding this situation. Everyone they speak with seems baffled by what has happened. I will run all questions through him before responding for complete accuracy. Assistant:Contact the title insurance company, they are the ones who handle claims against the deeds. Hire a reputable real estate attorney (referrals from the state bar) . . . and ask the attorney if you can do something like get a temp restraining order to keep the aggressive party from continuing to access your property and harass you. I'm not aware of the requirements in your area, but it's something to consider.

Human: Adult harboring my runaway child falsely claimed to be their caregiver at the ER. We are in Ohio. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. This story is insane and I am still in complete shock. This past Thursday my extremely troubled teenager (14) assaulted my husband when confronted about a stolen vape pen and then fled to the home of a friend. Police were contacted and he told them my husband assaulted him. No charges were filed against either of them because their stories conflicted and they both had injuries (my husband scratches on his neck from where my stepson grabbed his throat and dug in his nails, my stepson bruises from where my husband pushed him to the ground to get him to let go.) We allowed him to stay the night at this friend’s house to cool off, and he texted that he’d be returning in the morning. The next morning he texted my husband that he hated him, that he was not coming back, and accused my husband of “strangling” him. My husband told him that they both knew that wasn’t what happened, that they needed to discuss his behavior and what our next steps were going to be, and that he couldn’t hide from the consequences of his actions, and upon being blocked, reached out to the parents of the friend, who immediately made it clear they believed my child’s claims that he was abused and were extremely hostile, and then hung up on him and stopped returning texts and phone calls. My husband reported him as a runaway to police, and police went to their address and said my stepson was refusing to return and there wasn’t anything they could do. They told us we could file charges against these parents for “interference with custody”, which we did first thing Monday morning, but we were told it could be a month before we got a court date. We called his school and told them he was legally listed as a runaway and to contact us immediately if he showed up. On Saturday we had gotten a notice that due to my stepson's claim that my husband was the aggressor, CPS was coming to our house on Tuesday to investigate him, and on Monday, the caseworker contacted us to move the meeting to her office because my stepson was refusing to cooperate unless this friend's parent was there and she wanted him to participate willingly. We agreed. At 6pm Monday, we got a call from our local hospital to inform us our child was there. Apparently, he was sent to the hospital from the school due to a behavioral outburst. The school never contacted us because they were notified about the CPS case and were "concerned there were safety issues at home". According to the hospital social worker, this friend’s parent showed up at the ER, claimed to be his caregiver, and when it was discovered that she was not, claimed she **would be getting custody of him at any moment**. (This is someone my child has interacted with maybe half a dozen times over a period of years). She was asked to leave, stated she was going to the lobby, and then somehow \*snuck back into his room\*, had to be asked to leave again, and was barred from coming back to the hospital or contacting him. All of this is thankfully documented in his chart online. Because he was now in the hospital, the meeting with the CPS caseworker was moved back to our home. As the caseworker was arriving, she received a call from her office that someone was there waiting to meet with her. It was \*this friend's parent\*. The caseworker was taken aback and clarified with her that she was only notified about the meeting for the purpose of delivering my stepson and now that he was no longer with her her participation was unnecessary. After her interview with us in which we shared a detailed account of his mental health history, the caseworker stated she had no concerns about my husband and she would let the hospital know it was okay to discharge him into our care until we can discuss next steps (which will likely involve a referral to residential care), but that she had to let us know that when she interviewed my stepson at the hospital, he told her that as soon as he was discharged he planned to run away to be with this friend's parent. At about the same time, the hospital called to clarify with my husband whether my stepson was allowed to speak with this person, because they apparently tried to tell staff that he had told him it was okay. We expressed our concerns with the hospital and they agreed to hold him another night to allow us to try to get some safety precautions in place. We are absolutely shocked and thoroughly disgusted and honestly beyond disbelief. I can understand feeling protective over a child who has told you they've been abused, but this goes far beyond that into completely unhinged territory. We want to try to file an order of protection against this person on behalf of our child so that if she cannot legally contact him again, but it is difficult for me to determine from just googling what kind of order to file because there are multiple types. What would apply here? Other than the custodial interference, are there any other charges a lawyer could help us file, particularly for this person claiming at the ER to be my child's caregiver? If they were actually delusional enough to try to file a motion for emergency custody (they told my stepson there was an emergency custody hearing today, the CPS caseworker confirmed that nothing to that affect has been filed), would they have \*any\* chance of winning that? Please tell me what book I can throw at this person and how to be certain that if my stepson does happen to try to run away again to her house, there are serious consequences for her. TLDR: my child with significant behavior problems ran away to a friend's parent's house, this friend's parent showed up at the ER with them and falsely claimed to be his caregiver, stated she was going to get custody of him, and tried to involve herself in our CPS investigation. How do I keep her away from my kid/make sure she faces consequences for this? Assistant:Not a lawyer, foster mom of 7 years: I don’t think you mentioned what state you’re in, but I know that you can file an “order of protection” with the county clerk without a lawyer in some states. I’d call your local one and see if that’s an option where you are. Basically it would get you in front of a judge where you can state your case and they can order the other parent to stay away from you and your son. I’m sorry you’re going through this. It’s HARD when their mental illness is manifesting in such self destructive ways.

Human: Adult harboring my runaway child falsely claimed to be their caregiver at the ER. We are in Ohio. I apologize in advance for the length of this post. This story is insane and I am still in complete shock. This past Thursday my extremely troubled teenager (14) assaulted my husband when confronted about a stolen vape pen and then fled to the home of a friend. Police were contacted and he told them my husband assaulted him. No charges were filed against either of them because their stories conflicted and they both had injuries (my husband scratches on his neck from where my stepson grabbed his throat and dug in his nails, my stepson bruises from where my husband pushed him to the ground to get him to let go.) We allowed him to stay the night at this friend’s house to cool off, and he texted that he’d be returning in the morning. The next morning he texted my husband that he hated him, that he was not coming back, and accused my husband of “strangling” him. My husband told him that they both knew that wasn’t what happened, that they needed to discuss his behavior and what our next steps were going to be, and that he couldn’t hide from the consequences of his actions, and upon being blocked, reached out to the parents of the friend, who immediately made it clear they believed my child’s claims that he was abused and were extremely hostile, and then hung up on him and stopped returning texts and phone calls. My husband reported him as a runaway to police, and police went to their address and said my stepson was refusing to return and there wasn’t anything they could do. They told us we could file charges against these parents for “interference with custody”, which we did first thing Monday morning, but we were told it could be a month before we got a court date. We called his school and told them he was legally listed as a runaway and to contact us immediately if he showed up. On Saturday we had gotten a notice that due to my stepson's claim that my husband was the aggressor, CPS was coming to our house on Tuesday to investigate him, and on Monday, the caseworker contacted us to move the meeting to her office because my stepson was refusing to cooperate unless this friend's parent was there and she wanted him to participate willingly. We agreed. At 6pm Monday, we got a call from our local hospital to inform us our child was there. Apparently, he was sent to the hospital from the school due to a behavioral outburst. The school never contacted us because they were notified about the CPS case and were "concerned there were safety issues at home". According to the hospital social worker, this friend’s parent showed up at the ER, claimed to be his caregiver, and when it was discovered that she was not, claimed she **would be getting custody of him at any moment**. (This is someone my child has interacted with maybe half a dozen times over a period of years). She was asked to leave, stated she was going to the lobby, and then somehow \*snuck back into his room\*, had to be asked to leave again, and was barred from coming back to the hospital or contacting him. All of this is thankfully documented in his chart online. Because he was now in the hospital, the meeting with the CPS caseworker was moved back to our home. As the caseworker was arriving, she received a call from her office that someone was there waiting to meet with her. It was \*this friend's parent\*. The caseworker was taken aback and clarified with her that she was only notified about the meeting for the purpose of delivering my stepson and now that he was no longer with her her participation was unnecessary. After her interview with us in which we shared a detailed account of his mental health history, the caseworker stated she had no concerns about my husband and she would let the hospital know it was okay to discharge him into our care until we can discuss next steps (which will likely involve a referral to residential care), but that she had to let us know that when she interviewed my stepson at the hospital, he told her that as soon as he was discharged he planned to run away to be with this friend's parent. At about the same time, the hospital called to clarify with my husband whether my stepson was allowed to speak with this person, because they apparently tried to tell staff that he had told him it was okay. We expressed our concerns with the hospital and they agreed to hold him another night to allow us to try to get some safety precautions in place. We are absolutely shocked and thoroughly disgusted and honestly beyond disbelief. I can understand feeling protective over a child who has told you they've been abused, but this goes far beyond that into completely unhinged territory. We want to try to file an order of protection against this person on behalf of our child so that if she cannot legally contact him again, but it is difficult for me to determine from just googling what kind of order to file because there are multiple types. What would apply here? Other than the custodial interference, are there any other charges a lawyer could help us file, particularly for this person claiming at the ER to be my child's caregiver? If they were actually delusional enough to try to file a motion for emergency custody (they told my stepson there was an emergency custody hearing today, the CPS caseworker confirmed that nothing to that affect has been filed), would they have \*any\* chance of winning that? Please tell me what book I can throw at this person and how to be certain that if my stepson does happen to try to run away again to her house, there are serious consequences for her. TLDR: my child with significant behavior problems ran away to a friend's parent's house, this friend's parent showed up at the ER with them and falsely claimed to be his caregiver, stated she was going to get custody of him, and tried to involve herself in our CPS investigation. How do I keep her away from my kid/make sure she faces consequences for this? Assistant:Not a lawyer, but maybe discuss your concerns with your CPS caseworker. They may have a list of lawyers that can be accessed for lower rates or other legal resources. CPS should be there to protect your child and it sounds like your worker is also concerned about this adult's actions.

Human: CMV: Capitalism is incompatible with healthcare. First of all, I freely admit I'm not an economist or a medical professional, so there may be subtleties that I'm missing. But the way I see it, a capitalist society where businesses, including pharmaceutical businesses, are run in a 'for profit' way can never provide proper healthcare to its people. This is regardless of whether a country has socialised healthcare or not. The problem is that lifesaving medication/treatments don't fit within the normal goods/services model. For a standard, everyday good or service, here is how I understand it should work in an ideal implementation of capitalism. A company makes something it thinks will appeal to consumers, then sets a price that they think people will be willing to pay, while still making them a profit. The consumers 'vote with their wallet' by either buying this thing or not. If a company makes something people don't want, or they charge too much, it won't sell, and they will be forced to adapt their strategy or die out. Additionally, another company can potentially offer something similar or better at a cheaper price, and then they will get the customers and profits instead. In this way, it is good for the consumer because it is in the interest of the companies to make their product as good and cheap as possible. This doesn't work for pharmaceuticals however. Firstly, companies are allowed to patent their drugs. This means they will be the only one selling drugs that have that specific effect, so there is no competition to drive the price down. Secondly, consumers don't have the option to decide not to buy because their lives are literally on the line. When the options are pay or risk almost certain death, there is no choice to be made. Imagine tomorrow a company went to market with a drug that had a 99% chance of curing any form of cancer. It would be amazing, but because they discovered it and patented it, they then reserve the right to charge whatever they like. It could cost $10,000 per pill, and people would still buy it because if they didn't, they die, so what have they got to lose? Whether or not healthcare is socialised makes little difference because that only changes who is paying; the patient or the government (which indirectly affects the patient via taxation rates). The core problem remains. Another major point is that, as it stands, there is little to no incentive for a pharmaceutical/medical company to focus on curing peoples' ailments. A person who is cured is no longer a customer; even if the cure is very expensive, it is a one and done thing. A core concept of business is to generate repeat customers and repeat revenue; you want people coming back and paying over and over again. Therefore companies are heavily incentivises to instead produce medications/treatments that alleviate the symptoms of peoples illnesses (so that they can feel a benefit from your product which validates their purchase) but do nothing to treat the underlying cause, or even in some cases, make it worse. From a business standpoint, they would like nothing more than for everyone in the world to be chronically sick and popping tens of pills a day, since every pill consumed is profit for them. But what is the alternative in a capitalist society? If the government steps in and starts regulating, it kills the incentive for these companies to make their products at all. If they can't put these ridiculous markups on their drugs and make a huge profit, why would they bother funding medical research in the first place? There would be nothing in it for them. Things that would change my view are either existing examples of how this kind of behaviour is managed/controlled by legislation, or a proposal for how it could be done, in a way that results in both quality products and fair prices for the consumer. Assistant:>Imagine tomorrow a company went to market with a drug that had a 99% chance of curing any form of cancer. It would be amazing, but because they discovered it and patented it, they then reserve the right to charge whatever they like. It could cost $10,000 per pill, and people would still buy it because if they didn't, they die, so what have they got to lose? Imagine farther out than tomorrow. Think about the difference in medicine between 1990 and today. Almost without exception, medical advances are made possible by someone looking to get filthy rich off of them. Look at, say, the life expectancy of people with AIDS - it turned from a deadly plague to something that is reasonably manageable with medication. Why? Because you can make a killing saving people's lives. You may think it's bad that the healthcare industry is profit driven this year, but I bet you're very, very glad that it's been ruthlessly profit-seeking for the past 50 years. Apply this line of thinking to the future, and you'll start to understand the value of the system we have. >Another major point is that, as it stands, there is little to no incentive for a pharmaceutical/medical company to focus on curing peoples' ailments This is an aspect of the market that you may be overlooking. The options available to a pharma company are not * treat the disease and make a lot of money * cure the disease and make some money Their options (when it comes to a disease that is curable) are * cure the disease and make some money * let someone else cure the disease first, they make some money and you get nothing You might want to read about the efficient market hypothesis. Roughly speaking, it means that markets do not leave money on the table - if there is a way to make a profit, someone is going to find it. If it were true that no one was trying to make money curing diseases, *someone would step in and make the money that everyone else was passing up*. And, obviously, people are trying to cure diseases. They are doing so because they want to be the first ones there - think "Someone is going to cure cancer and make all of our chemo patents worthless - let's make sure it's us".

Human: CMV: Capitalism is incompatible with healthcare. First of all, I freely admit I'm not an economist or a medical professional, so there may be subtleties that I'm missing. But the way I see it, a capitalist society where businesses, including pharmaceutical businesses, are run in a 'for profit' way can never provide proper healthcare to its people. This is regardless of whether a country has socialised healthcare or not. The problem is that lifesaving medication/treatments don't fit within the normal goods/services model. For a standard, everyday good or service, here is how I understand it should work in an ideal implementation of capitalism. A company makes something it thinks will appeal to consumers, then sets a price that they think people will be willing to pay, while still making them a profit. The consumers 'vote with their wallet' by either buying this thing or not. If a company makes something people don't want, or they charge too much, it won't sell, and they will be forced to adapt their strategy or die out. Additionally, another company can potentially offer something similar or better at a cheaper price, and then they will get the customers and profits instead. In this way, it is good for the consumer because it is in the interest of the companies to make their product as good and cheap as possible. This doesn't work for pharmaceuticals however. Firstly, companies are allowed to patent their drugs. This means they will be the only one selling drugs that have that specific effect, so there is no competition to drive the price down. Secondly, consumers don't have the option to decide not to buy because their lives are literally on the line. When the options are pay or risk almost certain death, there is no choice to be made. Imagine tomorrow a company went to market with a drug that had a 99% chance of curing any form of cancer. It would be amazing, but because they discovered it and patented it, they then reserve the right to charge whatever they like. It could cost $10,000 per pill, and people would still buy it because if they didn't, they die, so what have they got to lose? Whether or not healthcare is socialised makes little difference because that only changes who is paying; the patient or the government (which indirectly affects the patient via taxation rates). The core problem remains. Another major point is that, as it stands, there is little to no incentive for a pharmaceutical/medical company to focus on curing peoples' ailments. A person who is cured is no longer a customer; even if the cure is very expensive, it is a one and done thing. A core concept of business is to generate repeat customers and repeat revenue; you want people coming back and paying over and over again. Therefore companies are heavily incentivises to instead produce medications/treatments that alleviate the symptoms of peoples illnesses (so that they can feel a benefit from your product which validates their purchase) but do nothing to treat the underlying cause, or even in some cases, make it worse. From a business standpoint, they would like nothing more than for everyone in the world to be chronically sick and popping tens of pills a day, since every pill consumed is profit for them. But what is the alternative in a capitalist society? If the government steps in and starts regulating, it kills the incentive for these companies to make their products at all. If they can't put these ridiculous markups on their drugs and make a huge profit, why would they bother funding medical research in the first place? There would be nothing in it for them. Things that would change my view are either existing examples of how this kind of behaviour is managed/controlled by legislation, or a proposal for how it could be done, in a way that results in both quality products and fair prices for the consumer. Assistant:Why do you talk about capitalism not working and use government intervention as your evidence? Those are two exclusive things, licensing, patents, etc, aren't part of capitalism. Information travels. People recognize improper treatments and it becomes known. Patients are returning customers. Many people have good relationships with their doctors and only trust that doctor to treat them. If you want to make that money, you be that doctor.

Human: How am I supposed to chase a "work life balance" when I'm incapable of achieving satisfaction at work? I'm really sorry if this is the wrong subreddit, but I feel like my sentiments can only really be understood by people in my field. A few years ago, after a soul rending 9 month job hunt, I landed a job two orders of magnitude better than I thought I'd ever get. During my first two weeks, I swore to myself that I wouldn't waste this opportunity and that I'd spend my first six months on the job working as hard as I possibly could. I read every single piece of company documentation I could get my hands on, and convinced enough people I was their workhorse, until they gave me enough overtime work to afford books to purchase and read. I spent every cent I made from overtime on furthuring my career and learning how to do my job better. This felt amazing. Weeks passed. I got better and better at analysis and was able to get more noticed by my boss and I got more, better work to do. 6 months came and went. After 9 months I realize I still hadn't properly unpacked anything other than my kitchen and my bedroom. The sense of job fatigue I was counting on happening to me wasn't happening. I clearly wasn't trying hard enough. After 10 months I light the fire even harder. I wired up a timer to my power strip at my desk to kill it so that I would be forced to read the books to keep myself entertained. A year passes. I get challenged to expand my comfort zone of analysis even more to the point where it makes me finally, truly fear that I didn't know enough. I buy 8 books on the topic and take two weeks of vacation to read them all without telling my boss what I really did on vacation. 14 months pass. The sense of job fatigue I was counting on happening to me STILL wasn't happening. All that was starting to happen was the occasional piece of emotional fatigue that was caused by dealing with irrational coworkers and typical kinds of office politics. It quickly went away, and the sense that I was doing something wrong had returned. At home, I have no energy. My apartment started to increase in disorder. I set my bills to autopay, knowing that the time lost to dealing with intentionally confusing bill paying systems would cost me more than the equivalent amount of time that I could have gotten by just working more overtime for that duration. I'm bored. I'm miserable. Everybody I know around here is already married, or only does socially interactive activites that cause me physical discomfort such as strenuous excersize or binge drinking, or even worse... Golf. I conclude that my improvement must have been happening too fast and that the work I was doing wasn't challenging enough for me. I show my boss what I knew how to do now and he agrees to let me take on even more work in hopes that it keeps me satisfied. At this point it's clear that he's terrified of losing me. He wasn't expecting my level of development at all. I got a significant raise out of the blue a week or so later and all I was really able to think about was "oh NICE I'll finally be able to afford these books I was meaning to get." I visit my family for the first time since I started work and it's nice, but I can't stop thinking about work. I can't stop talking about work. Every third sentence made its way back to engineering without me realizing it and everyone in my family quickly grew sick of it. I wasn't even trying to talk about it. I get back from vacation and I need more distractions from life so I ask for more work and recieve it. By the fourth week of the new schedule it's back to only taking me 40 hours to do all of the tasks and the nihilistic dread sets back in. The sense of job exhaustion I needed to happen to force me to stop working like a madman and seek relationships with other people still, despite everything, hadn't happened yet. Then the plague hit. I'm essential. I've spent an average of 65 hours a week at work for an average of 6.2 days per week from May 2020 to today, January 10 2021. All of my reading has to be done at work now because I was finally given access to the small library of internal company documentation on all the little ins and outs of how to do my job properly down to the last nitty gritty detail. None of that reading comprised any part of those 65 hours per week. In June, I ask my boss for more work. I tell him that no matter how hard I try, the paniced and overwhelmed feeling of having too much work to do has never come, and I ask him what else I can do to get better because at this point I haven't felt satisfied in weeks. He tells me the worst thing I've ever heard. "I'll be honest, about our current job, I've got nothing else to teach you. You're doing great, beyond great, and in every way that matters, you probably know more than me now." I... do not take this well. I ask him why he was lying to me. It's fucking impossible that he wasn't lying to me, he had 20 years more experience than me, but he insisted I'd read every book he'd ever heard of, and that all there was left was to gain more experience. What the fuck am I supposed to do about that, wait?! I tried re-igniting hobbies. Nothing stuck. It's been a few months since then. I'm still working trying to get that fix but it never comes. I haven't seen my family in 15 months and the scariest part of all of this is that I'm honestly feeling okay. I feel like that character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire whose brain is being cooked to death by a telepath constantly giving him a feeling of being right on the verge of a massive breakthrough but that feeling of breakthrough never happens. I feel like I could do this forever. The only way to get the feeling of discovery at this point is to just do analysis practice on my own. Everyone at work that I speak to doesn't understand that I'd rather die than go back to college for a higher degree than a bachelors at this point, and all of them either keep pretending like there's nothing left I could possibly learn or tell me to read books I've already read. I can't imagine anything more fun than what I'm doing right now and I'm appearantly very good at it. The only things I can imagine doing right now that would bring me more joy is trying to settle down and start a family, but despite everything, I still don't feel like I'm ready for that yet even though there's almost nothing I want to do more. You can't train that. I'm lost. He's mentioned that I should try to ask him for another raise if I'm unsatisfied but there's nothing left I can buy that will scratch the itch at this point. The though of leaving my work unattended only fills me with fear at this point; not relief. I can't vacation to see my family without the threat of killing them, and no matter how badly I want to see them, I know I'll only be able to think about work while I'm there. I can't turn it off. I can't prevent others from continuing to worsen the pandemic without breaking laws. I can't reunite with my friends from college without hating myself because it devolves into me spewing about my work for hours on end I don't know how to be this systemically satisfied but also so specifically miserable. What should I do? Assistant:Wtf this can’t be the typical engineer, right??? I mean I’m in college right now for EE and I don’t think I’d ever put myself into my work that much cuz dude there’s more to life than satisfaction at work, try to find satisfaction in yourself through other things outside of work. Like what the hell you’re going to run yourself down, like explore some hobbies or anything.

Human: How am I supposed to chase a "work life balance" when I'm incapable of achieving satisfaction at work? I'm really sorry if this is the wrong subreddit, but I feel like my sentiments can only really be understood by people in my field. A few years ago, after a soul rending 9 month job hunt, I landed a job two orders of magnitude better than I thought I'd ever get. During my first two weeks, I swore to myself that I wouldn't waste this opportunity and that I'd spend my first six months on the job working as hard as I possibly could. I read every single piece of company documentation I could get my hands on, and convinced enough people I was their workhorse, until they gave me enough overtime work to afford books to purchase and read. I spent every cent I made from overtime on furthuring my career and learning how to do my job better. This felt amazing. Weeks passed. I got better and better at analysis and was able to get more noticed by my boss and I got more, better work to do. 6 months came and went. After 9 months I realize I still hadn't properly unpacked anything other than my kitchen and my bedroom. The sense of job fatigue I was counting on happening to me wasn't happening. I clearly wasn't trying hard enough. After 10 months I light the fire even harder. I wired up a timer to my power strip at my desk to kill it so that I would be forced to read the books to keep myself entertained. A year passes. I get challenged to expand my comfort zone of analysis even more to the point where it makes me finally, truly fear that I didn't know enough. I buy 8 books on the topic and take two weeks of vacation to read them all without telling my boss what I really did on vacation. 14 months pass. The sense of job fatigue I was counting on happening to me STILL wasn't happening. All that was starting to happen was the occasional piece of emotional fatigue that was caused by dealing with irrational coworkers and typical kinds of office politics. It quickly went away, and the sense that I was doing something wrong had returned. At home, I have no energy. My apartment started to increase in disorder. I set my bills to autopay, knowing that the time lost to dealing with intentionally confusing bill paying systems would cost me more than the equivalent amount of time that I could have gotten by just working more overtime for that duration. I'm bored. I'm miserable. Everybody I know around here is already married, or only does socially interactive activites that cause me physical discomfort such as strenuous excersize or binge drinking, or even worse... Golf. I conclude that my improvement must have been happening too fast and that the work I was doing wasn't challenging enough for me. I show my boss what I knew how to do now and he agrees to let me take on even more work in hopes that it keeps me satisfied. At this point it's clear that he's terrified of losing me. He wasn't expecting my level of development at all. I got a significant raise out of the blue a week or so later and all I was really able to think about was "oh NICE I'll finally be able to afford these books I was meaning to get." I visit my family for the first time since I started work and it's nice, but I can't stop thinking about work. I can't stop talking about work. Every third sentence made its way back to engineering without me realizing it and everyone in my family quickly grew sick of it. I wasn't even trying to talk about it. I get back from vacation and I need more distractions from life so I ask for more work and recieve it. By the fourth week of the new schedule it's back to only taking me 40 hours to do all of the tasks and the nihilistic dread sets back in. The sense of job exhaustion I needed to happen to force me to stop working like a madman and seek relationships with other people still, despite everything, hadn't happened yet. Then the plague hit. I'm essential. I've spent an average of 65 hours a week at work for an average of 6.2 days per week from May 2020 to today, January 10 2021. All of my reading has to be done at work now because I was finally given access to the small library of internal company documentation on all the little ins and outs of how to do my job properly down to the last nitty gritty detail. None of that reading comprised any part of those 65 hours per week. In June, I ask my boss for more work. I tell him that no matter how hard I try, the paniced and overwhelmed feeling of having too much work to do has never come, and I ask him what else I can do to get better because at this point I haven't felt satisfied in weeks. He tells me the worst thing I've ever heard. "I'll be honest, about our current job, I've got nothing else to teach you. You're doing great, beyond great, and in every way that matters, you probably know more than me now." I... do not take this well. I ask him why he was lying to me. It's fucking impossible that he wasn't lying to me, he had 20 years more experience than me, but he insisted I'd read every book he'd ever heard of, and that all there was left was to gain more experience. What the fuck am I supposed to do about that, wait?! I tried re-igniting hobbies. Nothing stuck. It's been a few months since then. I'm still working trying to get that fix but it never comes. I haven't seen my family in 15 months and the scariest part of all of this is that I'm honestly feeling okay. I feel like that character in Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire whose brain is being cooked to death by a telepath constantly giving him a feeling of being right on the verge of a massive breakthrough but that feeling of breakthrough never happens. I feel like I could do this forever. The only way to get the feeling of discovery at this point is to just do analysis practice on my own. Everyone at work that I speak to doesn't understand that I'd rather die than go back to college for a higher degree than a bachelors at this point, and all of them either keep pretending like there's nothing left I could possibly learn or tell me to read books I've already read. I can't imagine anything more fun than what I'm doing right now and I'm appearantly very good at it. The only things I can imagine doing right now that would bring me more joy is trying to settle down and start a family, but despite everything, I still don't feel like I'm ready for that yet even though there's almost nothing I want to do more. You can't train that. I'm lost. He's mentioned that I should try to ask him for another raise if I'm unsatisfied but there's nothing left I can buy that will scratch the itch at this point. The though of leaving my work unattended only fills me with fear at this point; not relief. I can't vacation to see my family without the threat of killing them, and no matter how badly I want to see them, I know I'll only be able to think about work while I'm there. I can't turn it off. I can't prevent others from continuing to worsen the pandemic without breaking laws. I can't reunite with my friends from college without hating myself because it devolves into me spewing about my work for hours on end I don't know how to be this systemically satisfied but also so specifically miserable. What should I do? Assistant:I used to over work, my trick was to time gate work, and always do one thing for myself everyday. It typically consists of watching some anime, playing a video game and working out. For the time gate part I simply don't work past sun down. When it hits 6ish I head home no matter what, little earlier in winter and a bit later in summer. Also separate work and home, don't have a way to work at home or relax at work. Work at work then go home and relax find a hobby etc.

Human: CMV: Robb Stark did nothing wrong and all his problems would have occurred even without the 'mistakes' he made, Also I'm referring to the books but show input is welcome as well Okay so the commonly held 'mistakes' Robb Stark made: Marrying Jeyne Westerling. People believe that this is the main initiator of the Frey-Stark conflict and that is simply not the case. Even ignoring the fact that the Freys are a loose cannon, the fact still stands they had a long held grudge against the Lord of Riverrun. In catelyns starks narration of the Freys, she talks about how they always wanted the respect of the 'older', in terms of heritage, houses. Clearly the Freys were looking for any chance to become lord of Riverrun and the Starks would have just been a side casualty in their rush to steal Riverrun. Furthered more in ACoK Arya Stark overhears the Freys talking about how they already think that Robb would lose, calling him 'Boy' whilst they talk about him. They clearly have no respect for him when they call him that, of course it's not a sign of mutiny, but it is a sign of disloyalty. I'm not saying marrying Jeyne wasn't a mistake, but it all it earned him was a more spiteful death. Releasing Theon Theon was not disloyal from the beginning, we see from the beginning of ACoK that Theon genuinely wanted to 'help' Robb, but get a crown in the process. Secondly Robb gave offers that any sane man would have taken. A free crown, and plunder from Lannisport? Where's the loss. Not only this, but the Ironmen would have been repelled from the North almost instantly, if the Bolton's hadn't interfered. They only stayed in the North for as long as the Bolton's needed them there to spread chaos, and then they were kicked out. So not only did Robb send a (at the time) loyal Theon with the intention of making reasonable requests with the Iron islanders, he also had sufficient countermeasures in place to repulse invaders from the North. 'Trusting' Bolton with his infantry Perhaps this was a 'mistake' but one he couldn't do anything about. There was no outward sign that Roose was disloyal, in fact Roose was at Neds side at the battle of the Trident. There was no sign and it's doubtful if anyone else in Robb's shoes could have worked out that Roose was being disloyal. Beheading Karstark. Perhaps this accelerated his demise, but his fate was the same. Roose was still in 'open' (to the reader) mutiny to Robb and even if Robb hadn't sought to make peace with Frey, he would have been assassinated by Roose on or off the battlefield. In short, nothing could have saved Robb and he did the best he could in the situation, and there was no action he could have taken without hindsight (IE he wasn't overlooking anything) to save his house. Assistant:Rob, learning from the uncompromising honourable example of Ned, does what he believes to be right...and got a lot of people killed. It is the difference between idealism and realism. As the great realist Machiavelli wrote: “Any man who tries to be good all the time is bound to come to ruin among the great number who are not good. Hence a prince who wants to keep his authority must learn how not to be good, and use that knowledge, or refrain from using it, as necessity requires.” Machiavelli advocated Realpolitik - a system of politics or principles based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations. When we examine each of Rob's decisions through that lens it is clear he makes many mistakes. I can go into detail about each if you'd like or is this enough to change your view?

Human: CMV: Robb Stark did nothing wrong and all his problems would have occurred even without the 'mistakes' he made, Also I'm referring to the books but show input is welcome as well Okay so the commonly held 'mistakes' Robb Stark made: Marrying Jeyne Westerling. People believe that this is the main initiator of the Frey-Stark conflict and that is simply not the case. Even ignoring the fact that the Freys are a loose cannon, the fact still stands they had a long held grudge against the Lord of Riverrun. In catelyns starks narration of the Freys, she talks about how they always wanted the respect of the 'older', in terms of heritage, houses. Clearly the Freys were looking for any chance to become lord of Riverrun and the Starks would have just been a side casualty in their rush to steal Riverrun. Furthered more in ACoK Arya Stark overhears the Freys talking about how they already think that Robb would lose, calling him 'Boy' whilst they talk about him. They clearly have no respect for him when they call him that, of course it's not a sign of mutiny, but it is a sign of disloyalty. I'm not saying marrying Jeyne wasn't a mistake, but it all it earned him was a more spiteful death. Releasing Theon Theon was not disloyal from the beginning, we see from the beginning of ACoK that Theon genuinely wanted to 'help' Robb, but get a crown in the process. Secondly Robb gave offers that any sane man would have taken. A free crown, and plunder from Lannisport? Where's the loss. Not only this, but the Ironmen would have been repelled from the North almost instantly, if the Bolton's hadn't interfered. They only stayed in the North for as long as the Bolton's needed them there to spread chaos, and then they were kicked out. So not only did Robb send a (at the time) loyal Theon with the intention of making reasonable requests with the Iron islanders, he also had sufficient countermeasures in place to repulse invaders from the North. 'Trusting' Bolton with his infantry Perhaps this was a 'mistake' but one he couldn't do anything about. There was no outward sign that Roose was disloyal, in fact Roose was at Neds side at the battle of the Trident. There was no sign and it's doubtful if anyone else in Robb's shoes could have worked out that Roose was being disloyal. Beheading Karstark. Perhaps this accelerated his demise, but his fate was the same. Roose was still in 'open' (to the reader) mutiny to Robb and even if Robb hadn't sought to make peace with Frey, he would have been assassinated by Roose on or off the battlefield. In short, nothing could have saved Robb and he did the best he could in the situation, and there was no action he could have taken without hindsight (IE he wasn't overlooking anything) to save his house. Assistant:Maybe it was his biggest mistake to push war at all - he gathered forces and went into rebellion over Ned's imprisonment and was inflamed by his death. Having Jamie hostage was a major boon in regards to negotiation with the Lannisters, its seems however Robb is stuck being 'Ned Light' unable to sway from the path he things he 'should' take without considering the bigger picture. Suing for peace and trying to find some form of favorable arrangement with the Lannisters while they fought with Stannis probably would have put them in a better position politically.

Human: CMV: If I have to intentionally hide a true fact about myself in order to stay friends with someone, we aren’t honest friends. Long story short, I’ve known a girl for some time now who has become my friend. What she doesn’t know, is that I was in love with her (or to be fair, the idea of her) from the first moment I saw her. When I met her however, she actually turned out to truly be that idea I had of her and more, in every way. No women has come close to making me feel the way she does to this day. We hung out casually a few times and had an amazing time together, but when I asked her on a date, I found out she lately started seeing someone. She also expressed the she wants to stay friends; I genuinely want to as well. I have done all I can to temporarily distance myself, meet other women, and in general move on from the incredibly strong feelings I had mostly by realizing that she probably doesn’t feel the same way. I’ve mostly moved on but am left facing the following moral dilemma: If we are truly going to be friends going forward, should I be honest with this girl about the way I used to feel about her? I’ve thought about this question a lot, and have come to the following conclusion: A friendship based on the intentional omission of true information that would otherwise ruin the friendship is not an honest friendship; I can’t know if telling her a true piece of information would ruin our friendship until I actually tell her. Because it’s reasonable to assume it could, if I want any chance at an honest friendship, I have to tell her about the way I used to feel, even if it’s not in full detail, so long as she understands the basic truth. As it currently stands, all I’ve done is casually ask her out on a date one time; while she can reasonably assume I liked her, she has no way of knowing the feelings I had were so strong that no other women had ever made me feel the same way. I think an important distinction to make here is that im not saying a friend is only an honest friend if you can say anything to them (ex: tell them off or insult them for no reason) and still be friends, but what I am saying is that a friend is not a real friend if I have to intentionally hide a true fact about myself in order to maintain that friendship; it’s not a friendship based in reality. When it comes to the good friends I already have, there isn’t anything I could tell them about myself or what I think about them that would ruin our friendship. I don’t see how you could be honest friends with someone any other way. Assistant:you already expressed romantic interest. She shot you down. waxing on about how long you liked her or to what extent won't help your friendship. Telling someone, after they turn you down, that you've never felt what you feel about them about anyone else, is creepy. Your view seems to be that, if she is a true friend, that she should put up with you elaborating on the extent of your crush on her after she turned you down. If you are a true friend, you won't do that to her.

Human: CMV: If I have to intentionally hide a true fact about myself in order to stay friends with someone, we aren’t honest friends. Long story short, I’ve known a girl for some time now who has become my friend. What she doesn’t know, is that I was in love with her (or to be fair, the idea of her) from the first moment I saw her. When I met her however, she actually turned out to truly be that idea I had of her and more, in every way. No women has come close to making me feel the way she does to this day. We hung out casually a few times and had an amazing time together, but when I asked her on a date, I found out she lately started seeing someone. She also expressed the she wants to stay friends; I genuinely want to as well. I have done all I can to temporarily distance myself, meet other women, and in general move on from the incredibly strong feelings I had mostly by realizing that she probably doesn’t feel the same way. I’ve mostly moved on but am left facing the following moral dilemma: If we are truly going to be friends going forward, should I be honest with this girl about the way I used to feel about her? I’ve thought about this question a lot, and have come to the following conclusion: A friendship based on the intentional omission of true information that would otherwise ruin the friendship is not an honest friendship; I can’t know if telling her a true piece of information would ruin our friendship until I actually tell her. Because it’s reasonable to assume it could, if I want any chance at an honest friendship, I have to tell her about the way I used to feel, even if it’s not in full detail, so long as she understands the basic truth. As it currently stands, all I’ve done is casually ask her out on a date one time; while she can reasonably assume I liked her, she has no way of knowing the feelings I had were so strong that no other women had ever made me feel the same way. I think an important distinction to make here is that im not saying a friend is only an honest friend if you can say anything to them (ex: tell them off or insult them for no reason) and still be friends, but what I am saying is that a friend is not a real friend if I have to intentionally hide a true fact about myself in order to maintain that friendship; it’s not a friendship based in reality. When it comes to the good friends I already have, there isn’t anything I could tell them about myself or what I think about them that would ruin our friendship. I don’t see how you could be honest friends with someone any other way. Assistant:Telling her will only end badly. You already asked her out, she let you down gracefully, continuing this conversation is only a good idea if you want to ruin your friendship and any chance of something romantic happening in the future.

Human: CMV: All new police officers should be required to have relevant degrees. From what I understand, you don't need an associate's or bachelor's degree to be trained as a police officer. My view as it stands: 1) I believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate's degree in a relevant field (i.e. criminal justice) through education provided by the department or an associated college. 2) The police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position. Nurses with an associate's degree (RN), for instance, are being required to obtain a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) by 2020. The extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated. Why shouldn't the same be asked of police officers? Nurses save lives, and so do police officers. The difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill. They ticket at their discretion. An unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening. 3) Requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across America. Public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing GoPros to see cops shooting dogs. Yes, this isn't an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force's reputation across the country, then you need to act country-wide. 4) To quote Police Chief Magazine: > When people go to college and sit in a college classroom, they are suddenly exposed to different ethnicities, races, and nationalities. The resulting dynamics help potential APD officers communicate with people from all backgrounds and understand how to live in a civilized society: when and how to agree to disagree, and how to communicate while respecting differences of opinion and without resorting to force. > Degreed officers have developed critical thinking skills and an ability to communicate with people from all walks of life. They have been already exposed to life experiences that otherwise might have taken an additional 10 years of street experience to achieve. _____ > *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:That won't solve the problem with police. The problem is they think they're a military and that the public is their enemy. A better solution is to draw all new police from the ranks of paramedics, nurses and firefighters. So only people who have spent years of their lives *only* helping people become police. You can't fake your way through being a nurse, paramedic, or firefighter. You can just go through the motions to get a degree however.

Human: CMV: All new police officers should be required to have relevant degrees. From what I understand, you don't need an associate's or bachelor's degree to be trained as a police officer. My view as it stands: 1) I believe every new police officer entering the line of duty, as part of their initial training, should be required to at least obtain an associate's degree in a relevant field (i.e. criminal justice) through education provided by the department or an associated college. 2) The police officer position can be likened to a healthcare position. Nurses with an associate's degree (RN), for instance, are being required to obtain a Bachelor of Science in Nursing (BSN) by 2020. The extended education is to benefit the nurse and the healthcare community as a whole, to make sure every nurse is properly educated. Why shouldn't the same be asked of police officers? Nurses save lives, and so do police officers. The difference is that police officers wield firearms with the capacity to maim and kill. They ticket at their discretion. An unjust action by a police officer can take years to sort out in court/jail, just as an unethical decision by a nurse can be life threatening. 3) Requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across America. Public opinion towards the police, lately, has been negative, with everyone wearing GoPros to see cops shooting dogs. Yes, this isn't an everyday occurrence, but if you want to increase the police force's reputation across the country, then you need to act country-wide. 4) To quote Police Chief Magazine: > When people go to college and sit in a college classroom, they are suddenly exposed to different ethnicities, races, and nationalities. The resulting dynamics help potential APD officers communicate with people from all backgrounds and understand how to live in a civilized society: when and how to agree to disagree, and how to communicate while respecting differences of opinion and without resorting to force. > Degreed officers have developed critical thinking skills and an ability to communicate with people from all walks of life. They have been already exposed to life experiences that otherwise might have taken an additional 10 years of street experience to achieve. _____ > *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:>3) Requiring police officers to have higher education prerequisites would increase the reputation/public opinion of the police force across America. How would it do that exactly? Their reputation isn't earned by being uneducated, it's through poor decision making, which I can assure you, college does not fix.

Human: Since light both has inertia and experiences gravity, what does it even mean for photons to be massless? What IS mass if inertia and gravity aren't the two defining properties of massive objects? I've been trying for a long time to figure out what the heck mass even IS. In introductory physics and chemistry, students are told that massive objects are those that are made of matter and take up space. But then matter is defined as anything that takes up space and has mass, which is circular. Later on, we learn that mass is related to inertia, or the ability to resist changes in motion and that mass is proportional to gravity and I've read multiple times about Einstein unifying those definitions. OK, that works well enough in classical physics, but then we learn that photons are massless -- logically, that must mean they don't have inertia and/or aren't affected by gravity. Except, that's not true -- light DOES have inertia and gravity. Plus, it turns out that mass isn't even required for gravity anyway -- plain old energy warps spacetime just fine, which implies that we shouldn't use gravity to define mass anyway. At this point I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and decide "mass" is simply an ill-defined term and none of this matters. But that can't be right, because the idea of photons being massless is apparently very important to QM. OK, so if I look deeper I find that, in particle physics, mass is supposedly just the confinement of energy -- the Higgs field somehow "confines" massive fundamental particles and composite particles, like protons, gain most of their mass from the confinement of the fundamental particles that make them up. On a larger level, even atoms and molecules gain some additional mass from the confinement of their constituent parts. At first, that made sense to me because it harked back to the idea that massive objects take up space -- confining the particles must be what makes that happen, I thought. And it made sense that mass ultimately was an emergent property of a certain type of energy, since, you know, E=mc² and the more general, E²=(mc²)²+(pc)². But then someone pointed out that the idea of "taking up space" doesn't really make sense on the level of particles because the uncertainty principle means they don't even have well-defined positions most of the time, plus they seem to behave as point-like objects. So at this point the only thing I can think of is that photons don't interact with the Higgs field and they're fundamental particles and so that's why they don't have mass. Except that doesn't really help me understand anything -- we've known photons were massless since before we even knew the Higgs field was a thing and most of the mass of macroscopic objects isn't due to Higgs anyway but the confinement of quarks in protons and neutrons, so Higgs can't be what DEFINES mass. So what the heck IS it? Because it seems like the confinement definition has nothing to do with the classical physics definition, at which point, why are we even calling it "mass" anymore? I know I have to be missing something here, but I can't figure out what and I'm pretty darn frustrated and confused. Can someone please help understand? Assistant:Light has momentum. It has no inertia since it has no mass. Mass always means rest mass (invariant mass). Gravity affects energy, which light has.

Human: Since light both has inertia and experiences gravity, what does it even mean for photons to be massless? What IS mass if inertia and gravity aren't the two defining properties of massive objects? I've been trying for a long time to figure out what the heck mass even IS. In introductory physics and chemistry, students are told that massive objects are those that are made of matter and take up space. But then matter is defined as anything that takes up space and has mass, which is circular. Later on, we learn that mass is related to inertia, or the ability to resist changes in motion and that mass is proportional to gravity and I've read multiple times about Einstein unifying those definitions. OK, that works well enough in classical physics, but then we learn that photons are massless -- logically, that must mean they don't have inertia and/or aren't affected by gravity. Except, that's not true -- light DOES have inertia and gravity. Plus, it turns out that mass isn't even required for gravity anyway -- plain old energy warps spacetime just fine, which implies that we shouldn't use gravity to define mass anyway. At this point I'm tempted to just throw up my hands and decide "mass" is simply an ill-defined term and none of this matters. But that can't be right, because the idea of photons being massless is apparently very important to QM. OK, so if I look deeper I find that, in particle physics, mass is supposedly just the confinement of energy -- the Higgs field somehow "confines" massive fundamental particles and composite particles, like protons, gain most of their mass from the confinement of the fundamental particles that make them up. On a larger level, even atoms and molecules gain some additional mass from the confinement of their constituent parts. At first, that made sense to me because it harked back to the idea that massive objects take up space -- confining the particles must be what makes that happen, I thought. And it made sense that mass ultimately was an emergent property of a certain type of energy, since, you know, E=mc² and the more general, E²=(mc²)²+(pc)². But then someone pointed out that the idea of "taking up space" doesn't really make sense on the level of particles because the uncertainty principle means they don't even have well-defined positions most of the time, plus they seem to behave as point-like objects. So at this point the only thing I can think of is that photons don't interact with the Higgs field and they're fundamental particles and so that's why they don't have mass. Except that doesn't really help me understand anything -- we've known photons were massless since before we even knew the Higgs field was a thing and most of the mass of macroscopic objects isn't due to Higgs anyway but the confinement of quarks in protons and neutrons, so Higgs can't be what DEFINES mass. So what the heck IS it? Because it seems like the confinement definition has nothing to do with the classical physics definition, at which point, why are we even calling it "mass" anymore? I know I have to be missing something here, but I can't figure out what and I'm pretty darn frustrated and confused. Can someone please help understand? Assistant:Well light is affected from gravity but that is not because the mass pulls on the photons directly, but instead because the mass warps the space-time through which the photons travel.

Human: Parents of pedestrian child are keeping an open medical claim against my husband and insurance company says statute of limitations is until the child turns 18. We are living on eggshells. Can it be closed sooner? A year ago, some kids from an adjacent neighborhood were breezing around our neighborhood up and down the hills on their way to school, not obeying the rules of the road. At the same time my husband backed out of the drive way to take our own kids to school. He saw the kids and noticed one had fallen. He looked and saw the kid was fine and went on his way. He didn't speak to the kid or his friends. Later that day as my husband was working from home, he heard the walkie talkie of a police officer in our yard. He went outside and the officer informed him that his vehicle was allegedly involved in a hit and run of a minor. Needless to say my husband was horrified and confused. He had no knowledge there was ever any impact. There was no evidence of impact on my husband's car. My children who were in the car were confused and said they didn't see anything like that happen. The radio was off at the time of the alleged incident. Apparently the child who fell down, rode his bike to school, and told the school nurse he was hit by a car. The police were called and interviewed the boy and his friends. The way the boy says the impact happened could not have happened. He did not even remember the color of my husband's car. His friends never saw any impact and told the officer that. The officer did not issue a citation to my husband. A few days later, the police officer called my husband to warn him that the mother called him to "request" a citation be issued to my husband. When he informed her that was not how it worked, she apparently got belligerent and said she has a family member in the insurance industry and knows how to work the system. The family immediately opened a claim against our insurance. The family reported a head injury. They have not provided the insurance company with any medical bills or records of the injury. However, we do know the kid was held out of school for a substantial amount of time for a "concussion". Our insurance company says the statute of limitations for them to come after us is until the child turns 18. They said even though there is no evidence to show my husband's car impacted the child, cases where it is a car vs a child pedestrian never turn out well for the car. It is best for insurance just to pay and stay out of court. It has been a year with minimal contact between the family and our insurance company regarding the claim. My husband is terrified this will come back to haunt us down the road. He is worried they are positioning themselves for a massive payout that will ruin us financially. He wants to hire a lawyer separate from our insurance company. Is there any course of action we can take to get them to close the claim? Are we best just to ride it out as our insurance company says? Assistant:There isn’t much you can do. If there truly was no damage to the car, and no witnesses that saw the impact, then it becomes a he said/she said situation. You’ll also have the police who can testify that he examined your vehicle and found no evidence of a hit and run. I’m not a doctor, but my understanding is concussions are a little more difficult to diagnose than a broken bone (for example) in that there may not be any obvious physical trauma, which makes a simple diagnosis of a “concussion” may be slightly more difficult to prove in court.

Human: Parents of pedestrian child are keeping an open medical claim against my husband and insurance company says statute of limitations is until the child turns 18. We are living on eggshells. Can it be closed sooner? A year ago, some kids from an adjacent neighborhood were breezing around our neighborhood up and down the hills on their way to school, not obeying the rules of the road. At the same time my husband backed out of the drive way to take our own kids to school. He saw the kids and noticed one had fallen. He looked and saw the kid was fine and went on his way. He didn't speak to the kid or his friends. Later that day as my husband was working from home, he heard the walkie talkie of a police officer in our yard. He went outside and the officer informed him that his vehicle was allegedly involved in a hit and run of a minor. Needless to say my husband was horrified and confused. He had no knowledge there was ever any impact. There was no evidence of impact on my husband's car. My children who were in the car were confused and said they didn't see anything like that happen. The radio was off at the time of the alleged incident. Apparently the child who fell down, rode his bike to school, and told the school nurse he was hit by a car. The police were called and interviewed the boy and his friends. The way the boy says the impact happened could not have happened. He did not even remember the color of my husband's car. His friends never saw any impact and told the officer that. The officer did not issue a citation to my husband. A few days later, the police officer called my husband to warn him that the mother called him to "request" a citation be issued to my husband. When he informed her that was not how it worked, she apparently got belligerent and said she has a family member in the insurance industry and knows how to work the system. The family immediately opened a claim against our insurance. The family reported a head injury. They have not provided the insurance company with any medical bills or records of the injury. However, we do know the kid was held out of school for a substantial amount of time for a "concussion". Our insurance company says the statute of limitations for them to come after us is until the child turns 18. They said even though there is no evidence to show my husband's car impacted the child, cases where it is a car vs a child pedestrian never turn out well for the car. It is best for insurance just to pay and stay out of court. It has been a year with minimal contact between the family and our insurance company regarding the claim. My husband is terrified this will come back to haunt us down the road. He is worried they are positioning themselves for a massive payout that will ruin us financially. He wants to hire a lawyer separate from our insurance company. Is there any course of action we can take to get them to close the claim? Are we best just to ride it out as our insurance company says? Assistant:--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/gambaru123 Title: **Parents of pedestrian child are keeping an open medical claim against my husband and insurance company says statute of limitations is until the child turns 18. We are living on eggshells. Can it be closed sooner?** Original Post: > A year ago, some kids from an adjacent neighborhood were breezing around our neighborhood up and down the hills on their way to school, not obeying the rules of the road. At the same time my husband backed out of the drive way to take our own kids to school. He saw the kids and noticed one had fallen. He looked and saw the kid was fine and went on his way. He didn't speak to the kid or his friends. Later that day as my husband was working from home, he heard the walkie talkie of a police officer in our yard. He went outside and the officer informed him that his vehicle was allegedly involved in a hit and run of a minor. Needless to say my husband was horrified and confused. He had no knowledge there was ever any impact. There was no evidence of impact on my husband's car. My children who were in the car were confused and said they didn't see anything like that happen. The radio was off at the time of the alleged incident. > > Apparently the child who fell down, rode his bike to school, and told the school nurse he was hit by a car. The police were called and interviewed the boy and his friends. The way the boy says the impact happened could not have happened. He did not even remember the color of my husband's car. His friends never saw any impact and told the officer that. > > The officer did not issue a citation to my husband. A few days later, the police officer called my husband to warn him that the mother called him to "request" a citation be issued to my husband. When he informed her that was not how it worked, she apparently got belligerent and said she has a family member in the insurance industry and knows how to work the system. > > The family immediately opened a claim against our insurance. The family reported a head injury. They have not provided the insurance company with any medical bills or records of the injury. However, we do know the kid was held out of school for a substantial amount of time for a "concussion". > > Our insurance company says the statute of limitations for them to come after us is until the child turns 18. They said even though there is no evidence to show my husband's car impacted the child, cases where it is a car vs a child pedestrian never turn out well for the car. It is best for insurance just to pay and stay out of court. It has been a year with minimal contact between the family and our insurance company regarding the claim. My husband is terrified this will come back to haunt us down the road. He is worried they are positioning themselves for a massive payout that will ruin us financially. He wants to hire a lawyer separate from our insurance company. > > Is there any course of action we can take to get them to close the claim? Are we best just to ride it out as our insurance company says? --- LocationBot 4.6319918 & 17/64ths | Report Issues

Human: Please help me. Embarrassing issue involving male ejaculation. Long story short I can't masturbate due to crippling pain when I ejaculate. I first ejaculated when I was 12 and I spent 30 minutes laying on the bathroom floor crying. It was a sharp and burning pain that lingered a few minutes after the release. My stomach then hurt and I felt like throwing up. I'm 23 now and I have never purposely ejaculated since. Every time I have a wet dream or whatever it's called I'm woken up from the pain. I've been to the urologist 2 times but only recently becuase it's an embarrassing issue. They couldn't tell me what was wrong expect for inflammation in my pancreas which is supposedly temporary. I don't see that lasting all these years. The problem now is a little more complicated. This is the embarrassing part: So for the past year I have been "edging". I bring myself close to ejaculation and I stop immediately. I do this becuase of small amount of pleasure I get from doing it. There have been times where I've accidentally gone too far and I've actually ejaculated. It hurt. Bad. Lately I have been doing it a lot less close to release so I don't have to worry about it. 4 nights ago for whatever reason I was a lot more sensitive than usual so I accidentally went to the point where I felt it was about to release. I stopped myself but this feeling that it is about to come out lasted an hour. I was in hell and crying because I was so scared. It went away and I was relieved. It came back but it came in waves. I eventually fell asleep on my back too afraid to move. I woke up and it was gone but that night it came back. It's been coming in waves ever since and tonight is the worst yet. I've urinated many times since then and I looked up blue balls and people say it goes away and "resets" after a few hours. This isn't blue balls obviously. I don't know what the hell it is. It gets more intense when I move my legs a certain way while sitting down. I know this is a problem for a urologist but can anyone tell me what this might be? I'm in agonizing mental pain right now because I've spent the past 4 days knowing that at any second the worst pain I've ever felt can come out of nowhere. Assistant:You need to go to a doctor in person, my friend. This is not one that’s gonna be fixable over Reddit

Human: Please help me. Embarrassing issue involving male ejaculation. Long story short I can't masturbate due to crippling pain when I ejaculate. I first ejaculated when I was 12 and I spent 30 minutes laying on the bathroom floor crying. It was a sharp and burning pain that lingered a few minutes after the release. My stomach then hurt and I felt like throwing up. I'm 23 now and I have never purposely ejaculated since. Every time I have a wet dream or whatever it's called I'm woken up from the pain. I've been to the urologist 2 times but only recently becuase it's an embarrassing issue. They couldn't tell me what was wrong expect for inflammation in my pancreas which is supposedly temporary. I don't see that lasting all these years. The problem now is a little more complicated. This is the embarrassing part: So for the past year I have been "edging". I bring myself close to ejaculation and I stop immediately. I do this becuase of small amount of pleasure I get from doing it. There have been times where I've accidentally gone too far and I've actually ejaculated. It hurt. Bad. Lately I have been doing it a lot less close to release so I don't have to worry about it. 4 nights ago for whatever reason I was a lot more sensitive than usual so I accidentally went to the point where I felt it was about to release. I stopped myself but this feeling that it is about to come out lasted an hour. I was in hell and crying because I was so scared. It went away and I was relieved. It came back but it came in waves. I eventually fell asleep on my back too afraid to move. I woke up and it was gone but that night it came back. It's been coming in waves ever since and tonight is the worst yet. I've urinated many times since then and I looked up blue balls and people say it goes away and "resets" after a few hours. This isn't blue balls obviously. I don't know what the hell it is. It gets more intense when I move my legs a certain way while sitting down. I know this is a problem for a urologist but can anyone tell me what this might be? I'm in agonizing mental pain right now because I've spent the past 4 days knowing that at any second the worst pain I've ever felt can come out of nowhere. Assistant:Where is the pain located?

Human: CMV: All Federal elections should have a mandatory recount, partial audit (with full audits automatically triggered), and an official nonpartisan report on the health and safety of our election system. I would go further and say that all State elections to legislatures and Governors should be put to the same standards but for right now lets stick to Federal elections. Elections are the basis for a functional democracy so the safety and credibility of an election should be a primary concern of a government and electorate. To do this the first step is of course to create a voting system that is safe and credible to begin with but how do you ensure that that is the case? Well you test it. You make sure through recounts and audits that the system was accurate and welcoming to the electorate from the start. Once you have done that you report back to the government and electorate the findings and make any changes to the system that are indicated. Without mandatory recounts, audits, and reporting we are leaving the whole verification of an incredibly important institution up to chance. Yes I know we already have some safe guards in the system but they are spotty at best. Why not make these safeguards uniform for the country? Yes this would cost money to institute but we already spend $7 billion on presidential elections years. I think this should indicate how much our country already values elections and adding another $150 million (I know this is a big number but spending on average $3 million per state, which I came up with looking at the recounts that are happening this election cycle and adding money for a formal report to be written, isn't that much) every couple years isn't going to break the bank. I believe mandatory recounts and reporting on all federal elections should happen. 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:This is too vague to be meaningful. Every state has extensive post-election procedures. An "audit" and a "recount" aren't actual things if you don't specify exactly what is being audited and how, and what is being recounted and how. What specific deficiencies in post-election procedures exist which you want to rectify, and how specifically do you want to rectify them?

Human: CMV: All Federal elections should have a mandatory recount, partial audit (with full audits automatically triggered), and an official nonpartisan report on the health and safety of our election system. I would go further and say that all State elections to legislatures and Governors should be put to the same standards but for right now lets stick to Federal elections. Elections are the basis for a functional democracy so the safety and credibility of an election should be a primary concern of a government and electorate. To do this the first step is of course to create a voting system that is safe and credible to begin with but how do you ensure that that is the case? Well you test it. You make sure through recounts and audits that the system was accurate and welcoming to the electorate from the start. Once you have done that you report back to the government and electorate the findings and make any changes to the system that are indicated. Without mandatory recounts, audits, and reporting we are leaving the whole verification of an incredibly important institution up to chance. Yes I know we already have some safe guards in the system but they are spotty at best. Why not make these safeguards uniform for the country? Yes this would cost money to institute but we already spend $7 billion on presidential elections years. I think this should indicate how much our country already values elections and adding another $150 million (I know this is a big number but spending on average $3 million per state, which I came up with looking at the recounts that are happening this election cycle and adding money for a formal report to be written, isn't that much) every couple years isn't going to break the bank. I believe mandatory recounts and reporting on all federal elections should happen. 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:Mandatory recounts seem unnecessary to me. We don't need recounts in California and Texas everytime the presidential election rolls around. Why not create a system where the federal government allows requests for recounts? The government can review the request, the reasons for why a recount is needed, and then decide whether or not to fund it.

Human: CMV: Korea and Japan do not have a moral imperative to accept foreigners or multiculturism My argument may apply to other ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries, but I'm less familiar with those, so for simplicity's sake, I'm focusing on (South) Korea and Japan. My argument focuses largely around the actions of Debito Arudou, a white anti-racism activist in Japan. It also extends to racially discriminatory practices in Korea, such as excluding foreigners from businesses (example 1, example 2, example 3). I think complaining about those discriminatory actions does not have moral standing. My personal perspective is as a white Westerner who has visited Korea (but not Japan). I believe that, since Korea and Japan are very homogeneous countries, each consisting effectively of a single people, foreigners should think of themselves as guests in someone else's home. They should feel gratitude when being welcomed. They should not feel entitled to be treated as a native. They should expect some basic security (e.g., police protection from violence and theft) but otherwise should not be entitled to be free from discrimination. They should accept that there may be some businesses or institutions they are excluded from, just as a guest in someone else's home should accept there are some rooms they are excluded from (without permission). In short, I don't believe foreigners are entitled to live in Korea or Japan as they see fit. Natives in those countries have the prerogative to decide for themselves whether to isolate and preserve their own culture or to embrace other cultures. I do personally believe that racial and ethnic discrimination is a bad thing, but I don't believe I can impose that view on others. From a practical standpoint, I also think that Japan and Korea would both benefit from increased trade and cultural exchange with outside countries. However, even if that has practical benefits, I don't believe it's a moral imperative. If Japan and Korea do embrace multiculturalism, I believe that should come wholly from within, not due to outside pressure or complaints from foreigners. Also, I'm speaking solely from a moral standpoint. I realised both Korea and Japan have laws against racial discrimination (which are not enforced strongly), but I'm not concerned with the law. If natives are content with the laws being weakly enforced (or not enforced), that is their prerogative. _____ > *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:This requires a giant hypocrisy - we accept you as a citizen, literally make you japanese - but then relegate you to second class. I do not believe they can have it both ways and maintain a moral high ground.

Human: CMV: Korea and Japan do not have a moral imperative to accept foreigners or multiculturism My argument may apply to other ethnically and culturally homogeneous countries, but I'm less familiar with those, so for simplicity's sake, I'm focusing on (South) Korea and Japan. My argument focuses largely around the actions of Debito Arudou, a white anti-racism activist in Japan. It also extends to racially discriminatory practices in Korea, such as excluding foreigners from businesses (example 1, example 2, example 3). I think complaining about those discriminatory actions does not have moral standing. My personal perspective is as a white Westerner who has visited Korea (but not Japan). I believe that, since Korea and Japan are very homogeneous countries, each consisting effectively of a single people, foreigners should think of themselves as guests in someone else's home. They should feel gratitude when being welcomed. They should not feel entitled to be treated as a native. They should expect some basic security (e.g., police protection from violence and theft) but otherwise should not be entitled to be free from discrimination. They should accept that there may be some businesses or institutions they are excluded from, just as a guest in someone else's home should accept there are some rooms they are excluded from (without permission). In short, I don't believe foreigners are entitled to live in Korea or Japan as they see fit. Natives in those countries have the prerogative to decide for themselves whether to isolate and preserve their own culture or to embrace other cultures. I do personally believe that racial and ethnic discrimination is a bad thing, but I don't believe I can impose that view on others. From a practical standpoint, I also think that Japan and Korea would both benefit from increased trade and cultural exchange with outside countries. However, even if that has practical benefits, I don't believe it's a moral imperative. If Japan and Korea do embrace multiculturalism, I believe that should come wholly from within, not due to outside pressure or complaints from foreigners. Also, I'm speaking solely from a moral standpoint. I realised both Korea and Japan have laws against racial discrimination (which are not enforced strongly), but I'm not concerned with the law. If natives are content with the laws being weakly enforced (or not enforced), that is their prerogative. _____ > *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:You say foreigners should be treated like guests. Shouldn't guests be treated with the highest level of courtesy and acceptance? Not to say guests can destroy your house or break your rules, but they should be given food, allowed to use toilet, etc. Right? Arguing against changing the culture is one thing, but supporting employment discrimination is like inviting a guest and not letting them use the basic facilities of your home. There's a moral imperative to let them or, if you're not prepared to do that, not invite them in the first place...

Human: CMV: It's entitled and self-centred of trans/non-binary people to complain about "trans-exclusionary language" in debates about reproductive health, given what a small percentage of people affected they make up. I'll preface this by stating that I'm a cisgender man, which may inform how you interpret this. There's been a lot of talk in feminist circles and the mainstream media recently about reproductive health: access to contraception, abortion, tampons etc. I live in Ireland in which the campaign for legalising abortion has been at a fever pitch for years now. I myself am in favour of legalising abortion, but that's not the issue at hand. Amidst all this kerfuffle, there have been frequent calls to ensure the language used in the debates is more trans-inclusive. "Men can have periods too!" "Non-binary people can get pregnant too!" I fully support trans rights and I believe that a person's gender identity is entirely their own business, but the entitlement, self-absorption and short-sightedness of this demand irritates me. I'll explain why by way of analogy. Breast cancer is a serious illness which primarily affects people who are anatomically female, to the point that the number of sufferers who are anatomically male is practically negligible. Well over 99% of breast cancer sufferers are anatomically female. Literally every time I have seen an advertisement raising awareness for breast cancer, it has referred exclusively to sufferers who are anatomically female. And I'm totally okay with that, because sufferers of breast cancer who are anatomically male are such a tiny minority that they're hardly even worth mentioning. And yet there are probably more sufferers of breast cancer who are anatomically male than there are trans or non-binary men who desire access to the pill, tampons or abortions, because trans and non-binary people are a tiny minority of the general population. The vast majority (as in well over 99%) of people who desire access to tampons etc. are cisgender women, and I wish trans men and non-binary people would recognise that instead of demanding exactly the same amount of attention for their tiny group as the much larger group of cisgender women. In my opinion, their behaviour is just as self-centred and entitled as if I found a support group for female breast cancer sufferers, and stormed in yelling "MEN CAN GET BREAST CANCER TOO YOU KNOW!" Thoughts? _____ > *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 realize things may be different in Ireland than in the US, but I'd like to offer this additional bit of information for your consideration: In the US, a lot of healthcare goes through insurance companies. Frequently, it's the only way for someone to afford healthcare. Insurance companies like to be as narrow as possible when making allowances, so that it's easier to deny claims (thus saving them money). A lot of reproductive healthcare according to insurance companies is gendered. That is: women get coverage for one set of reproductive healthcare things, and men get coverage for a different set of reproductive healthcare things. So what happens when a trans man with a cervix wants coverage for a pap smear? He gets denied because why would a man need a pap smear? What happens when a trans man needs an abortion? What happens when a trans man with breasts wants coverage for a mammogram? What happens when a trans woman on HRT wants coverage for a breast exam, but she hasn't updated her gender markers with her insurance company yet? Basically there's all this healthcare stuff that applies to body parts, and those body parts don't always align with gendered legal/business language. The press to use inclusive language in activism arises because when it comes to things like healthcare trans people are already far more likely to be disadvantaged than their cis peers. As in, yes, a ban on abortions hurts everyone who may have an unwanted pregnancy, but even when abortion *is* legal it's still less likely to be available to a trans man than to a cis woman. By using inclusive language in activism, we encourage inclusivity in laws and policies that are *being created*, which is a lot easier to do all together in the present than it would be for a small group of people to fight for amendments later. ETA: Meant to say that I think this may be relevant to the situation in Ireland because feminist circles tend to communicate with each other.

Human: CMV: It's entitled and self-centred of trans/non-binary people to complain about "trans-exclusionary language" in debates about reproductive health, given what a small percentage of people affected they make up. I'll preface this by stating that I'm a cisgender man, which may inform how you interpret this. There's been a lot of talk in feminist circles and the mainstream media recently about reproductive health: access to contraception, abortion, tampons etc. I live in Ireland in which the campaign for legalising abortion has been at a fever pitch for years now. I myself am in favour of legalising abortion, but that's not the issue at hand. Amidst all this kerfuffle, there have been frequent calls to ensure the language used in the debates is more trans-inclusive. "Men can have periods too!" "Non-binary people can get pregnant too!" I fully support trans rights and I believe that a person's gender identity is entirely their own business, but the entitlement, self-absorption and short-sightedness of this demand irritates me. I'll explain why by way of analogy. Breast cancer is a serious illness which primarily affects people who are anatomically female, to the point that the number of sufferers who are anatomically male is practically negligible. Well over 99% of breast cancer sufferers are anatomically female. Literally every time I have seen an advertisement raising awareness for breast cancer, it has referred exclusively to sufferers who are anatomically female. And I'm totally okay with that, because sufferers of breast cancer who are anatomically male are such a tiny minority that they're hardly even worth mentioning. And yet there are probably more sufferers of breast cancer who are anatomically male than there are trans or non-binary men who desire access to the pill, tampons or abortions, because trans and non-binary people are a tiny minority of the general population. The vast majority (as in well over 99%) of people who desire access to tampons etc. are cisgender women, and I wish trans men and non-binary people would recognise that instead of demanding exactly the same amount of attention for their tiny group as the much larger group of cisgender women. In my opinion, their behaviour is just as self-centred and entitled as if I found a support group for female breast cancer sufferers, and stormed in yelling "MEN CAN GET BREAST CANCER TOO YOU KNOW!" Thoughts? _____ > *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'll explain why by way of analogy. > Breast cancer is a serious illness which primarily affects people who are anatomically female, to the point that the number of sufferers who are anatomically male is practically negligible. Well over 99% of breast cancer sufferers are anatomically female. The difference is that trans men and trans women are constantly being denigrated and put down for not being "real enough" men and women respectively. Because of this, they need to put extra efforts into raising awareness. If they are casually included when people talk about things like reproductive health, this can help normalize the existence of trans people and add to the public awareness. A closer analogy would be male-dominated jobs. If job adverts for construction workers, plumbers, truck drivers etc. explicitly referred to the candidate with "him" and "his" or other male words, this would *rightly* be regarded as sexist and therefore unacceptable. Even though you could technically see similarly low numbers of women in some of those professions. It's not self-centered or entitled for women to expect not to be excluded from job adverts, even for statistically male-dominated roles.

Human: CMV: Men's rights activists and Feminists are fighting the same 'thing' without realizing it. I would like to preface this by saying that I am young (17 years old) and trying to develop my own beliefs. I was raised by a very liberal family and a very feminist mother so my view for quite some time was that of a 'hyper-feminist'. I've been noticing lately that this ideology actually has caused me to have a stigma against many aspects of my own identity. For instance, I feel bad when I find a woman attractive because I feel as if I am unconsciously objectifying her. I don't say this to be angry at my mother, she is one of if not the most brilliant people I have ever met. Her views are not as one-sided as I'm presenting them, however being a child my interpretation of them polarized me towards 'radical' feminism. I got much good from my mother's raising, and I will be eternally grateful to her for all that she has done for me. I often see people arguing about who is more oppressed, men or women. Someone will post something about how women have something societally against them, and then someone will post about how men have something against them and the cycle will continue. What I essentially argue is that these 'men's rights activists and 'feminists' are actually trying to fix the main thing. I'm also arguing that although the basis for their viewpoint is rooted in the same ideology, the way they express it can be incredibly harmful to everyone around them. Some of the main points I've heard coming from men's rights activists are things such as 'courts rule in favor of women' or 'men commit suicide more often'. The feminists make such points as 'women are harassed on the streets' or 'women aren't taken seriously'. It is my belief that these two ideas both derive from the same sort of thing. Feminists would call this the patriarchy. Although I know many men's rights activists are vehemently opposed to this term I will use it because I believe it fits well with what I'm getting at. Men effectively ruled the world for most of history. Although you can make arguments about female leaders, or women leading the world from behind the scenes, the general cultural perception was of men being leaders. (I have not studied much history, so if I am wrong about this I would love to be educated). This view, or perhaps just general cultural ideas about masculinity and femininity shaped the way we view people. Men are often presented as callous and career-driven. This is expressed in ideas we men have about ourselves such as being told that men don't cry, and generally the cultural perception that men are less emotional than women. The idea of the logical calculating man. Women on the other hand are presented as more frivolous and hedonistic (perhaps hedonistic isn't quite the word I'm looking for). Where men are motivated for career or academic success, women are motivated for love-based success. These views have certainly changed, and I am basing this historical representation partially on my reading of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. These perceptions of men and women at least currently swap around during adolescence when girls are expected to pay attention in school and be good students, and boys are expected to goof off. I think all of these traits derive from the same 'patriarchy'. In this case, I am defining patriarchy as the societal beliefs we gained in the past which were likely influenced by our 'leaders' being male. The idea that men are emotionless and career-driven (a vast simplification of perceptions of men) may derive from the fact that men were historically supposed to pursue success, whereas the perceptions that women are focused on romance and family and less on their careers is also historically influenced by their historical roles as caretakers. Assuming that I'm right about these similarities (which I certainly could be incorrect, I am fairly new to thinking about this), it seems as if the only way we can truly 'fix' the patriarchy is by working together to eradicate these perceptions in general. And yet, I don't think this is going to happen. In many cases, men's rights activists (or at least anti-feminists) and feminists are not in their respective groups because of a sense of wanting justice, but because of a group mindset wherein, everyone within the group is thinking the same way. Now, this is certainly not true for everyone and I have no statistics for what percentage of each group this is, but it certainly seems to me that both groups seek to radicalize their own members into a raving mob that refuses to see what the other side is talking about. Again, I want to make it very clear that I don't think this is true for all members of a group, but I do believe it is true for many. To conclude, I would love to be educated on my beliefs, it's very hard for me to find holes in my own logic due to it being my own logic so I would love for others to consider what I've said. I apologize if this is incoherent, I have a class to get to so I don't have time to revise. Assistant:Most, if not all, feminists will say that the patriarchy hurts men too if asked. Why exactly do you think that feminists do not realize it?

Human: CMV: Men's rights activists and Feminists are fighting the same 'thing' without realizing it. I would like to preface this by saying that I am young (17 years old) and trying to develop my own beliefs. I was raised by a very liberal family and a very feminist mother so my view for quite some time was that of a 'hyper-feminist'. I've been noticing lately that this ideology actually has caused me to have a stigma against many aspects of my own identity. For instance, I feel bad when I find a woman attractive because I feel as if I am unconsciously objectifying her. I don't say this to be angry at my mother, she is one of if not the most brilliant people I have ever met. Her views are not as one-sided as I'm presenting them, however being a child my interpretation of them polarized me towards 'radical' feminism. I got much good from my mother's raising, and I will be eternally grateful to her for all that she has done for me. I often see people arguing about who is more oppressed, men or women. Someone will post something about how women have something societally against them, and then someone will post about how men have something against them and the cycle will continue. What I essentially argue is that these 'men's rights activists and 'feminists' are actually trying to fix the main thing. I'm also arguing that although the basis for their viewpoint is rooted in the same ideology, the way they express it can be incredibly harmful to everyone around them. Some of the main points I've heard coming from men's rights activists are things such as 'courts rule in favor of women' or 'men commit suicide more often'. The feminists make such points as 'women are harassed on the streets' or 'women aren't taken seriously'. It is my belief that these two ideas both derive from the same sort of thing. Feminists would call this the patriarchy. Although I know many men's rights activists are vehemently opposed to this term I will use it because I believe it fits well with what I'm getting at. Men effectively ruled the world for most of history. Although you can make arguments about female leaders, or women leading the world from behind the scenes, the general cultural perception was of men being leaders. (I have not studied much history, so if I am wrong about this I would love to be educated). This view, or perhaps just general cultural ideas about masculinity and femininity shaped the way we view people. Men are often presented as callous and career-driven. This is expressed in ideas we men have about ourselves such as being told that men don't cry, and generally the cultural perception that men are less emotional than women. The idea of the logical calculating man. Women on the other hand are presented as more frivolous and hedonistic (perhaps hedonistic isn't quite the word I'm looking for). Where men are motivated for career or academic success, women are motivated for love-based success. These views have certainly changed, and I am basing this historical representation partially on my reading of Mary Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Women. These perceptions of men and women at least currently swap around during adolescence when girls are expected to pay attention in school and be good students, and boys are expected to goof off. I think all of these traits derive from the same 'patriarchy'. In this case, I am defining patriarchy as the societal beliefs we gained in the past which were likely influenced by our 'leaders' being male. The idea that men are emotionless and career-driven (a vast simplification of perceptions of men) may derive from the fact that men were historically supposed to pursue success, whereas the perceptions that women are focused on romance and family and less on their careers is also historically influenced by their historical roles as caretakers. Assuming that I'm right about these similarities (which I certainly could be incorrect, I am fairly new to thinking about this), it seems as if the only way we can truly 'fix' the patriarchy is by working together to eradicate these perceptions in general. And yet, I don't think this is going to happen. In many cases, men's rights activists (or at least anti-feminists) and feminists are not in their respective groups because of a sense of wanting justice, but because of a group mindset wherein, everyone within the group is thinking the same way. Now, this is certainly not true for everyone and I have no statistics for what percentage of each group this is, but it certainly seems to me that both groups seek to radicalize their own members into a raving mob that refuses to see what the other side is talking about. Again, I want to make it very clear that I don't think this is true for all members of a group, but I do believe it is true for many. To conclude, I would love to be educated on my beliefs, it's very hard for me to find holes in my own logic due to it being my own logic so I would love for others to consider what I've said. I apologize if this is incoherent, I have a class to get to so I don't have time to revise. Assistant:> In many cases, men's rights activists (or at least anti-feminists) and feminists are not in their respective groups because of a sense of wanting justice, but because of a group mindset wherein, everyone within the group is thinking the same way. Except that many of the biggest feminists also sought justice that provided more rights to men. RBG ruled in favor of access of husbands to healthcare, pension, and other welfare assistance of wives in active military service. Labor feminists who pushed for shorter workday and parental welfare or opposing the draft provided this equal right to men as well as women. Feminists criticizing the patriarchy often say that the norms hurt men as well. Maybe it's a result of recency in the MRA movement, but I've never seen them do the same for women's rights.

Human: NYC hotel charged me for an additional full stay after my early checkout. First time posting on here and I don't travel often so I'm not sure if I screwed up bigtime and I have to pay or if I'm being taken advantage of and there's something I can do to fix this. Back in the beginning of summer I was in NYC for some time on behalf of my company. I made my hotel reservation through a third-party site using my corporate card. I received an email with my itinerary and it very clearly stated that I'd be staying for 21 nights, from 5/24-6/13 and even listed out the room rates for each night (to be paid to the hotel directly, not to the third-party site). Halfway through my stay I was told it was time to head home so with a couple days' notice I requested an early checkout and was told it would be no problem. So I checked out on 6/2 and received a receipt showing my departure date as June 2nd, along with the rates I paid each and every night. I then got on a plane and flew home. A couple weeks later while submitting expense reports I saw a charge from June 14 from the hotel, for over $3k. When I contacted the hotel they told me it was for my stay from June 6 through June 14. When I explained I wasn't even in the state I was given the number and email of a manager, but after reaching out to him and leaving messages I didn't get any response so I disputed the charge with the CC company. I sent them my itinerary from the 3rd-party site and the receipt showing my "departure date" of June 2nd. They eventually issued a chargeback and I thought that was the end of it. Now yesterday I got an email from the CC company saying that the merchant has provided documents showing the charge is valid and that the chargeback has been reversed. In the "supporting documents" the hotel has a receipt showing me checking out on the 2nd and not being charged for the following several nights, but then checking BACK IN on the 6th and staying through the 14th. They even charged me for valet parking on a few days even though when I was in NYC I never even got behind the wheel of a car. After looking at the documentation they sent as "proof" it looks like the hotel split my initial reservation into two for some reason, and even though I successfully checked out of the first one early they still charged me for the entirety of the second. I have no idea why they would split up the reservation but it wasn't my doing and it wasn't done with my consent. I've responded to the CC company saying I'd like to keep the dispute open but they're requesting a cancellation confirmation. I thought my receipt with the departure date as June 1st WAS the cancellation confirmation. I didn't even know I had a second reservation until after I'd been charged. Some additional information I've come across during the situation: Right in my itinerary email from the third-party site it says that no-shows will be responsible for one night's fee plus any applicable taxes and such. So even if I did make the two reservations, shouldn't I have only been on the hook for that instead of the entire stay? How was I charged for a full reservation when I wasn't even there to check in? So am I just going to be stuck paying over $3k for a hotel room when I wasn't even in the same state? Or is there something else I can do? Any advice would be appreciated. Assistant:Sorry your stay in our fair city has left you with some problems. This is precisely the type of matter that should be handled by your company's general or outside counsel, if you have one. If not, consider making a complaint to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs using this form. They may respond asking for more information. Good luck!

Human: NYC hotel charged me for an additional full stay after my early checkout. First time posting on here and I don't travel often so I'm not sure if I screwed up bigtime and I have to pay or if I'm being taken advantage of and there's something I can do to fix this. Back in the beginning of summer I was in NYC for some time on behalf of my company. I made my hotel reservation through a third-party site using my corporate card. I received an email with my itinerary and it very clearly stated that I'd be staying for 21 nights, from 5/24-6/13 and even listed out the room rates for each night (to be paid to the hotel directly, not to the third-party site). Halfway through my stay I was told it was time to head home so with a couple days' notice I requested an early checkout and was told it would be no problem. So I checked out on 6/2 and received a receipt showing my departure date as June 2nd, along with the rates I paid each and every night. I then got on a plane and flew home. A couple weeks later while submitting expense reports I saw a charge from June 14 from the hotel, for over $3k. When I contacted the hotel they told me it was for my stay from June 6 through June 14. When I explained I wasn't even in the state I was given the number and email of a manager, but after reaching out to him and leaving messages I didn't get any response so I disputed the charge with the CC company. I sent them my itinerary from the 3rd-party site and the receipt showing my "departure date" of June 2nd. They eventually issued a chargeback and I thought that was the end of it. Now yesterday I got an email from the CC company saying that the merchant has provided documents showing the charge is valid and that the chargeback has been reversed. In the "supporting documents" the hotel has a receipt showing me checking out on the 2nd and not being charged for the following several nights, but then checking BACK IN on the 6th and staying through the 14th. They even charged me for valet parking on a few days even though when I was in NYC I never even got behind the wheel of a car. After looking at the documentation they sent as "proof" it looks like the hotel split my initial reservation into two for some reason, and even though I successfully checked out of the first one early they still charged me for the entirety of the second. I have no idea why they would split up the reservation but it wasn't my doing and it wasn't done with my consent. I've responded to the CC company saying I'd like to keep the dispute open but they're requesting a cancellation confirmation. I thought my receipt with the departure date as June 1st WAS the cancellation confirmation. I didn't even know I had a second reservation until after I'd been charged. Some additional information I've come across during the situation: Right in my itinerary email from the third-party site it says that no-shows will be responsible for one night's fee plus any applicable taxes and such. So even if I did make the two reservations, shouldn't I have only been on the hook for that instead of the entire stay? How was I charged for a full reservation when I wasn't even there to check in? So am I just going to be stuck paying over $3k for a hotel room when I wasn't even in the same state? Or is there something else I can do? Any advice would be appreciated. Assistant:Does the room number appear on either bill? Ask them to show that the key card for that room was active from June 6 through June 14.

Human: Girlfriend is continuously being sexually harassed by coworker and has been sexually assaulted at work. Management is not doing anything about it. Her coworker is stalking her, intimidating her, and making comments about her body and weight. 4 complaints filed with no action taken. What can she do? My 20 something year old girlfriend has been working at a very large grocery store chain in TX. Over the past few months she has been dealing with a coworker that has repeatedly intimidated her, made comments about her body and weight, follows her around the store, and frequently comes into the store wearing a black hoodie with the hood up while he's not working and asks her for assistance, to find items he stocks on the shelves himself daily where he leads her to a different part of the store away from other people. Sometimes he will come into the store while he's off and follow her around, and continue trying to speak to her when she continuously makes attempts to move away from him. She has filed at least 4 formal complaints against him and as far as she knows so has at least one other young female employee. Management has failed to do anything about the situation, and even still goes as far as having him work with her directly and still putting them on the same shifts together. She goes to the bathroom multiple times a day to cry because he makes her uncomfortable and none of the management team seems to care enough to do anything. Recently, she was trying to escape an encounter with him, and he started showing her videos of him shooting at human shaped targets with various firearms. She has no interest in guns, and has shown nothing but disinterest towards him when he tries to speak to her. So she left the encounter feeling as if this was a way of showing her he's dangerous and he has the means to harm her. Two weeks ago, a customer approached her at her register, walked behind her, and grabbed her buttocks. It took her over 5 minutes to find store security for help. The man was eventually detained and arrested by police and was known to have a criminal background. This store is in an extremely busy downtown area in a major city, on a street known to have high rates of crime and homeless people under the influence of drugs that frequently come into the building and cause trouble, yet there is never a security guard nearby watching the young employees working at the front of the store. The next day, management gave her a $5.00 gift card. Today, the male coworker that has been harassing her, started making "Pspspsps" noises to her like you would to a cat when he walked by her. Why? I don't know. Either as a way to mock her for being a "pussy" as he's more than likely aware of the complaints filed against him, or something to do with her being female. Regardless of the reason, it's weird and made her extremely uncomfortable. He then proceeded to follow her around work and make inappropriate comments to her for the rest of her shift. Multiple times she literally had to go to the bathroom to get away from him, where she would then contact me crying. She's convinced there's no more reason to continue reporting him, because no one seems to take her complaints seriously. I am becoming frustrated at the situation. How far does this have to go? Does she have to be followed to her car, raped and murdered before management decides to take action? Does she not have a right to feel safe in the workplace? What can she do? Can she file a restraining order? What line of action can she take from here? Is there grounds for legal action? Is it worth it? Are there any 3rd party entities she should be reporting these encounters to? I am one day away from going to the store and confronting this man myself, but I don't want to make her lose her job or get into an altercation where someone may get injured. Also, this chain of stores has a history of firing female employees for reporting sexual harassment. Sorry if this is somewhat scattered and incoherent, but I feel powerless to help her in anyway besides making a stupid decision and confronting this person myself. What can we do? I will provide more information if asked, unless it's revealing of person information. Assistant:Pretty sure this is the legal definition of “hostile workplace” and and she could notify EEOC EDIT TO ADD - in these situations we all feel like it is just us or we are the only one this is happening to. It definitely seems like this company has no regard for its employees’ rights or safety so she could very well be helping others who have not said anything and/or were able to extricate themselves by using mace or the predator “moved on”. Give her power by encouraging her and championing her for fighting for those who don’t speak up. I have a mildly disabled child and it constantly worries me that he could be put in situations where he does not realize that what others are DOING to him- just because they don’t get in trouble-is still wrong.

Human: Girlfriend is continuously being sexually harassed by coworker and has been sexually assaulted at work. Management is not doing anything about it. Her coworker is stalking her, intimidating her, and making comments about her body and weight. 4 complaints filed with no action taken. What can she do? My 20 something year old girlfriend has been working at a very large grocery store chain in TX. Over the past few months she has been dealing with a coworker that has repeatedly intimidated her, made comments about her body and weight, follows her around the store, and frequently comes into the store wearing a black hoodie with the hood up while he's not working and asks her for assistance, to find items he stocks on the shelves himself daily where he leads her to a different part of the store away from other people. Sometimes he will come into the store while he's off and follow her around, and continue trying to speak to her when she continuously makes attempts to move away from him. She has filed at least 4 formal complaints against him and as far as she knows so has at least one other young female employee. Management has failed to do anything about the situation, and even still goes as far as having him work with her directly and still putting them on the same shifts together. She goes to the bathroom multiple times a day to cry because he makes her uncomfortable and none of the management team seems to care enough to do anything. Recently, she was trying to escape an encounter with him, and he started showing her videos of him shooting at human shaped targets with various firearms. She has no interest in guns, and has shown nothing but disinterest towards him when he tries to speak to her. So she left the encounter feeling as if this was a way of showing her he's dangerous and he has the means to harm her. Two weeks ago, a customer approached her at her register, walked behind her, and grabbed her buttocks. It took her over 5 minutes to find store security for help. The man was eventually detained and arrested by police and was known to have a criminal background. This store is in an extremely busy downtown area in a major city, on a street known to have high rates of crime and homeless people under the influence of drugs that frequently come into the building and cause trouble, yet there is never a security guard nearby watching the young employees working at the front of the store. The next day, management gave her a $5.00 gift card. Today, the male coworker that has been harassing her, started making "Pspspsps" noises to her like you would to a cat when he walked by her. Why? I don't know. Either as a way to mock her for being a "pussy" as he's more than likely aware of the complaints filed against him, or something to do with her being female. Regardless of the reason, it's weird and made her extremely uncomfortable. He then proceeded to follow her around work and make inappropriate comments to her for the rest of her shift. Multiple times she literally had to go to the bathroom to get away from him, where she would then contact me crying. She's convinced there's no more reason to continue reporting him, because no one seems to take her complaints seriously. I am becoming frustrated at the situation. How far does this have to go? Does she have to be followed to her car, raped and murdered before management decides to take action? Does she not have a right to feel safe in the workplace? What can she do? Can she file a restraining order? What line of action can she take from here? Is there grounds for legal action? Is it worth it? Are there any 3rd party entities she should be reporting these encounters to? I am one day away from going to the store and confronting this man myself, but I don't want to make her lose her job or get into an altercation where someone may get injured. Also, this chain of stores has a history of firing female employees for reporting sexual harassment. Sorry if this is somewhat scattered and incoherent, but I feel powerless to help her in anyway besides making a stupid decision and confronting this person myself. What can we do? I will provide more information if asked, unless it's revealing of person information. Assistant:I am sure that others will provide more concrete advice but I want to recommend that your girlfriend make certain that she is creating a paper or electronic trail of the shocking and appalling treatment. For example, when she complains to management about harassment, how did she do it? Verbally? In writing? By text or email? A tangible record should be created with each complaint. Even if the reporting was verbal, she should follow up with an email. "Thank you for listening to my complaint about ? today after my shift. As I said, he repeatedly ,,,, " No matter what steps you decide to take, it will be critical to have a paper or electronic trail that corroborates your version of events.

Human: Happy Indigenous People's Day! Hola a todos, todas y todes! Hello everyone! Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day, or in my case, happy Respect for Cultural Diversity Day! 528 years ago, Genoese navigator & trader Cristoforo Colombo arrived at the island of Guanahaní, in search of a new way to reach the Indies. After promptly changing the name the Taíno people had given to their island to San Salvador, he launched further expeditions to other islands near the area, in what became the beginning of one of the most exhaustive, violent & longstanding periods of systemic colonisation, imperialism, cultural erasure & genocide in human history: the conquest of the Américas. Today, as it tends to happen every year, the historical discipline continues to face challenges when exploring these particular issues. Over 300 years of conquest & subjugation by European powers such as Spain, Portugal, England & France left a pillaged & forever changed land, in what had been a continent previously inhabited by tens of millions of people from thousands of different civilisations, from Bering to Tierra del Fuego, from the Nez Perce of the Plateau all the way down to my ancestors, the Gününa-Këna (Puelches) & the Aonikenk (Tehuelches) of Mendoza. Today, both History & every humanity have to contend with the advent of many perspectives that would frame any mention of this day as other than “Columbus Day” as negatively revisionist, disrespectful of Italian-American identity, & even as forgetful of the supposedly magnificent & mutually beneficial cultural exchange that occurred from the point when Colombo “discovered” América as a continent. So let’s talk a bit about those things, shall we? I’m mainly interested in the latter point, but first, let me draw some interesting points my esteemed colleague & fellow native descendant /u/Snapshot52 proposed some years ago: **A Word on Revisionism** >Historical revisionism simply refers to a revising or re-interpreting of a narrative, not some nefarious attempt to interject presentism or lies into the past. > >The idea that revisions of historical accounts is somehow a bad thing indicates a view of singularity, or that there is only one true account of how something happened and that there are rigid, discernible facts that reveal this one true account. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. The accounts we take for granted as being "just the facts" are, at times, inaccurate, misleading, false, or even fabricated. Different perspectives will yield different results. As for the idea of changing the way in which we perceive this day, from “Columbus Day” to Indigenous Peoples Day, being disrespectful to the memory of Colombo & therefore to the collective memory of the Italian-American population of the United States, I’ll let my colleague tell us about it >The recognition of Columbus by giving him a day acknowledges his accomplishments is a result of collective memory, for it symbolically frames his supposed discovery of the New World. So where is the issue? Surely we are all aware of the atrocities committed by and under Columbus. But if those atrocities are not being framed into the collective memory of this day, why do they matter? > >Even though these symbols, these manifestations of history, purposely ignore historical context to achieve a certain meaning, they are not completely void of such context. And as noted, this collective memory forms and influences the collective identity of the communities consenting and approving of said symbols. This includes the historical context **regardless** if it is intended or not with the original symbol. This is because context, not necessarily of the all encompassing past, but of the contemporary meaning of when said symbols were recognised is carried with the symbol as a sort of meta-context. > >What we know is that expansion was on the minds of Americans for centuries. They began to foster an identity built on The Doctrine of Discovery and the man who initiated the flood waves of Europeans coming to the Americas for the purpose of God, gold, and glory, AKA: colonisation. The ideas of expansionism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, and sexism, are all chained along, as if part of a necklace, and flow from the neck of Columbus. These very items are intrinsically linked to his character and were the ideas of those who decided to recognise him as a symbol for so called American values. While collective memory would like to separate the historical context, the truth is that it cannot be separated. For a more detailed exploration of Colombo’s role & image in US history, I recommend this post by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov **Now, for a less US-Centric perspective** In my time contributing to r/AskHistorians, even before I became a moderator, I made it a point to express that I have no connection to the United States; if you’ve read something of mine, chances are you’ve noticed that I use the terms “América” & “America” as two very distinct things: the former refers to the entire continent, whereas the latter is what the US tends to be referred as. Why do I use this distinction? Because, linguistics aside, I’m every bit an American as a person from the US. See, in Spanish, we don’t speak about “the Americas”, we call the entire thing América. We don’t call Americans “americanos”, we call them Estadounidenses, because we understand the continent to be a larger entity than the sum of North, Central & South areas. I’ve spoken about this earlier here. I’m from Argentina. I was born in a land that had a very different conquest process than that of North América, because the Spanish conquistadores were here earlier, they had more time to ravage every culture they came across, from Hernán Cortés subjugating the Aztlans & later betraying the tribes that had allied themselves with him, to Francisco Pizarro taking advantage of the political instability of the Inca empire to destroy the Tahuantinsuyo. However, before the conquistadores came to the area where my ancestors lived, they already knew the meaning of conquest, genocide & cultural erasure, as did many other peoples in the rest of the continent. See, these practices aren’t exclusively an endemic problem brought to our shores by Europeans, because we know & understand that much like the Aztlans & Incas subjugated & conquered hundreds of cultures & civilisations in their expansionism, the Mapuches of Chile & Argentina spent decades systematically conquering, displacing & forcefully integrating many tribes into their dominion, chiefly my ancestors, the Aoninek & the Gününa-Küne, who were displaced & conquered by the Mapuches, who forced them to pay tribute to them, while having to change their culture, their religion, their way of life & even their tribal names, because the Mapuches replaced them with the names Chewel Che & Pwelche (Tehuelche & Puelchue in Spanish), which in Mapundungún, the Mapuche language, mean Vicious People & People of the East, respectively. So, as you can see, most of us historians aren’t trying to destroy anyone’s heritage, because we recognise that atrocities & cultural erasure practices were very much a thing among native civilisations & cultures. However, it would be disingenuous and plain wrong to try & deny that the conquerors applied systemic policies of extermination in their search for wealth & conquest in América. Even if we concede that a cultural exchange was indeed established from October 12 1492 onward, we need to be extremely aware of the fact that this exchange was always forcefully imposed by the conquerors over the conquered. Last year, we had a fascinating panel discussing the colonisation of the continent with several of our contributors, I highly recommend you check it out here. There, I spoke briefly about what made this cultural exchange forceful to begin with: El Requerimiento, The Spanish Requirement, a legal document issued by the Spanish crown that, from 1513 onward, every time the conquistadores encountered a native settlement, were supposed to read out loud. >To summarize it, it states that, under the authority of the Catholic Monarchs Fernando & Isabel, whose power emanated from the Pope, who had ceded every land they were to conquer to them & only them, & who did so because, as Pope, had been given power & authority directly from God through the Holy Church "Lady & Superior of the World Universe", the native indios had two choices. > >First, to accept the rule of the Spanish Empire. If they accepted it, they were to be treated with respect, allowed to maintain their freedoms & lands, just under Spanish government. > >If they were to reject the terms of el Requerimiento, the conquistadores promised to take their lands, their properties, their women & children by force & by holy war, as it was their divine right. So, they gave them two choices. The problem? The natives couldn’t understand Spanish. The conquistadores read this Requirement to people who didn't & couldn't understand the language. The Requirement was only issued as a poor attempt of justification for the atrocities they knew were going to commit. While in later decades they developed translations as they went further inland, the fact remains that the Spanish had absolutely no regard for cultural diversity or for respecting anyone’s sovereignty in their newfound colonies. I made a translation of the full text here. **Speaking of Cultural Diversity** Prior to 2010, Argentina called this day “Race Day”. Sounds pretty atrocious, huh? Still, it was widely accepted, in a country where, even if tens of thousands of Italian immigrants arrived over the centuries, there is no such thing as an “Italian-Argentinian” collective memory, at least not in the sense it exists in the US. However, when the government decided it was time to change the horrific name this day had traditionally had, there was a lot of pushback. Why? For the same reasons exposed earlier about “Columbus Day” in the US. While most Latin Américan former colonies gained their independence from Spain in the early 19C, we still speak the language they forced the natives to learn, many people still practice the religion they imposed on every civilisation they encountered, & most people ignore, consciously or otherwise, that roughly half of the continent can trace their ancestry to some native people or other. I just happen to be closer, generationally wise, & I just happen to be a historian. So, today, here in Argentina we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the law that changed the name of a dreadfully positivist & violent “Race Day” to Respect for Cultural Diversity Day. Am I happy with this change? Somewhat. The sentiment comes from the right place, & many natives & experts of the humanities were consulted when thinking of an appropriate name. But there’s still a lot we have to do for the name to actually mean anything, reparations have to be made, for the memory of my now almost extinct people, & for those who are still alive, well, & fighting for their independence & freedom, including my people’s former conquerors, the Mapuches, who remain locked in a constant struggle against erasure & repression from the governments of both Chile & Argentina. There are instances in which history needs to be revised. This is one of those pivotal points in the construction of collective memory, where voices like mine join with the millions of native Indians who still live, some surviving, some striving to thrive, some nearly forgotten. We the subaltern are still here, & , at risk of going overboard with the self-centred ideas, I’m just a simple indio, who learned about their history from their great grandmother, who’s proud of their ancestry, & who will continue to do thorough, mindful scholarship to avoid centuries of history to be permanently deleted from the world. Assistant:I assume this thread is open for discussion, so forgive me if I misstep. >So, as you can see, most of us historians aren’t trying to destroy anyone’s heritage, because we recognise that atrocities & cultural erasure practices were very much a thing among native civilisations & cultures. I hear this. >The Requirement was only issued as a poor attempt of justification for the atrocities they knew were going to commit. And I understand this. But I'm a little confused then as to where this fits in: >The ideas of expansionism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, and sexism, are all chained along, as if part of a necklace, and flow from the neck of Columbus. Which seems to suggest that Columbus is responsible and should be held historically accountable not just for prevalent colonialism, but also for racism and sexism?

Human: Happy Indigenous People's Day! Hola a todos, todas y todes! Hello everyone! Happy Indigenous Peoples’ Day, or in my case, happy Respect for Cultural Diversity Day! 528 years ago, Genoese navigator & trader Cristoforo Colombo arrived at the island of Guanahaní, in search of a new way to reach the Indies. After promptly changing the name the Taíno people had given to their island to San Salvador, he launched further expeditions to other islands near the area, in what became the beginning of one of the most exhaustive, violent & longstanding periods of systemic colonisation, imperialism, cultural erasure & genocide in human history: the conquest of the Américas. Today, as it tends to happen every year, the historical discipline continues to face challenges when exploring these particular issues. Over 300 years of conquest & subjugation by European powers such as Spain, Portugal, England & France left a pillaged & forever changed land, in what had been a continent previously inhabited by tens of millions of people from thousands of different civilisations, from Bering to Tierra del Fuego, from the Nez Perce of the Plateau all the way down to my ancestors, the Gününa-Këna (Puelches) & the Aonikenk (Tehuelches) of Mendoza. Today, both History & every humanity have to contend with the advent of many perspectives that would frame any mention of this day as other than “Columbus Day” as negatively revisionist, disrespectful of Italian-American identity, & even as forgetful of the supposedly magnificent & mutually beneficial cultural exchange that occurred from the point when Colombo “discovered” América as a continent. So let’s talk a bit about those things, shall we? I’m mainly interested in the latter point, but first, let me draw some interesting points my esteemed colleague & fellow native descendant /u/Snapshot52 proposed some years ago: **A Word on Revisionism** >Historical revisionism simply refers to a revising or re-interpreting of a narrative, not some nefarious attempt to interject presentism or lies into the past. > >The idea that revisions of historical accounts is somehow a bad thing indicates a view of singularity, or that there is only one true account of how something happened and that there are rigid, discernible facts that reveal this one true account. Unfortunately, this just isn't the case. The accounts we take for granted as being "just the facts" are, at times, inaccurate, misleading, false, or even fabricated. Different perspectives will yield different results. As for the idea of changing the way in which we perceive this day, from “Columbus Day” to Indigenous Peoples Day, being disrespectful to the memory of Colombo & therefore to the collective memory of the Italian-American population of the United States, I’ll let my colleague tell us about it >The recognition of Columbus by giving him a day acknowledges his accomplishments is a result of collective memory, for it symbolically frames his supposed discovery of the New World. So where is the issue? Surely we are all aware of the atrocities committed by and under Columbus. But if those atrocities are not being framed into the collective memory of this day, why do they matter? > >Even though these symbols, these manifestations of history, purposely ignore historical context to achieve a certain meaning, they are not completely void of such context. And as noted, this collective memory forms and influences the collective identity of the communities consenting and approving of said symbols. This includes the historical context **regardless** if it is intended or not with the original symbol. This is because context, not necessarily of the all encompassing past, but of the contemporary meaning of when said symbols were recognised is carried with the symbol as a sort of meta-context. > >What we know is that expansion was on the minds of Americans for centuries. They began to foster an identity built on The Doctrine of Discovery and the man who initiated the flood waves of Europeans coming to the Americas for the purpose of God, gold, and glory, AKA: colonisation. The ideas of expansionism, imperialism, colonialism, racism, and sexism, are all chained along, as if part of a necklace, and flow from the neck of Columbus. These very items are intrinsically linked to his character and were the ideas of those who decided to recognise him as a symbol for so called American values. While collective memory would like to separate the historical context, the truth is that it cannot be separated. For a more detailed exploration of Colombo’s role & image in US history, I recommend this post by /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov **Now, for a less US-Centric perspective** In my time contributing to r/AskHistorians, even before I became a moderator, I made it a point to express that I have no connection to the United States; if you’ve read something of mine, chances are you’ve noticed that I use the terms “América” & “America” as two very distinct things: the former refers to the entire continent, whereas the latter is what the US tends to be referred as. Why do I use this distinction? Because, linguistics aside, I’m every bit an American as a person from the US. See, in Spanish, we don’t speak about “the Americas”, we call the entire thing América. We don’t call Americans “americanos”, we call them Estadounidenses, because we understand the continent to be a larger entity than the sum of North, Central & South areas. I’ve spoken about this earlier here. I’m from Argentina. I was born in a land that had a very different conquest process than that of North América, because the Spanish conquistadores were here earlier, they had more time to ravage every culture they came across, from Hernán Cortés subjugating the Aztlans & later betraying the tribes that had allied themselves with him, to Francisco Pizarro taking advantage of the political instability of the Inca empire to destroy the Tahuantinsuyo. However, before the conquistadores came to the area where my ancestors lived, they already knew the meaning of conquest, genocide & cultural erasure, as did many other peoples in the rest of the continent. See, these practices aren’t exclusively an endemic problem brought to our shores by Europeans, because we know & understand that much like the Aztlans & Incas subjugated & conquered hundreds of cultures & civilisations in their expansionism, the Mapuches of Chile & Argentina spent decades systematically conquering, displacing & forcefully integrating many tribes into their dominion, chiefly my ancestors, the Aoninek & the Gününa-Küne, who were displaced & conquered by the Mapuches, who forced them to pay tribute to them, while having to change their culture, their religion, their way of life & even their tribal names, because the Mapuches replaced them with the names Chewel Che & Pwelche (Tehuelche & Puelchue in Spanish), which in Mapundungún, the Mapuche language, mean Vicious People & People of the East, respectively. So, as you can see, most of us historians aren’t trying to destroy anyone’s heritage, because we recognise that atrocities & cultural erasure practices were very much a thing among native civilisations & cultures. However, it would be disingenuous and plain wrong to try & deny that the conquerors applied systemic policies of extermination in their search for wealth & conquest in América. Even if we concede that a cultural exchange was indeed established from October 12 1492 onward, we need to be extremely aware of the fact that this exchange was always forcefully imposed by the conquerors over the conquered. Last year, we had a fascinating panel discussing the colonisation of the continent with several of our contributors, I highly recommend you check it out here. There, I spoke briefly about what made this cultural exchange forceful to begin with: El Requerimiento, The Spanish Requirement, a legal document issued by the Spanish crown that, from 1513 onward, every time the conquistadores encountered a native settlement, were supposed to read out loud. >To summarize it, it states that, under the authority of the Catholic Monarchs Fernando & Isabel, whose power emanated from the Pope, who had ceded every land they were to conquer to them & only them, & who did so because, as Pope, had been given power & authority directly from God through the Holy Church "Lady & Superior of the World Universe", the native indios had two choices. > >First, to accept the rule of the Spanish Empire. If they accepted it, they were to be treated with respect, allowed to maintain their freedoms & lands, just under Spanish government. > >If they were to reject the terms of el Requerimiento, the conquistadores promised to take their lands, their properties, their women & children by force & by holy war, as it was their divine right. So, they gave them two choices. The problem? The natives couldn’t understand Spanish. The conquistadores read this Requirement to people who didn't & couldn't understand the language. The Requirement was only issued as a poor attempt of justification for the atrocities they knew were going to commit. While in later decades they developed translations as they went further inland, the fact remains that the Spanish had absolutely no regard for cultural diversity or for respecting anyone’s sovereignty in their newfound colonies. I made a translation of the full text here. **Speaking of Cultural Diversity** Prior to 2010, Argentina called this day “Race Day”. Sounds pretty atrocious, huh? Still, it was widely accepted, in a country where, even if tens of thousands of Italian immigrants arrived over the centuries, there is no such thing as an “Italian-Argentinian” collective memory, at least not in the sense it exists in the US. However, when the government decided it was time to change the horrific name this day had traditionally had, there was a lot of pushback. Why? For the same reasons exposed earlier about “Columbus Day” in the US. While most Latin Américan former colonies gained their independence from Spain in the early 19C, we still speak the language they forced the natives to learn, many people still practice the religion they imposed on every civilisation they encountered, & most people ignore, consciously or otherwise, that roughly half of the continent can trace their ancestry to some native people or other. I just happen to be closer, generationally wise, & I just happen to be a historian. So, today, here in Argentina we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the law that changed the name of a dreadfully positivist & violent “Race Day” to Respect for Cultural Diversity Day. Am I happy with this change? Somewhat. The sentiment comes from the right place, & many natives & experts of the humanities were consulted when thinking of an appropriate name. But there’s still a lot we have to do for the name to actually mean anything, reparations have to be made, for the memory of my now almost extinct people, & for those who are still alive, well, & fighting for their independence & freedom, including my people’s former conquerors, the Mapuches, who remain locked in a constant struggle against erasure & repression from the governments of both Chile & Argentina. There are instances in which history needs to be revised. This is one of those pivotal points in the construction of collective memory, where voices like mine join with the millions of native Indians who still live, some surviving, some striving to thrive, some nearly forgotten. We the subaltern are still here, & , at risk of going overboard with the self-centred ideas, I’m just a simple indio, who learned about their history from their great grandmother, who’s proud of their ancestry, & who will continue to do thorough, mindful scholarship to avoid centuries of history to be permanently deleted from the world. Assistant:Thanks for the post, and for all your work for the community. I always appreciate your insight, and perspectives!

Human: AskScience AMA Series: We're Jeff Hawkins and Subutai Ahmad, scientists at Numenta. We published a new framework for intelligence and cortical computation called "The Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence", with significant implications for the future of AI and machine learning. Ask us anything! I am Jeff Hawkins, scientist and co-founder at Numenta, an independent research company focused on neocortical theory. I'm here with Subutai Ahmad, VP of Research at Numenta, as well as our Open Source Community Manager, Matt Taylor. We are on a mission to figure out how the brain works and enable machine intelligence technology based on brain principles. We've made significant progress in understanding the brain, and we believe our research offers opportunities to advance the state of AI and machine learning. Despite the fact that scientists have amassed an enormous amount of detailed factual knowledge about the brain, how it works is still a profound mystery. We recently published a paper titled A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function Based on Grid Cells in the Neocortex that lays out a theoretical framework for understanding what the neocortex does and how it does it. It is commonly believed that the brain recognizes objects by extracting sensory features in a series of processing steps, which is also how today's deep learning networks work. Our new theory suggests that instead of learning one big model of the world, the neocortex learns thousands of models that operate in parallel. We call this the Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence. The Thousand Brains Theory is rich with novel ideas and concepts that can be applied to practical machine learning systems and provides a roadmap for building intelligent systems inspired by the brain. See our links below to resources where you can learn more. We're excited to talk with you about our work! Ask us anything about our theory, its impact on AI and machine learning, and more. **Resources** + A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function Based on Grid Cells in the Neocortex + Companion paper that describes the theory in non-scientific terms: Companion to A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function + A paper that shows how sparse representations can be more robust to noise and interference than standard deep learning systems: How Can We Be So Dense? The Benefits of Using Highly Sparse Representations + A screencast of Jeff Hawkins' presenting the theory at the Human Brain Project Open Day keynote: Jeff Hawkins Human Brain Project screencast + An educational video that walks through some of the main ideas: HTM School Episode 15: Framework for Intelligence + Two papers that include detailed network models about core components of the theory: A Theory of How Columns in the Neocortex Enable Learning the Structure of the World and Locations in the Neocortex: A Theory of Sensorimotor Object Recognition Using Cortical Grid Cells + Foundational neuroscience paper that describes core theory for sequence memory and its relationship to the neocortex: Why Neurons Have Thousands of Synapses, A Theory of Sequence Memory in Neocortex We'll be available to answer questions at 1pm Pacific time (4 PM ET, 20 UT), ask us anything! Assistant:How do you feel about Stachenfield and co's paper for DeepMind where they explain the hippocampus as a predictive map? How far off would you say you and your team are from implementing the Thousand Brains Theory in code? Have you been influenced by Friston's free energy principle?

Human: AskScience AMA Series: We're Jeff Hawkins and Subutai Ahmad, scientists at Numenta. We published a new framework for intelligence and cortical computation called "The Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence", with significant implications for the future of AI and machine learning. Ask us anything! I am Jeff Hawkins, scientist and co-founder at Numenta, an independent research company focused on neocortical theory. I'm here with Subutai Ahmad, VP of Research at Numenta, as well as our Open Source Community Manager, Matt Taylor. We are on a mission to figure out how the brain works and enable machine intelligence technology based on brain principles. We've made significant progress in understanding the brain, and we believe our research offers opportunities to advance the state of AI and machine learning. Despite the fact that scientists have amassed an enormous amount of detailed factual knowledge about the brain, how it works is still a profound mystery. We recently published a paper titled A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function Based on Grid Cells in the Neocortex that lays out a theoretical framework for understanding what the neocortex does and how it does it. It is commonly believed that the brain recognizes objects by extracting sensory features in a series of processing steps, which is also how today's deep learning networks work. Our new theory suggests that instead of learning one big model of the world, the neocortex learns thousands of models that operate in parallel. We call this the Thousand Brains Theory of Intelligence. The Thousand Brains Theory is rich with novel ideas and concepts that can be applied to practical machine learning systems and provides a roadmap for building intelligent systems inspired by the brain. See our links below to resources where you can learn more. We're excited to talk with you about our work! Ask us anything about our theory, its impact on AI and machine learning, and more. **Resources** + A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function Based on Grid Cells in the Neocortex + Companion paper that describes the theory in non-scientific terms: Companion to A Framework for Intelligence and Cortical Function + A paper that shows how sparse representations can be more robust to noise and interference than standard deep learning systems: How Can We Be So Dense? The Benefits of Using Highly Sparse Representations + A screencast of Jeff Hawkins' presenting the theory at the Human Brain Project Open Day keynote: Jeff Hawkins Human Brain Project screencast + An educational video that walks through some of the main ideas: HTM School Episode 15: Framework for Intelligence + Two papers that include detailed network models about core components of the theory: A Theory of How Columns in the Neocortex Enable Learning the Structure of the World and Locations in the Neocortex: A Theory of Sensorimotor Object Recognition Using Cortical Grid Cells + Foundational neuroscience paper that describes core theory for sequence memory and its relationship to the neocortex: Why Neurons Have Thousands of Synapses, A Theory of Sequence Memory in Neocortex We'll be available to answer questions at 1pm Pacific time (4 PM ET, 20 UT), ask us anything! Assistant:Does your research have any association the difference in how intelligence works between vertebrates and cephalopods (not the myelination, but the distribution of ganglia and neurons)?

Human: UPDATE: My landlocked neighbors, the sheriff and me So many people have been asking for an update and so I wrote something up and had my lawyer review it just so people can stop bombarding my inbox. He made some changes and cut it down a bit but here is the approved statement (TL;DR at end for the impatient): Original post here So when we left off last, my neighbors had resorted to actually parking on my land in order to block me in and were using the police to try to strong arm me into giving into their demands. Thanks to the suggestions here, I set up a meeting with a highly recommended real estate lawyer in the area. We discussed the entire situation and he suggested a few options for trying to resolve this whole mess. He warned that lawsuits, especially about land rights, can take years and years to work through the courts and of course, that means they cost a fortune. Instead, as a cheaper and faster alternative, he suggested that the neighbors and we go to what's called "non-binding mediation". As he described it, it's a process where both sides meet and a neutral mediator tries to find a "middle ground" that everyone can agree on. If they do, some sort of contract is written up and everyone signs it. This way you can avoid the time and expense of a lawsuit. So we figured, why not give it a shot since there was really nothing to lose at this point. So my lawyer makes the arrangements with the neighbors directly and although it was not an easy or quick process, they eventually agreed. Then there were more weeks spent trying to agree on a mediator. Once that was finally done, we set up a date last week at some other lawyer's conference room for everyone to meet. My lawyer spent a lot of time preparing and discussing the various possibilities and outcomes and going in, I was super nervous and second guessing the decision not to just file a lawsuit. But my lawyer was really great and assured that this was the best decision for this kind of situation. So on the way into the meeting, we get stuck in the elevator together on the way up. No one says a word and they just looked like they wanted to kill me right there in the office. We get out and are eventually split into two separate rooms, and are told to meet in the conference room when we were ready. So after calming me down again, we head into the main room and the mediator, another lawyer, introduces himself to everyone and explains the process. Immediately, the neighbors start giving him a hard time and asking him questions that basically accused him of working for us. But he stayed calm and kept repeating that he was neutral and that while he hoped to broker a resolution, he did not work for either side and it was entirely up to the parties how this would end. And so began World War III, right there in the conference room. My neighbors, true to form, proved to everyone in the entire building that they were plum crazy with all their red-faced ranting and raving and yelling, most of which was directed at our lawyer and the mediator. So we get split up into separate rooms again I guess to try to calm things down. It's now been a half hour in the separate room and I am just about to tell my lawyer to pull the plug on the whole thing when the mediator comes to our room by himself and says he has a proposal. He explains that he was able to calm the neighbors down and got the feeling that this wasn't just about them landlocking themselves, but rather them feeling that somehow, I had taken advantage of them! He quickly explained that he did not agree with their "assessment" but it was his job to find some middle ground anyway. So my lawyer asked him what their proposal was. The mediator says that the neighbors were willing to go after their seller for an "easement by necessity" and not use my land (or block my gate), but that they could not currently afford to pay for a lawyer to file the lawsuit they needed. Worried, I asked what they wanted to get from me out of this whole deal, since this seemed almost too good to be true. Even my lawyer was surprised. So the mediator takes a deep breath and warns us that we're probably not going to like the offer, but that it was just the first offer and that everything was still potentially negotiable. Really worried now, we ask again what the neighbors wanted. The mediator says "As I explained, [the neighbors] can't afford to pay for a lawsuit right now, so they would like you to pay for it in exchange for them abandoning their claim to use your land." I was too dumbfounded to even say anything, but my lawyer had the presence of mind to ask just exactly how much these lunatics expected me to pay them to go away. That's when the mediator pulled his chair up real close to us, leaned in, and said "about three fiddy". And that's right about when I realized that our neighbors were a three hundred foot tall monster from the paleolithic era. Let this be a lesson to you all - be careful who you ask for updates! **TL;DR** Hired lawyer. Tried to avoid lawsuit via mediation. Crazy neighbors finally agreed but, as expected, showed their true colors. Now I need to find change for a dollar. Assistant:Omg you actually updated. Kudos! I've been stalking you for weeks. Edit: son of a bitch! You got me.

Human: UPDATE: My landlocked neighbors, the sheriff and me So many people have been asking for an update and so I wrote something up and had my lawyer review it just so people can stop bombarding my inbox. He made some changes and cut it down a bit but here is the approved statement (TL;DR at end for the impatient): Original post here So when we left off last, my neighbors had resorted to actually parking on my land in order to block me in and were using the police to try to strong arm me into giving into their demands. Thanks to the suggestions here, I set up a meeting with a highly recommended real estate lawyer in the area. We discussed the entire situation and he suggested a few options for trying to resolve this whole mess. He warned that lawsuits, especially about land rights, can take years and years to work through the courts and of course, that means they cost a fortune. Instead, as a cheaper and faster alternative, he suggested that the neighbors and we go to what's called "non-binding mediation". As he described it, it's a process where both sides meet and a neutral mediator tries to find a "middle ground" that everyone can agree on. If they do, some sort of contract is written up and everyone signs it. This way you can avoid the time and expense of a lawsuit. So we figured, why not give it a shot since there was really nothing to lose at this point. So my lawyer makes the arrangements with the neighbors directly and although it was not an easy or quick process, they eventually agreed. Then there were more weeks spent trying to agree on a mediator. Once that was finally done, we set up a date last week at some other lawyer's conference room for everyone to meet. My lawyer spent a lot of time preparing and discussing the various possibilities and outcomes and going in, I was super nervous and second guessing the decision not to just file a lawsuit. But my lawyer was really great and assured that this was the best decision for this kind of situation. So on the way into the meeting, we get stuck in the elevator together on the way up. No one says a word and they just looked like they wanted to kill me right there in the office. We get out and are eventually split into two separate rooms, and are told to meet in the conference room when we were ready. So after calming me down again, we head into the main room and the mediator, another lawyer, introduces himself to everyone and explains the process. Immediately, the neighbors start giving him a hard time and asking him questions that basically accused him of working for us. But he stayed calm and kept repeating that he was neutral and that while he hoped to broker a resolution, he did not work for either side and it was entirely up to the parties how this would end. And so began World War III, right there in the conference room. My neighbors, true to form, proved to everyone in the entire building that they were plum crazy with all their red-faced ranting and raving and yelling, most of which was directed at our lawyer and the mediator. So we get split up into separate rooms again I guess to try to calm things down. It's now been a half hour in the separate room and I am just about to tell my lawyer to pull the plug on the whole thing when the mediator comes to our room by himself and says he has a proposal. He explains that he was able to calm the neighbors down and got the feeling that this wasn't just about them landlocking themselves, but rather them feeling that somehow, I had taken advantage of them! He quickly explained that he did not agree with their "assessment" but it was his job to find some middle ground anyway. So my lawyer asked him what their proposal was. The mediator says that the neighbors were willing to go after their seller for an "easement by necessity" and not use my land (or block my gate), but that they could not currently afford to pay for a lawyer to file the lawsuit they needed. Worried, I asked what they wanted to get from me out of this whole deal, since this seemed almost too good to be true. Even my lawyer was surprised. So the mediator takes a deep breath and warns us that we're probably not going to like the offer, but that it was just the first offer and that everything was still potentially negotiable. Really worried now, we ask again what the neighbors wanted. The mediator says "As I explained, [the neighbors] can't afford to pay for a lawsuit right now, so they would like you to pay for it in exchange for them abandoning their claim to use your land." I was too dumbfounded to even say anything, but my lawyer had the presence of mind to ask just exactly how much these lunatics expected me to pay them to go away. That's when the mediator pulled his chair up real close to us, leaned in, and said "about three fiddy". And that's right about when I realized that our neighbors were a three hundred foot tall monster from the paleolithic era. Let this be a lesson to you all - be careful who you ask for updates! **TL;DR** Hired lawyer. Tried to avoid lawsuit via mediation. Crazy neighbors finally agreed but, as expected, showed their true colors. Now I need to find change for a dollar. Assistant:*I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post.** **Please update the original post to include this information.** --- Report Inaccuracies Here | Author --- Original Post: **UPDATE: My landlocked neighbors, the sheriff and me** > So many people have been asking for an update and so I wrote something up and had my lawyer review it just so people can stop bombarding my inbox. He made some changes and cut it down a bit but here is the approved statement (TL;DR at end for the impatient): > > Original post here > > So when we left off last, my neighbors had resorted to actually parking on my land in order to block me in and were using the police to try to strong arm me into giving into their demands. Thanks to the suggestions here, I set up a meeting with a highly recommended real estate lawyer in the area. We discussed the entire situation and he suggested a few options for trying to resolve this whole mess. He warned that lawsuits, especially about land rights, can take years and years to work through the courts and of course, that means they cost a fortune. > > Instead, as a cheaper and faster alternative, he suggested that the neighbors and we go to what's called "non-binding mediation". As he described it, it's a process where both sides meet and a neutral mediator tries to find a "middle ground" that everyone can agree on. If they do, some sort of contract is written up and everyone signs it. This way you can avoid the time and expense of a lawsuit. So we figured, why not give it a shot since there was really nothing to lose at this point. > > So my lawyer makes the arrangements with the neighbors directly and although it was not an easy or quick process, they eventually agreed. Then there were more weeks spent trying to agree on a mediator. Once that was finally done, we set up a date last week at some other lawyer's conference room for everyone to meet. > > My lawyer spent a lot of time preparing and discussing the various possibilities and outcomes and going in, I was super nervous and second guessing the decision not to just file a lawsuit. But my lawyer was really great and assured that this was the best decision for this kind of situation. > > So on the way into the meeting, we get stuck in the elevator together on the way up. No one says a word and they just looked like they wanted to kill me right there in the office. We get out and are eventually split into two separate rooms, and are told to meet in the conference room when we were ready. > > So after calming me down again, we head into the main room and the mediator, another lawyer, introduces himself to everyone and explains the process. Immediately, the neighbors start giving him a hard time and asking him questions that basically accused him of working for us. But he stayed calm and kept repeating that he was neutral and that while he hoped to broker a resolution, he did not work for either side and it was entirely up to the parties how this would end. > > And so began World War III, right there in the conference room. My neighbors, true to form, proved to everyone in the entire building that they were plum crazy with all their red-faced ranting and raving and yelling, most of which was directed at our lawyer and the mediator. > > So we get split up into separate rooms again I guess to try to calm things down. It's now been a half hour in the separate room and I am just about to tell my lawyer to pull the plug on the whole thing when the mediator comes to our room by himself and says he has a proposal. > > He explains that he was able to calm the neighbors down and got the feeling that this wasn't just about them landlocking themselves, but rather them feeling that somehow, I had taken advantage of them! > > He quickly explained that he did not agree with their "assessment" but it was his job to find some middle ground anyway. So my lawyer asked him what their proposal was. The mediator says that the neighbors were willing to go after their seller for an "easement by necessity" and not use my land (or block my gate), but that they could not currently afford to pay for a lawyer to file the lawsuit they needed. > > Worried, I asked what they wanted to get from me out of this whole deal, since this seemed almost too good to be true. Even my lawyer was surprised. So the mediator takes a deep breath and warns us that we're probably not going to like the offer, but that it was just the first offer and that everything was still potentially negotiable. Really worried now, we ask again what the neighbors wanted. The mediator says "As I explained, [the neighbors] can't afford to pay for a lawsuit right now, so they would like you to pay for it in exchange for them abandoning their claim to use your land." > > I was too dumbfounded to even say anything, but my lawyer had the presence of mind to ask just exactly how much these lunatics expected me to pay them to go away. That's when the mediator pulled his chair up real close to us, leaned in, and said "about three fiddy". And that's right about when I realized that our neighbors were a three hundred foot tall monster from the paleolithic era. Let this be a lesson to you all - be careful who you ask for updates! > > **TL;DR** Hired lawyer. Tried to avoid lawsuit via mediation. Crazy neighbors finally agreed but, as expected, showed their true colors. Now I need to find change for a dollar.

Human: Update] No culinary experience, starting job as a line cook So I posted this yesterday but didn't have time to post an update until now, [the original thread. First of all I'd like to thank everyone for commenting great tips and tricks that were *very* useful in the kitchen! Yesterday involved me making fries, burgers, entrees and desserts. Apparently I'm really good at presentation and decorating a place it really fun so I liked making that. I washed my hands compulsively and the head chef liked that I was clean and tidy all around. I kept my station organized whenever there wasn't an order to be made, I learned that my station is my fucking station and no one can take my knives or whatever. Some guy was just taking my stuff and I couldn't find it anywhere and that slowed me down. The guy got in shit because the head chef saw him. I didn't waste any food because I made sure everything I made was delicious, nobody sent anything back! Remembering orders is pretty complicated, today we had a lunch-hour rush and people were flying all over the place, I started to get nervous a little but I remembered not to panic and just kept everything organized. Prioritizing is really important I find. Timing takes a while to get a hang of, so at the beginning some foods were getting cold while it's accompaniment was still on the fire. I worked today as well, they made me do 'prep' which involves a lot of cutting, tomatoes, onions, carrots all that... I was slow as fuck and holy shit are those knives sharp!!! Cut myself a couple times but nothing major just a few careless cuts on my finger knuckles. (I was taught proper cutting technique thank goodness) I don't work tomorrow, so I'll take the day to read and memorize the menu items and how to prepare them even though I've pretty much got it down. I didn't ask for a break or anything and I didn't get one. I worked from 10 to 10, crazy shit. I had some comfortable shoes and since I didn't fuck up I didn't get yelled at but I've seen how temperamental the chef is and I will take his insults like a bitch. Everyone is really nice at this restaurant, it's a pretty fine restaurant too. They sell burgers and fries but you can also order a $100 steak with gourmet salad and shit. The cheesecake is good too. Again, I'd like to thank you all for the tips and tricks! Assistant:Go to /r/kitchenconfidential they have been in the trenches.

Human: Update] No culinary experience, starting job as a line cook So I posted this yesterday but didn't have time to post an update until now, [the original thread. First of all I'd like to thank everyone for commenting great tips and tricks that were *very* useful in the kitchen! Yesterday involved me making fries, burgers, entrees and desserts. Apparently I'm really good at presentation and decorating a place it really fun so I liked making that. I washed my hands compulsively and the head chef liked that I was clean and tidy all around. I kept my station organized whenever there wasn't an order to be made, I learned that my station is my fucking station and no one can take my knives or whatever. Some guy was just taking my stuff and I couldn't find it anywhere and that slowed me down. The guy got in shit because the head chef saw him. I didn't waste any food because I made sure everything I made was delicious, nobody sent anything back! Remembering orders is pretty complicated, today we had a lunch-hour rush and people were flying all over the place, I started to get nervous a little but I remembered not to panic and just kept everything organized. Prioritizing is really important I find. Timing takes a while to get a hang of, so at the beginning some foods were getting cold while it's accompaniment was still on the fire. I worked today as well, they made me do 'prep' which involves a lot of cutting, tomatoes, onions, carrots all that... I was slow as fuck and holy shit are those knives sharp!!! Cut myself a couple times but nothing major just a few careless cuts on my finger knuckles. (I was taught proper cutting technique thank goodness) I don't work tomorrow, so I'll take the day to read and memorize the menu items and how to prepare them even though I've pretty much got it down. I didn't ask for a break or anything and I didn't get one. I worked from 10 to 10, crazy shit. I had some comfortable shoes and since I didn't fuck up I didn't get yelled at but I've seen how temperamental the chef is and I will take his insults like a bitch. Everyone is really nice at this restaurant, it's a pretty fine restaurant too. They sell burgers and fries but you can also order a $100 steak with gourmet salad and shit. The cheesecake is good too. Again, I'd like to thank you all for the tips and tricks! Assistant:That is hardcore but it seems like you adapted really fast. Good job!

Human: CMV: There should be no accommodations such as extra testing time available to students with disorders like ADHD or learning disabilities. At the moment students who have diagnosed disorders such as ADHD are often allowed special accommodations through high school, university and graduate school. They are often allowed extra time to take tests or a separate testing space to eliminate distractions. I think this is unfair and incorrect for a number of reasons. First of all one reason for grading in academia is to allow potential employers to gauge who will be the most competent employee to add value to their company. A student getting special treatment in school will not be given those accommodations ever again in the working world and will likely not perform as well as another student with equivalent grades who achieved them in normal conditions. The employer is being cheated, hiring a student who is actually less capable than they realise. The second reason this is unfair is that it arbitrarily advantages people with a particular disability (ADHD or an LD) over people with lower IQ. We are giving special help to a group of people because there is a problem with a part of their brain. In ADHD it is largely a poorly developed frontal lobe and poor functioning of neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine. But we give no help to those students who have a different brain problem where overall functioning and processing speed is slower. A student with an IQ of 85 must compete against other students with IQs of 120 or 130 in the same exam with the same time, but a student with ADHD or LD is given extra time to make up for their brain issue. I have seen students with a diagnosis of Slow Processing Speed but IQ well above average given extra time on a test while students with a generally low IQ have the normal amount of time and get terrible results. We constantly assure the ADHD or LD student that they aren't dumb, they just have a disability. But what about the poor students who actually are dumb? We have nothing nice to say to them, no comfort, no extra help unless they are so impaired they qualify as developmentally delayed or intellectually impaired. This bothers me now as a teacher and as someone with ADHD. As a kid I refused to let the school or teachers know that I had ADHD because I was adamant I wanted no special help. I always felt that if I got special conditions I would never be able to take real pride in any of my achievements. I would always know I didn't beat the other kids in a fair match. I think that would have really destroyed my self-confidence and I see exactly that happen to some of my students who get special assessment conditions today. So that's my problem with special conditions. They result in artificially higher grades for some students, which don't reflect their actual capabilities in the workforce. They favour certain groups of students with learning difficulties over others for no clear logical reason. And they rob students with ADHD/LD of the ability to take pride in their academic successes and to build confidence in their ability to be as capable as their peers. To be clear I am NOT opposing special learning methods or extra help in the classroom. I am only opposed to special assessment conditions on exams or assignments that are being graded. _____ > *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 ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law that is intended to protect against discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964,[4] which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations. People are actually often given such accomodation in the working world, and employers are legally obliged to accomodate them. There are also lots of workplaces that deliberately make efforts to accomodate the disabled. http://www.diversityinc.com/top-10-companies-people-with-disabilities/ So of course, schools produce above average intelligence people who can do the things those companies want. >This bothers me now as a teacher and as someone with ADHD. As a kid I refused to let the school or teachers know that I had ADHD because I was adamant I wanted no special help. I always felt that if I got special conditions I would never be able to take real pride in any of my achievements. I would always know I didn't beat the other kids in a fair match. I think that would have really destroyed my self-confidence and I see exactly that happen to some of my students who get special assessment conditions today. The purpose of school and businesses isn't to make you feel special about your accomplishments and feel proud. It's to make money and meet government goals and such. If businesses feel disabled people can't meet their goals after reasonable accomodations they are free to fire them. Society has realized that a lot of valuable people are neglected by current exam systems and has made systems to better accomodate them. It doesn't care about how special you feel, and isn't obliged to change the rules to make you feel special about your accomplishments and punish useful people who need extra time in exams.

Human: CMV: There should be no accommodations such as extra testing time available to students with disorders like ADHD or learning disabilities. At the moment students who have diagnosed disorders such as ADHD are often allowed special accommodations through high school, university and graduate school. They are often allowed extra time to take tests or a separate testing space to eliminate distractions. I think this is unfair and incorrect for a number of reasons. First of all one reason for grading in academia is to allow potential employers to gauge who will be the most competent employee to add value to their company. A student getting special treatment in school will not be given those accommodations ever again in the working world and will likely not perform as well as another student with equivalent grades who achieved them in normal conditions. The employer is being cheated, hiring a student who is actually less capable than they realise. The second reason this is unfair is that it arbitrarily advantages people with a particular disability (ADHD or an LD) over people with lower IQ. We are giving special help to a group of people because there is a problem with a part of their brain. In ADHD it is largely a poorly developed frontal lobe and poor functioning of neurotransmitters dopamine and norepinephrine. But we give no help to those students who have a different brain problem where overall functioning and processing speed is slower. A student with an IQ of 85 must compete against other students with IQs of 120 or 130 in the same exam with the same time, but a student with ADHD or LD is given extra time to make up for their brain issue. I have seen students with a diagnosis of Slow Processing Speed but IQ well above average given extra time on a test while students with a generally low IQ have the normal amount of time and get terrible results. We constantly assure the ADHD or LD student that they aren't dumb, they just have a disability. But what about the poor students who actually are dumb? We have nothing nice to say to them, no comfort, no extra help unless they are so impaired they qualify as developmentally delayed or intellectually impaired. This bothers me now as a teacher and as someone with ADHD. As a kid I refused to let the school or teachers know that I had ADHD because I was adamant I wanted no special help. I always felt that if I got special conditions I would never be able to take real pride in any of my achievements. I would always know I didn't beat the other kids in a fair match. I think that would have really destroyed my self-confidence and I see exactly that happen to some of my students who get special assessment conditions today. So that's my problem with special conditions. They result in artificially higher grades for some students, which don't reflect their actual capabilities in the workforce. They favour certain groups of students with learning difficulties over others for no clear logical reason. And they rob students with ADHD/LD of the ability to take pride in their academic successes and to build confidence in their ability to be as capable as their peers. To be clear I am NOT opposing special learning methods or extra help in the classroom. I am only opposed to special assessment conditions on exams or assignments that are being graded. _____ > *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:My argument is purely anecdotal, but I have used special conditions before. I had a class in college that had all tests done online, but that gave me big problems with my ADD getting me distracted by the rest of the internet while trying to take the test. So, I pulled the ADD card so I could get a paper version on the test instead of taking it online. You might think that this means that any job that puts me in front of a computer would be a problem for me, but since I am aware of that I pursued a degree that has a very low chance of having me sitting in front of a computer for my career. Instead, I will most likely find myself in the field mostly working with my hands. The ability to not get distracted while on a computer is not needed for my career qualifications, so why should it be needed to pass that class?

Human: (24 M) Unusual lung testing results. Need help interpreting data I am a male, 24, non-smoker and am 5'10". I came down with a sensation of shortness of breath since January 2020 that was persistent even at rest. It became gradually worse and unbearable so I decided to make an appointment. I have a family history of Pulmonary Fibrosis (grandfather died of it). ​ The doctor ordered something called a "pulmonary function test". It was this large machine with multiple gas tanks in the back. After testing, the respiratory therapist technician saw the results and said one metric looked odd. A couple of minutes later, the doctor reviewed my results and said that it "looks fine". I asked why the technician commented on my numbers and I was shocked to see that I measured at **53%** of the "predicted" value for my inspiratory capacity (IC). The doctor was still firm on his position that I am fine and claimed "you did not take a big enough breath in" & "Your FEV1 results look good". Why is he ignoring all the values in the second table? If any doctors PLEASE can help me, I feel he is biased just because of my age. ​ **I am very worried this could be something called Pulmonary Fibrosis.** A medical student on this subreddit said that if your FEV1 is increased, and TLC is decreased it is Pulmonary Fibrosis. Here is his comment. I feel like this applies to me. Photos of the results sheet. This is what my doctor was reading. ​ |Spirometry|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**FVC**|5.54 L |6.04 L|109| |**FEV1**|4.64 L|5.22 L|113| |**FEV1/FVC**|84 %|86 %|103| |**FEF25-75%**|4.88 L/s|5.32 L/s|109| |**PEF**|9.99 L/s|13.40 L/s|134| |**FIVC**|5.50 L|5.76 L|105| ​ |Lung Volumes (He)|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**VC\_max\_He**|5.54 L|4.39 L|79%| |**IC**|3.85 L|2.05 L|53%| |**ERV**|1.65 L|2.34 L |142%| |**FRC-He**|3.30 L|4.42 L|134%| |**RV**|1.65 L|2.08 L|126%| |**TLC**|7.13 L|6.47 L|91%| |**RV%TLC**|24|32|136%| |**R Occ cmH2O\*s/L**|3.11|2.48|80%| ​ |Diffusion|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**DLCO SB**|36.05 ml/min/mmHg|35.90|100| |**DL/VA**|5.06 ml/min/mmHg/L|4.85|96| |**VA SB**|6.98 L|7.41|106| ​ ​ I am afraid now, because the shortness of breath could be explained by pulmonary fibrosis and the doctor seems to not care about this. Could this be pulmonary fibrosis? Please help Assistant:PFTs generally have a pretty wide “normal range.” Given you have a physician who can interpret these results in the context of your medical history and other exam findings, I don’t know that anyone here will be able to offer a better evaluation. However, you can certainly get a second opinion from another pulmonologist in your area if you feel your doctor isn’t addressing your questions or concerns adequately. Your results are not consistent with pulmonary fibrosis. Pulmonary fibrosis can increase the FEV1:FVC *ratio*, but both FEV1 and FVC would be expected to be below normal (it’s just that FVC may drop more). More importantly, your DLCO value is normal. This is decreased in pulmonary fibrosis because the buildup of tissue prevents gas from diffusing across the alveoli as efficiently.

Human: (24 M) Unusual lung testing results. Need help interpreting data I am a male, 24, non-smoker and am 5'10". I came down with a sensation of shortness of breath since January 2020 that was persistent even at rest. It became gradually worse and unbearable so I decided to make an appointment. I have a family history of Pulmonary Fibrosis (grandfather died of it). ​ The doctor ordered something called a "pulmonary function test". It was this large machine with multiple gas tanks in the back. After testing, the respiratory therapist technician saw the results and said one metric looked odd. A couple of minutes later, the doctor reviewed my results and said that it "looks fine". I asked why the technician commented on my numbers and I was shocked to see that I measured at **53%** of the "predicted" value for my inspiratory capacity (IC). The doctor was still firm on his position that I am fine and claimed "you did not take a big enough breath in" & "Your FEV1 results look good". Why is he ignoring all the values in the second table? If any doctors PLEASE can help me, I feel he is biased just because of my age. ​ **I am very worried this could be something called Pulmonary Fibrosis.** A medical student on this subreddit said that if your FEV1 is increased, and TLC is decreased it is Pulmonary Fibrosis. Here is his comment. I feel like this applies to me. Photos of the results sheet. This is what my doctor was reading. ​ |Spirometry|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**FVC**|5.54 L |6.04 L|109| |**FEV1**|4.64 L|5.22 L|113| |**FEV1/FVC**|84 %|86 %|103| |**FEF25-75%**|4.88 L/s|5.32 L/s|109| |**PEF**|9.99 L/s|13.40 L/s|134| |**FIVC**|5.50 L|5.76 L|105| ​ |Lung Volumes (He)|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**VC\_max\_He**|5.54 L|4.39 L|79%| |**IC**|3.85 L|2.05 L|53%| |**ERV**|1.65 L|2.34 L |142%| |**FRC-He**|3.30 L|4.42 L|134%| |**RV**|1.65 L|2.08 L|126%| |**TLC**|7.13 L|6.47 L|91%| |**RV%TLC**|24|32|136%| |**R Occ cmH2O\*s/L**|3.11|2.48|80%| ​ |Diffusion|Predicted|Pre-Treatment|% Predicted| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |**DLCO SB**|36.05 ml/min/mmHg|35.90|100| |**DL/VA**|5.06 ml/min/mmHg/L|4.85|96| |**VA SB**|6.98 L|7.41|106| ​ ​ I am afraid now, because the shortness of breath could be explained by pulmonary fibrosis and the doctor seems to not care about this. Could this be pulmonary fibrosis? Please help Assistant:Hey I’m not proficient at all in reading PFTs but idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is typically seen in people in their 60s and 70s. I’m not saying it’s impossible but it would be beyond weird.

Human: CMV: The Nick Cannon controversy has actually proven that it IS acceptable to publicly have bigoted racial views, as long as they're about white people I feel the need to start this post with some background about myself to hopefully answer some immediate criticisms I might get for even asking this kind of question: I know that this kind of thing is a right wing, republican, alt-right type talking point, and whether it matters or not, I want to say that I'm none of those things. I'm an American living abroad, and I have a very lefty view of politics, definitely by American standards. Free healthcare, better college, police reform. Black Lives Matter, I supported the protests from the start, I have even had comments in the past responding to people who are putting down protesters because of riots, pointing out how nobody was listening before they weren't rioting, so I don't think my attitudes about this come from a place of me having negative feelings towards black people. I personally want racial harmony, I want real equality, I know that black people are harmed by the corrupt justice system disproportionately and as a compassionate human being, I support their efforts to end these sources of harm THAT BEING SAID, here's my view: Nick Cannon was on a podcast recently, and he discussed some ideas with the host of the podcast, ideas about "race", whatever that means. Some of the things he said on that podcast were about Jews. Black people are the "real Jews", rich Jewish families own everything and control everything, etc. He said various things about Jews, and he got slated for it and even lost a gig over it, but he then publicly apologized for it and he managed to keep some other gigs after "showing remorse and a willingness to learn" BUT that's not all he said. Anybody who listened to that podcasts knows that that's not all he said that would give a normal person pause, and ask "can he really say that?" He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that people who are melanin deficient, white people, Europeans, are inherently morally inferior - he literally said they lack compassion - BECAUSE of their lack of melanin. In other words, he is literally saying that someone's skin tone makes them fundamentally morally inferior. He referred to white people as "savages" repeatedly. The apology Cannon gave did not address these comments, only the comments about Jews. The companies that he works for - both the one that fired him and the one that didn't - their statements did not address these comments, only the ones about Jews. In fact I went out of my way to look at numerous articles from all different sources, and every "respectable" news source I could find did not have one mention of these comments about white people being savages. The only news sources that mentioned it were, funnily enough, news sources that I have already been convinced are very poor sources: daily mail and the sun are the two I remember from the top of my head. So, nobody is covering what he said about white people, nobody is asking for an apology, not even his employer FOX which surprises me, given FOXs relationship to white conservative talking points, it's just been swept under the rug and forgotten about. So when conservatives say "it's only acceptable to have racially bigoted views against white people", how can I even say they're wrong? I would LOVE to be able to say they're wrong, but given how Cannon's absurdly bigoted views have been completely ignored, I just can't see myself saying that they're wrong. Assistant:Correct me if I'm wrong... He was fired and it is being covered by many outlets that are framing it is a very toxic statement that there is zero excuse for?

Human: CMV: The Nick Cannon controversy has actually proven that it IS acceptable to publicly have bigoted racial views, as long as they're about white people I feel the need to start this post with some background about myself to hopefully answer some immediate criticisms I might get for even asking this kind of question: I know that this kind of thing is a right wing, republican, alt-right type talking point, and whether it matters or not, I want to say that I'm none of those things. I'm an American living abroad, and I have a very lefty view of politics, definitely by American standards. Free healthcare, better college, police reform. Black Lives Matter, I supported the protests from the start, I have even had comments in the past responding to people who are putting down protesters because of riots, pointing out how nobody was listening before they weren't rioting, so I don't think my attitudes about this come from a place of me having negative feelings towards black people. I personally want racial harmony, I want real equality, I know that black people are harmed by the corrupt justice system disproportionately and as a compassionate human being, I support their efforts to end these sources of harm THAT BEING SAID, here's my view: Nick Cannon was on a podcast recently, and he discussed some ideas with the host of the podcast, ideas about "race", whatever that means. Some of the things he said on that podcast were about Jews. Black people are the "real Jews", rich Jewish families own everything and control everything, etc. He said various things about Jews, and he got slated for it and even lost a gig over it, but he then publicly apologized for it and he managed to keep some other gigs after "showing remorse and a willingness to learn" BUT that's not all he said. Anybody who listened to that podcasts knows that that's not all he said that would give a normal person pause, and ask "can he really say that?" He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that people who are melanin deficient, white people, Europeans, are inherently morally inferior - he literally said they lack compassion - BECAUSE of their lack of melanin. In other words, he is literally saying that someone's skin tone makes them fundamentally morally inferior. He referred to white people as "savages" repeatedly. The apology Cannon gave did not address these comments, only the comments about Jews. The companies that he works for - both the one that fired him and the one that didn't - their statements did not address these comments, only the ones about Jews. In fact I went out of my way to look at numerous articles from all different sources, and every "respectable" news source I could find did not have one mention of these comments about white people being savages. The only news sources that mentioned it were, funnily enough, news sources that I have already been convinced are very poor sources: daily mail and the sun are the two I remember from the top of my head. So, nobody is covering what he said about white people, nobody is asking for an apology, not even his employer FOX which surprises me, given FOXs relationship to white conservative talking points, it's just been swept under the rug and forgotten about. So when conservatives say "it's only acceptable to have racially bigoted views against white people", how can I even say they're wrong? I would LOVE to be able to say they're wrong, but given how Cannon's absurdly bigoted views have been completely ignored, I just can't see myself saying that they're wrong. Assistant:Ehh I think it demonstrates what we all already knew: there's a sort of implicit hierarchy in terms of what constitutes bigotry. If you insult Jews AND white people, you'll get fired because of the comments about the Jews. That's not to say you wouldn't have gotten fired if you had only made the comments about white people. Had Cannon not talked about Jews, I think he'd still have been fired. It's just that insulting Jews is so immediately repugnant to the ear that it instantly leads to termination without discussion.

Human: [TX] Should I call the police on my son who is refusing to go with his father as specified in the custody agreement? I have no fucking clue what to do. My son is 16. His father and I divorced some 11 years ago. We have 50/50 legal and physical custody, 2 weeks with him, 2 weeks with me. My ex has a house about 20 minutes away from my place. The custody agreement (unchanged from 11 years ago) states that he is to pick up my son at my house and drop him of there as well. In the last couple of years, there have been some changes to this. Sometimes, my ex picks up my son at school because my son is no longer 5 and he spends a lot of his day in extracurricular activities like any other high school student. Recently, my son has taken a liking to a certain Swedish teenager on an environmental issue. He has started to volunteer in a school club devoted to this specific environmental issue. This has caused problems between my son and his father. His father holds a relatively high position in a natural gas company. My son has come up with the somewhat absurd demand that his father change jobs and not work in this company. Until he does so, my son has refused to talk or interact with his father. He refuses to go with his father when his father picks him up for custody either at my home or at school. He comes back to my place, and he has a key. My ex has repeatedly threatened to make me go to court and try to hold me in contempt. On Sunday, officially, my ex's day for custody, my son did not come out. There was an enormous shouting match. My son is a muscular 6' 1" and weighs about 190 lbs. There is no way that that either my ex (6' 160 lbs and not very muscular) or myself (5' 4" 110 lbs) can get him to do anything physically. At the end of the shouting match, my ex again threatened to drag me to court and try to have me held in contempt of court. I have tried to discipline my son by a) Taking his phone away and giving him an old flip phone. Doesn't work because he just leave the phone. b) Tried grounding him. Doesn't work because he just goes out. Doesn't listen. I can't afford a lawyer because I have a chronic health condition that eats at any extra money I may have. Neither do I want to waste money to go to court for something as absurd as this situation. My ex has constantly called me everyday on this issue. I have not said anything to my son on what I prefer. Although I agree with him on this environmental issue, I think his demand is absurd and stupid. Can I call the police and have them force my son go to my ex? Assistant:This isn't a police matter. That would be the best way to make things worse. And ending up in court over it isn't going to help anyone's relationship, either. Your best bet is to convince your son that he'll make more headway with his father by spending time with him and talking about the issue than he will by throwing a grand-gesture fit. Try asking him: What's his objective here? What does he want to achieve? Is his current strategy getting him any further towards this objective? Assuming his goal here is to change his father's mind about natural gas: on occasions when he himself has changed his mind about an issue, what's convinced him? Someone refusing to talk to him, or someone listening to his views and explaining theirs? If his objective is to help the environment: would your ex quitting his job achieve that? Or would someone else just take the job? If that wouldn't make a difference to the environment, what would? Would it make a difference if he could, for example, convince your ex to try and move the company towards more sustainable ways of transporting the natural gas (or something - I know nothing about natural gas)? From an environmental perspective, it looks to me like your son has a golden opportunity here: he's in a position to talk about these issues to someone who's well placed to actually make changes. Why on earth would he want to blow that by making his dad quit his job? It's great that your son wants to make a concrete difference. Fair play to him. But he needs to start thinking about what strategies give him a fighting chance of actually making that difference.

Human: [TX] Should I call the police on my son who is refusing to go with his father as specified in the custody agreement? I have no fucking clue what to do. My son is 16. His father and I divorced some 11 years ago. We have 50/50 legal and physical custody, 2 weeks with him, 2 weeks with me. My ex has a house about 20 minutes away from my place. The custody agreement (unchanged from 11 years ago) states that he is to pick up my son at my house and drop him of there as well. In the last couple of years, there have been some changes to this. Sometimes, my ex picks up my son at school because my son is no longer 5 and he spends a lot of his day in extracurricular activities like any other high school student. Recently, my son has taken a liking to a certain Swedish teenager on an environmental issue. He has started to volunteer in a school club devoted to this specific environmental issue. This has caused problems between my son and his father. His father holds a relatively high position in a natural gas company. My son has come up with the somewhat absurd demand that his father change jobs and not work in this company. Until he does so, my son has refused to talk or interact with his father. He refuses to go with his father when his father picks him up for custody either at my home or at school. He comes back to my place, and he has a key. My ex has repeatedly threatened to make me go to court and try to hold me in contempt. On Sunday, officially, my ex's day for custody, my son did not come out. There was an enormous shouting match. My son is a muscular 6' 1" and weighs about 190 lbs. There is no way that that either my ex (6' 160 lbs and not very muscular) or myself (5' 4" 110 lbs) can get him to do anything physically. At the end of the shouting match, my ex again threatened to drag me to court and try to have me held in contempt of court. I have tried to discipline my son by a) Taking his phone away and giving him an old flip phone. Doesn't work because he just leave the phone. b) Tried grounding him. Doesn't work because he just goes out. Doesn't listen. I can't afford a lawyer because I have a chronic health condition that eats at any extra money I may have. Neither do I want to waste money to go to court for something as absurd as this situation. My ex has constantly called me everyday on this issue. I have not said anything to my son on what I prefer. Although I agree with him on this environmental issue, I think his demand is absurd and stupid. Can I call the police and have them force my son go to my ex? Assistant:Do not call the police on a sixteen year old, who does not want to see his parent, really dangerous, His father has to work out how to rebuild a relationship with his son, not force himself on him, turning this into a battle will never end well.

Human: I'm an Executive Assistant handling the departure of a VP because we have no HR. CEO wants me to write report on exit interview, but I don't know what to say after the meeting. NYC. Hi everyone, I work at a startup in NYC that has been backed/funded by several large groups. We're in the real estate field and have been open for a number of years. The CEO is the founder, and she's a little older than I am (for reference I'm in my early twenties). She worked for a few years, had a great idea, and slowly built the company. I started with her right out of college and have been her EA for almost three years. My boss is lovely but she can be very emotional, she can get upset and get into moods, which can derail things. I'm good at calming her down and talking through issues. It can be really uncomfortable sometimes. Two years ago the people backing the business demanded that she hire a VP of Revenue Management. I was in the meeting when they warned her about cash burn and her marketing campaigns with no ROI. That meant we brought in "Phil" who was from a consultancy downtown. He was kind of what our boss fought against - a fiscally driven corporate type from downtown versus her Williamsburg vibe. They fought endlessly for two years. And I mean, fought. They would battle in the conference room for hours and she'd often leave crying. I would have to sit with her while she worked through the fight. He had the backing of the investors and she knew it. For two years, things looked up: We actually got a bonus at Christmas and were on-track for stronger growth. Then COVID hit. They began to fight via Zoom/Skype/GChat and I think it came to a point where it wasn't going to work, so he quit. I don't know the specifics, but I guess they fought one day and he submitted his resignation to the board and went radio silent. I was asked to call him to see if he'd change his mind but to do so under the guise of an exit interview. My boss had me call him 6 times an hour until he'd answer and finally he gave me the exit interview. It was blistering. He basically said we'd run out of cash in a couple of weeks (!!!) and that she is (and I'm quoting here, so you know) "a silly, petulant, bitch." He outlined problems with our operations and then ended by warning me that I'd be out of work soon if no body acted. My boss made a big deal of maintaining our marketing, benefits, salary and a perks during COVID, which I guess we really couldn't afford. I got the notes. and his remarks but haven't reported them to anyone. Now I'm terrified for my job and don't know what to do. We don't really have HR - for recruiting we use an external agency attached to one of the backing companies. If there's a harassment complaint, there is a formal channel to go through with that backer, but does that meet this level? Do I report to her what he said/I know? I doubt a lot of this are things that she or the board would want out there and I'm not sure how to process this information. "Phil" already changed his LinkedIn and appears to be at another consulting firm doing a different job. I doubt he'll return. I'm at a loss and need to send this to her by tomorrow as we're off on Friday. I have pages of notes and she wants a "formal" exit interview, but I don't know what that means or what I should be including. Any help would be appreciated. Assistant:"Spoke with so and so on date, time., who tendered his resignation on date He expressed several concerns about the business, including finances and the handling thereof, and communications. He expressed a personal distaste for xxx. He expressed concern about the business surviving into 2021." That's it, that's all. I can assure you this fellow has already expressed to the board everything he said to you.

Human: I'm an Executive Assistant handling the departure of a VP because we have no HR. CEO wants me to write report on exit interview, but I don't know what to say after the meeting. NYC. Hi everyone, I work at a startup in NYC that has been backed/funded by several large groups. We're in the real estate field and have been open for a number of years. The CEO is the founder, and she's a little older than I am (for reference I'm in my early twenties). She worked for a few years, had a great idea, and slowly built the company. I started with her right out of college and have been her EA for almost three years. My boss is lovely but she can be very emotional, she can get upset and get into moods, which can derail things. I'm good at calming her down and talking through issues. It can be really uncomfortable sometimes. Two years ago the people backing the business demanded that she hire a VP of Revenue Management. I was in the meeting when they warned her about cash burn and her marketing campaigns with no ROI. That meant we brought in "Phil" who was from a consultancy downtown. He was kind of what our boss fought against - a fiscally driven corporate type from downtown versus her Williamsburg vibe. They fought endlessly for two years. And I mean, fought. They would battle in the conference room for hours and she'd often leave crying. I would have to sit with her while she worked through the fight. He had the backing of the investors and she knew it. For two years, things looked up: We actually got a bonus at Christmas and were on-track for stronger growth. Then COVID hit. They began to fight via Zoom/Skype/GChat and I think it came to a point where it wasn't going to work, so he quit. I don't know the specifics, but I guess they fought one day and he submitted his resignation to the board and went radio silent. I was asked to call him to see if he'd change his mind but to do so under the guise of an exit interview. My boss had me call him 6 times an hour until he'd answer and finally he gave me the exit interview. It was blistering. He basically said we'd run out of cash in a couple of weeks (!!!) and that she is (and I'm quoting here, so you know) "a silly, petulant, bitch." He outlined problems with our operations and then ended by warning me that I'd be out of work soon if no body acted. My boss made a big deal of maintaining our marketing, benefits, salary and a perks during COVID, which I guess we really couldn't afford. I got the notes. and his remarks but haven't reported them to anyone. Now I'm terrified for my job and don't know what to do. We don't really have HR - for recruiting we use an external agency attached to one of the backing companies. If there's a harassment complaint, there is a formal channel to go through with that backer, but does that meet this level? Do I report to her what he said/I know? I doubt a lot of this are things that she or the board would want out there and I'm not sure how to process this information. "Phil" already changed his LinkedIn and appears to be at another consulting firm doing a different job. I doubt he'll return. I'm at a loss and need to send this to her by tomorrow as we're off on Friday. I have pages of notes and she wants a "formal" exit interview, but I don't know what that means or what I should be including. Any help would be appreciated. Assistant:>Two years ago the people backing the business demanded that she hire a VP of Revenue Management. I was in the meeting when they warned her about cash burn and her marketing campaigns with no ROI. This has been an issue for years! She is burning cash with not enough returns....In the end she was beholden to her investors and has failed to realize it and make changes. When you have investors, they have more control. Most investors are "fiscally driven" ..... they want to see a solid return on their investment. It's a bit scary that neither she (nor it seems you) have this understanding! "My boss is lovely but she can be very emotional, she can get upset and get into moods, which can derail things." is not the way someone is able to run a successful business... Phil seemed to know this...and I suspect her funders/investors will soon be gone just as Phil is. In the end, all you can do is summarize the interview and move forward. I suspect "Phil" has already made his comments well known to the investors.

Human: [25F] Can't execute multiple-step thinking. Can't verbally spell out words over 4-5 letters. Can't transcribe words when spoken to me if they are longer than 4-5 letters (i.e. a last name I’m supposed to input into a database.) Basically, minimal short-term memory. Possibly a learning disability? Height: 5'4 Weight: 130 Gender: F Race: White Medications: none currently, most recent ones were risperidone and lamictal. Discontinued about six months ago due to lack of substantial results with no major emotional changes as a result. Smoking status: vape often. About a juul pod a day. Previous medical issues: mentioned below. Few different diagnoses over the years. ADHD first (childhood), then they added major depressive disorder (~2015). In 2018, they both got thrown out and replaced with Bipolar II. Duration of complaint: Always, really. I feel like it wasn't as bad in elementary school, or maybe it just wasn't something I was really bothered by/aware of. By middle/high school, it was definitely noticeable to me. Complaint: I consistently test above average academically. I hate even saying that, but it’s relevant to this concern. I learn easily, I understand easily, I remember LONG-term easily. I cannot input a debit/credit card number recited to me into our work database if they don’t pause in between groups of numbers. I cannot record a last name or an unfamiliar word down if it isn’t spelled out to me both slowly and a few letters at a time. I absolutely CANNOT verbally spell, though spelling isn’t a problem at all when writing. I cannot visually interpret XYZ grids whatsoever, and I’m proficient at math. I also can’t do division or multiplication in my head. Addition/subtraction over two places is also incredibly difficult if any numbers need to be carried. Essentially, any thinking process where I have to go past three, maybe four small steps at a time, I forget where I’m at entirely and have to start all over. It’s like my RAM is nearly non-existent. Everything I do on paper works out great because it can’t disappear- it’s permanently on the page. Anything requiring on-the-spot, short-term memory? Forget it... literally. I have a childhood diagnosis of ADHD. Got diagnosed with major depressive disorder around 21. After a major depressive episode/suicidal issue a few years after that, my psychiatrist shifted my diagnosis/medication to bipolar II. This diagnostic shift was predicated on an event I described when I was 18, where after a traumatic life event (first major death of a loved one), I had a solid month of extremely erratic, reckless and very uncharacteristic behavior combined with a lack of sleep or need/desire for it. Fit every definition I've read of a manic episode, and the age was appropriate for symptoms to start. I haven't had one since, however. I stopped taking these bipolar medications around six months ago because they weren’t very effective for me in general and I felt they were making focusing on schoolwork even more difficult (caused me to feel lethargic, emotionally numb, sleepy, disinterested, etc. Common side effects.) I definitely have long-standing depression issues, but no present mania or hypomania. I occasionally get bursts of energy/feeling 'up'/overconfidence, but they usually last anywhere from 1-6 hours before they go away entirely. Never days at a time since that manic episode at 18. I haven’t found anything that falls beneath the scope of either ADHD or bipolar to explain this. Doctors and my past mental health team sort of brushed it off in the face of treating my depression. I just want to know what this specifically is. It feels bigger than just the symptoms described. It’s like I can feel my brain hit some weird wall whenever I try to think steps or moves ahead. Speaking of which, I’ll throw in one last example. Cannot do strategy games like chess. I just lose my future plans two imagined steps in. They can’t be recalled; they just disappear. Is this (maybe) a learning disability? What am I (potentially) dealing with? Assistant:I think it’s a form of dyslexia. I have it and so have my daughter. My auditory memory is very weak. I never had trouble at school but struggled more in primary than high school where learning shifted from listening to teachers to reading it myself and teaching myself. Both my daughter and myself also have ADHD. Well she is diagnosed but I am sure I have it too. I can’t tell left from right unless I think about it very hard. I can’t hear in noisy environments. If I am focused on something I can’t hear another person speak to me, even if they yell. I also struggle with the concept of time. I lose track of time or I’m not great knowing how long I have to be somewhere so I’m usually too early because I’m worried I’ll be late or I’m late. I also have trouble putting my thoughts into words, I feel like my thoughts are more pictures so it’s like I have to translate everything to words and it’s challenging and I can never get out exactly what I am thinking. I have an exceptionally strong visual memory. I can memorise a page and go back and read that page. I can’t remember something I have been told 5 minutes later though, unless I really make myself but it takes a lot of mental energy. But, I have also think we are all just different and most days I am absolutely fine. I’m successful in life and I’m happy. So it doesn’t really matter. Edited to fix typos. Addit: I have spoken to many professionals in regards to my daughter. Newer thinking in Australia doesn’t accept auditory or sensory processing disorders. It’s usually just a symptom of other conditions like autism or adhd. Dyslexia is also starting to not be used as a diagnosis.

Human: [25F] Can't execute multiple-step thinking. Can't verbally spell out words over 4-5 letters. Can't transcribe words when spoken to me if they are longer than 4-5 letters (i.e. a last name I’m supposed to input into a database.) Basically, minimal short-term memory. Possibly a learning disability? Height: 5'4 Weight: 130 Gender: F Race: White Medications: none currently, most recent ones were risperidone and lamictal. Discontinued about six months ago due to lack of substantial results with no major emotional changes as a result. Smoking status: vape often. About a juul pod a day. Previous medical issues: mentioned below. Few different diagnoses over the years. ADHD first (childhood), then they added major depressive disorder (~2015). In 2018, they both got thrown out and replaced with Bipolar II. Duration of complaint: Always, really. I feel like it wasn't as bad in elementary school, or maybe it just wasn't something I was really bothered by/aware of. By middle/high school, it was definitely noticeable to me. Complaint: I consistently test above average academically. I hate even saying that, but it’s relevant to this concern. I learn easily, I understand easily, I remember LONG-term easily. I cannot input a debit/credit card number recited to me into our work database if they don’t pause in between groups of numbers. I cannot record a last name or an unfamiliar word down if it isn’t spelled out to me both slowly and a few letters at a time. I absolutely CANNOT verbally spell, though spelling isn’t a problem at all when writing. I cannot visually interpret XYZ grids whatsoever, and I’m proficient at math. I also can’t do division or multiplication in my head. Addition/subtraction over two places is also incredibly difficult if any numbers need to be carried. Essentially, any thinking process where I have to go past three, maybe four small steps at a time, I forget where I’m at entirely and have to start all over. It’s like my RAM is nearly non-existent. Everything I do on paper works out great because it can’t disappear- it’s permanently on the page. Anything requiring on-the-spot, short-term memory? Forget it... literally. I have a childhood diagnosis of ADHD. Got diagnosed with major depressive disorder around 21. After a major depressive episode/suicidal issue a few years after that, my psychiatrist shifted my diagnosis/medication to bipolar II. This diagnostic shift was predicated on an event I described when I was 18, where after a traumatic life event (first major death of a loved one), I had a solid month of extremely erratic, reckless and very uncharacteristic behavior combined with a lack of sleep or need/desire for it. Fit every definition I've read of a manic episode, and the age was appropriate for symptoms to start. I haven't had one since, however. I stopped taking these bipolar medications around six months ago because they weren’t very effective for me in general and I felt they were making focusing on schoolwork even more difficult (caused me to feel lethargic, emotionally numb, sleepy, disinterested, etc. Common side effects.) I definitely have long-standing depression issues, but no present mania or hypomania. I occasionally get bursts of energy/feeling 'up'/overconfidence, but they usually last anywhere from 1-6 hours before they go away entirely. Never days at a time since that manic episode at 18. I haven’t found anything that falls beneath the scope of either ADHD or bipolar to explain this. Doctors and my past mental health team sort of brushed it off in the face of treating my depression. I just want to know what this specifically is. It feels bigger than just the symptoms described. It’s like I can feel my brain hit some weird wall whenever I try to think steps or moves ahead. Speaking of which, I’ll throw in one last example. Cannot do strategy games like chess. I just lose my future plans two imagined steps in. They can’t be recalled; they just disappear. Is this (maybe) a learning disability? What am I (potentially) dealing with? Assistant:Not a doctor, but how recently did you stop Lamictal, and did you taper off of it or quit cold turkey?

Human: CMV: Criminals who are not dangerous should not go to prison I should first say I believe criminal sentencing should act a deterrents, and aim to rehabilitate criminals. I do not believe retribution should be a goal, partly because i don't think it is justified anyway, but more importantly it actually works against reducing crime. I think custodial sentencing's (prison) only purpose should be to incapacitate criminals who are actively dangerous to the public, such as murderers, rapists and domestic abusers. This is because these criminals need to be physically prevented from repeating their crimes or attacking their victims. For criminals who are not actively dangerous, such as someone who has committed fraud or burgled a house, incarceration is not justified since the state should not arbitrarily take away liberties when it is not necessary. Prison is also a terrible way at reducing crime. In the UK, 39.3% of offenders re-offend within a year upon release (source). Prison acts as a giant recruiting ground, where criminals are able to organise and share methods. Differential association theory also suggests minor criminals who end up in prison are more likely to become committed to a life of crime due to pro-crime attitudes being common among prisoners, thereby influencing them to perceive crime as more favourable. There are also numerous negative effects of being in prison. There are high suicide and self-harm rates in prison, and separation from family may damage prisoner’s children’s mental health, and making parents in prison feel separation anxiety and guilt. Prisons are highly overcrowded, which causes stress, aggression and illness. As long as a person is in prison, it is impossible for them to contribute towards society except through highly exploitative labour programs. Moreover, keeping people in prisons is very expensive to the taxpayer; in the UK it costs £63,000 a year to keep a prisoner locked up. Surely one of the best ways for a person to be rehabilitated is to enter the workforce and earn legitimately. Prisoners may become institutionalized, thereby finding readjustment to the outside world difficult, increasing the likelihood they will return to crime. Harsh punishments, like long prison sentences, are ineffective at reducing crime (source). Non-custodial sentences are far more effective at preventing crime. For example, evidence shows cautions are more effective deterrents than arrests. Instead, a mixture of non-custodial sentencing methods should be used. Restorative justice is highly effective at reducing recidivism, so that should be used where possible. Other methods include community service, electronic monitoring, and probation. The overall effect of reducing prison sentences would be lower crime rates, a significantly smaller prison population, better lives for thousands of would-be prisoners, and far lower expenditure on the justice system. Assistant:I noted that you quoted a statistic from the UK specifically. If you’re basing this view with the UK prison system in mind, have you considered that it’s just a sub-par system there and that that’s why you think criminals who are not dangerous should not go to prison? I’ll say just a little about the prison system in the Netherlands and see what you think: - there are 5 levels of ‘responsibility’ for a crime, whereas in the UK I want to say there’s just 2 - you’re responsible or there’s reduced responsibility (I might be wrong). This means prisoners are separated according to their mental state, whether they did the crime because their judgement was impaired because of drugs etc, whether they’re genuinely psychopathic, whether their circumstances led to the crime etc. Personally, I feel like this makes a little more sense than just ‘murderers bad, in prison. Thieves okay, stay out of prison’ (I know I simplified your point a bit there but you get what I mean). - if a prisoner is deemed still dangerous to society, they’ll be kept in prison even if their original sentence is already finished. They’re kept until they’re deemed no longer dangerous - there’s a whole system of providing mental health support in Dutch prisons, which seems to work very well. For example, there’s different sections and different plans for people in crisis, people who have committed violent crimes, people with addictions etc. It seems that in the UK, these people are just thrown in together and left to survive, but in the Netherlands they can access the help they require to better themselves and do better on the outside. It’s a level of care they may never have received if they weren’t in prison. - prisons are set up to rehabilitate people & give them the structure, responsibility and support they may not have had on the outside world and set them up to do well when they’re released. How would these people get that level of support if they weren’t incarcerated as you suggest? - I wanted to find statistics but I’m on a mobile and it’s proving difficult, but the Netherlands has one of the lowest recidivism rates and they’ve even had to shut down prisons because there just weren’t enough prisoners. I agree with many of your points, and I don’t think the prison system in the UK (and many countries) is effective at all. In many cases, it probably has a negative impact on people and their families as you mentioned, and they’d have been better off if they never got detained. I think I agree with you that not being incarcerated and receiving other consequences is better than being incarcerated for certain crimes, but I would go further and argue that being incarcerated in a good prison system which focuses on rehabilitation and does it well is even better.

Human: CMV: Criminals who are not dangerous should not go to prison I should first say I believe criminal sentencing should act a deterrents, and aim to rehabilitate criminals. I do not believe retribution should be a goal, partly because i don't think it is justified anyway, but more importantly it actually works against reducing crime. I think custodial sentencing's (prison) only purpose should be to incapacitate criminals who are actively dangerous to the public, such as murderers, rapists and domestic abusers. This is because these criminals need to be physically prevented from repeating their crimes or attacking their victims. For criminals who are not actively dangerous, such as someone who has committed fraud or burgled a house, incarceration is not justified since the state should not arbitrarily take away liberties when it is not necessary. Prison is also a terrible way at reducing crime. In the UK, 39.3% of offenders re-offend within a year upon release (source). Prison acts as a giant recruiting ground, where criminals are able to organise and share methods. Differential association theory also suggests minor criminals who end up in prison are more likely to become committed to a life of crime due to pro-crime attitudes being common among prisoners, thereby influencing them to perceive crime as more favourable. There are also numerous negative effects of being in prison. There are high suicide and self-harm rates in prison, and separation from family may damage prisoner’s children’s mental health, and making parents in prison feel separation anxiety and guilt. Prisons are highly overcrowded, which causes stress, aggression and illness. As long as a person is in prison, it is impossible for them to contribute towards society except through highly exploitative labour programs. Moreover, keeping people in prisons is very expensive to the taxpayer; in the UK it costs £63,000 a year to keep a prisoner locked up. Surely one of the best ways for a person to be rehabilitated is to enter the workforce and earn legitimately. Prisoners may become institutionalized, thereby finding readjustment to the outside world difficult, increasing the likelihood they will return to crime. Harsh punishments, like long prison sentences, are ineffective at reducing crime (source). Non-custodial sentences are far more effective at preventing crime. For example, evidence shows cautions are more effective deterrents than arrests. Instead, a mixture of non-custodial sentencing methods should be used. Restorative justice is highly effective at reducing recidivism, so that should be used where possible. Other methods include community service, electronic monitoring, and probation. The overall effect of reducing prison sentences would be lower crime rates, a significantly smaller prison population, better lives for thousands of would-be prisoners, and far lower expenditure on the justice system. Assistant:There are a couple of reasons to have to have a criminal justice process. * One is harm prevention. * One is rehabilitation. * One is punishment. Most people believe people that people that commit crimes 'should' be punished.

Human: [California] Neighbor won't stop leafblowing onto our driveway State: California My neighbor keeps leafblowing all the leaves on his front yard onto our driveway, collecting it all there, then leafblowing it down the street. He claims he is doing us a "favor" because he'll pick up stuff from our driveway too and push them down the street. However, if he doesn't do a thorough job leafblowing everything down (he doesn't do a thorough job ever), pieces of debris and garbage get strewn onto our driveway, which our cars/shoes/wind, etc. pick up, and drag it further inside and into our home. We've repeatably told him to stop and use his driveway to collect the leaves instead and leave ours alone. He continually says he's doing us a favor and won't stop. We bring it up to him: If it's really a favor, and we don't want it, then why would you keep doing it? He says even then, the driveway and sidewalk it intersects is city property so he can do whatever he wants. Is this really true? I mean at some point, all the debris and gunk may collect onto the "city property" but it affects us because our cars and shoes will start dragging it into our property. We've had a shaky relationship, and the fact that he refuses to use his driveway to collect the leaves (there's literally no difference between using ours or his driveway) feels like he's just trying to provoke us. This issue is a bit minor, but bending over and letting him do whatever he wants to provoke us without any repercussions is ridiculous. This issue has escalated to cops coming over TWICE, and both times, they also agree the issue is dumb: it literally makes no difference for my neighbor to use his driveway to collect the leaves, but makes a world of difference for us - just use your own driveway! The police say to never call them again over this issue and for us to just talk it out. Knowing my neighbor though, he'll keep doing this and eventually force me to have to call the police again who will be upset with me for still being upset with this. Do I have any recourse here, or am I just going to be stuck dragging dirt and leaves and other gunk all over my shoes and car tires? Even if I do record him leafblowing onto the driveway: it does look like from afar that he is collecting it on our driveway, then leafblowing it all down onto the street, leaving my driveway clean. It's only when you actually observe the driveway closely that you start noticing all the gunk still everywhere, especially after a few days (he does this daily). For this reason, I'm not sure if recording him will even help? Assistant:It isn’t city property. You bought the house and own the drive away. If he’s blowing it and entering your driveway tell him he’s trespassing.

Human: [California] Neighbor won't stop leafblowing onto our driveway State: California My neighbor keeps leafblowing all the leaves on his front yard onto our driveway, collecting it all there, then leafblowing it down the street. He claims he is doing us a "favor" because he'll pick up stuff from our driveway too and push them down the street. However, if he doesn't do a thorough job leafblowing everything down (he doesn't do a thorough job ever), pieces of debris and garbage get strewn onto our driveway, which our cars/shoes/wind, etc. pick up, and drag it further inside and into our home. We've repeatably told him to stop and use his driveway to collect the leaves instead and leave ours alone. He continually says he's doing us a favor and won't stop. We bring it up to him: If it's really a favor, and we don't want it, then why would you keep doing it? He says even then, the driveway and sidewalk it intersects is city property so he can do whatever he wants. Is this really true? I mean at some point, all the debris and gunk may collect onto the "city property" but it affects us because our cars and shoes will start dragging it into our property. We've had a shaky relationship, and the fact that he refuses to use his driveway to collect the leaves (there's literally no difference between using ours or his driveway) feels like he's just trying to provoke us. This issue is a bit minor, but bending over and letting him do whatever he wants to provoke us without any repercussions is ridiculous. This issue has escalated to cops coming over TWICE, and both times, they also agree the issue is dumb: it literally makes no difference for my neighbor to use his driveway to collect the leaves, but makes a world of difference for us - just use your own driveway! The police say to never call them again over this issue and for us to just talk it out. Knowing my neighbor though, he'll keep doing this and eventually force me to have to call the police again who will be upset with me for still being upset with this. Do I have any recourse here, or am I just going to be stuck dragging dirt and leaves and other gunk all over my shoes and car tires? Even if I do record him leafblowing onto the driveway: it does look like from afar that he is collecting it on our driveway, then leafblowing it all down onto the street, leaving my driveway clean. It's only when you actually observe the driveway closely that you start noticing all the gunk still everywhere, especially after a few days (he does this daily). For this reason, I'm not sure if recording him will even help? Assistant:Blow em back. Establish your boundaries !

Human: CMV: Mental health regulation in the gun control debate is irrelevant and would be impossible to implement Whenever I see people talk about gun control in the United States, there's always people who take the mental health treatment/ testing route. It's either A) We should have better mental health treatments in general to lower the amount of mentally ill people (who could possibly get a gun and misuse it) or, B) We should require more tests/reports/ investigation surrounding an individual's mental health when they go to get a gun license and inevitably a gun. However, I find this argument to be idealistic and like it comes fron people who don't understand enough about mental illness. First of all, better treatment for mental health (better school counselors, cheap/free therapy and medication, raising awareness, etc.) will not eradicate mental illness. Especially not for people who are so ill to the point that they want to shoot up a school. These kind of facilities require the mentally ill individual (or their family who KNOWS that they are mentally ill) to go get help. Many people do not want help, and many people do not trust psychologists and counselors. It's a harsh reality, but many mentally ill people will actively avoid seeking treatment. Someone with a lot of hatred or betrayal in their head is even less likely to seek treatment. A lot of people with mental illnesses don't even think of themselves as being mentally ill. As for the second approach, it neglects to address that many times, you cannot get an accurate test from someone that does not want it. Sure, psychology has come a long way— there are many psychologists who can figure out what's wrong with a person even if they lie their asses off. But not all psychologists are that good at their jobs, and not all people find lying hard. Trust me, from personal experience, mental health patients trick their doctors a lot more than people think. The other part of this approach is looking more deeply at medical records as well as crime/school incidents. That would be effective, I agree, but it also doesn't address that sometimes this is the first extreme thing someone will do due to mental health issues, and that if someone never looked for help/did something extreme we will have no records on their mental health. On top of that, there are plenty of perfectly sane individuals who would be denied their rights (not my view, but for the sake of my argument, sane individuals have the right to bare arms) in this scenario because they did something while intoxicated once 5 years ago, or struggled with depression when they were a teenager. It would also be incredibly hard to implement this all nation wide— in poor towns and rich towns, rural villages and large cities— there's now way we could accurately assess people's mental health statis every single time they get a gun license or a new gun. That's all— CMV Assistant:The right to bear arms comes at a cost, that cost is gun violence. Where we are at now, the overwhelming majority of the country agrees that cost is currently too great. The school shootings in particular is a cost many of us are unwillingly to accept. You are arguing that because investing in mental health won’t eradicate, it’s not worth it. That because accurately asses someone’s mental health every single time, it’s not worth it, But just like with gun violence, it’s not about eradicating it. You can’t eradicate it but you can help a lot of people and you can bring down the number of total shootings and suicides. This about bringing the cost of the right to bear arms down to an acceptable level. If that is not done, if the status quo remains, and if we continue to have a democracy, we will get to a point where most people are willing to overturn the second amendment.

Human: CMV: Mental health regulation in the gun control debate is irrelevant and would be impossible to implement Whenever I see people talk about gun control in the United States, there's always people who take the mental health treatment/ testing route. It's either A) We should have better mental health treatments in general to lower the amount of mentally ill people (who could possibly get a gun and misuse it) or, B) We should require more tests/reports/ investigation surrounding an individual's mental health when they go to get a gun license and inevitably a gun. However, I find this argument to be idealistic and like it comes fron people who don't understand enough about mental illness. First of all, better treatment for mental health (better school counselors, cheap/free therapy and medication, raising awareness, etc.) will not eradicate mental illness. Especially not for people who are so ill to the point that they want to shoot up a school. These kind of facilities require the mentally ill individual (or their family who KNOWS that they are mentally ill) to go get help. Many people do not want help, and many people do not trust psychologists and counselors. It's a harsh reality, but many mentally ill people will actively avoid seeking treatment. Someone with a lot of hatred or betrayal in their head is even less likely to seek treatment. A lot of people with mental illnesses don't even think of themselves as being mentally ill. As for the second approach, it neglects to address that many times, you cannot get an accurate test from someone that does not want it. Sure, psychology has come a long way— there are many psychologists who can figure out what's wrong with a person even if they lie their asses off. But not all psychologists are that good at their jobs, and not all people find lying hard. Trust me, from personal experience, mental health patients trick their doctors a lot more than people think. The other part of this approach is looking more deeply at medical records as well as crime/school incidents. That would be effective, I agree, but it also doesn't address that sometimes this is the first extreme thing someone will do due to mental health issues, and that if someone never looked for help/did something extreme we will have no records on their mental health. On top of that, there are plenty of perfectly sane individuals who would be denied their rights (not my view, but for the sake of my argument, sane individuals have the right to bare arms) in this scenario because they did something while intoxicated once 5 years ago, or struggled with depression when they were a teenager. It would also be incredibly hard to implement this all nation wide— in poor towns and rich towns, rural villages and large cities— there's now way we could accurately assess people's mental health statis every single time they get a gun license or a new gun. That's all— CMV Assistant:>It would also be incredibly hard to implement this all nation wide This is the sort of sad epitome of why people aren't even willing to try. *it's too hard*. I can't get my head around how that is suppose to be a good argument against even trying. If mental health screenings stop just one deranged person from shooting up a school in the next 100 years, it would still be a win.

Human: CMV: Our Society is Becoming too Morally Complex and Divergent to Expect Most Humans to Be “Good People” Anymore Despite what some people lament concerning the world collapsing into moral decadence, I feel an opposite though equally problematic phenomenon: we are becoming moral gluttons. Moral standards and ideals, much like plastic waste, decay at a much slower rate than they accumulate. This leads to what I will call moral complexity, wherein old and new morals, oftentimes conflicting, will co-exist with each other in a society. Furthermore, different communities will inherently adopt and enforce different moral codes from one another. This is what I will call moral divergence, wherein communities with insoluble morals exist side-by-side. Below I will outline moral complexity and divergence and explain why it is quickly becoming too difficult to be a good person anymore. **Moral Complexity** As stated above, morals have a nasty habit of sticking around longer than they should. On its own, this wouldn’t be a bad thing – it’s only natural that people may be slow to adapt to social changes and that it might take a few generations or changing institutions for new norms to take hold. The problem comes in during the paradigm shift, when the old and new co-exist. This issue is further exacerbated by what I see as an increasing pace of the moral cycle within contemporary times. Let me provide an example. Norms and morals around sex and dating have changed drastically while I’ve been alive. A lot of the recent change has been galvanized by the #MeToo movement and women coming forward with their stories on social media. Now before moving forward, I just want to say I’m going to try to avoid giving my own moral meta-commentary or opinions on any of the examples provided; please don’t read this absence of appraisal as support or lack of support for any given stance – I just don’t want to get bogged down in specifics for the grander argument. Anyway, expectations for dating behavior and definitions surrounding consent are evolving quite rapidly, which is striking given that a generation or two prior to now the dominant moral norm surrounding dating and sex was simply abstinence. Thus, we’ve gone from what was essentially a wild west, nearly amoral landscape to a state where consensus around how one should and shouldn’t behave in the domain of sex is rapidly forming. And this is where the complexity comes in – to be a moral person (i.e., a “good person”) in this context, you have to be up on the discourse where there was previously a void. Of course, morals have always changed throughout cultures across time – there’s nothing special about that. What I am arguing is that the rate that moral expectations change is accelerating to a point where we cannot expect a majority of people to be able to adjust their beliefs and behaviors to match. And if most people legitimately can’t live by it, it’s not a good moral in my view (e.g., abstinence from sex/masturbation). Simply put, we’re adding more and more morals onto the social compendium for everyone to keep track of and it feels overwhelming. What’s worse, with the world being increasingly connected via social media/globalization and us entering what I consider to be more and more of a surveillance state, moral transgressions carry much more of a burden with them than they did before. Simply put, we didn’t evolve to be able to morally judge people from afar or to handle being morally judged from afar, for that matter. But now we can, and I think social punishments are harsher for it. This greater interconnectivity also feeds into the other emerging moral crisis. **Moral Divergence** Not only do morals change across time, they differ across different communities as well. And I’m not talking different regions of the globe or different countries. I’m talking people living side-by-side with one another. A perfect example is the nexus of American political polarization and COVID-19 restrictions. Liberals and conservatives view things like mask mandates and lockdowns through completely different moral lenses and come to diametrically opposed moral conclusions. A more liberal person will think you have a moral mandate to wear a mask, whereas a conservative might view that moral stance itself as oppressive and immoral. Thus, we are left in a position where there’s not a single way to be a “good person” – you have to be satisfied with being a good person within a specific community. Now, in the olden days, this wouldn’t have been so much of an issue – just stay within your own group and problem solved. Such social isolation is increasingly becoming a luxury in today’s world, though, for reasons noted above. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I can anticipate many objections already; namely, things like “just wear a mask” or “consent isn’t that hard to grasp.” And while I do agree with those sentiments, I don’t want to get too attached to these examples – they were just the best things I could think of for right now. The larger point is that society’s expectations are rapidly getting higher and more diverse, and while I think this is generally a good thing, human beings are fallible and I don’t want us to set ourselves up for failure. Change my view. ​ TL;DR: moral expectations are changing too quickly and becoming too diverse for normal people to keep up; we shouldn’t make morality and good citizenship too difficult to achieve. Assistant:I'd hardly say the new "morals" around sex are terribly complex. It basically boils down to "is everyone a consenting adult and you're practicing reasonably safe sex? Then you're good to go" as well as a lowering stigma around casual sex in general. That's not much more complex than "don't ever have premarital sex but if you do don't get pregnant but if you do now you have to get married". >The larger point is that society’s expectations are rapidly getting higher and more diverse, I don't think expectations are getting more diverse, we're just accepting more kinds of people. If anything, that should lower expectations. There have always been liberal and conservative views at any point in time in the past. There will always be some people who prefer the "old way". Everyone has their own opinions. The internet just makes it so it is always possible to find like-minded individuals, no matter how stupid or crazy your beliefs. >while I think this is generally a good thing, human beings are fallible and I don’t want us to set ourselves up for failure. I'm not quite sure what failure you mean. Could you elaborate?

Human: CMV: Our Society is Becoming too Morally Complex and Divergent to Expect Most Humans to Be “Good People” Anymore Despite what some people lament concerning the world collapsing into moral decadence, I feel an opposite though equally problematic phenomenon: we are becoming moral gluttons. Moral standards and ideals, much like plastic waste, decay at a much slower rate than they accumulate. This leads to what I will call moral complexity, wherein old and new morals, oftentimes conflicting, will co-exist with each other in a society. Furthermore, different communities will inherently adopt and enforce different moral codes from one another. This is what I will call moral divergence, wherein communities with insoluble morals exist side-by-side. Below I will outline moral complexity and divergence and explain why it is quickly becoming too difficult to be a good person anymore. **Moral Complexity** As stated above, morals have a nasty habit of sticking around longer than they should. On its own, this wouldn’t be a bad thing – it’s only natural that people may be slow to adapt to social changes and that it might take a few generations or changing institutions for new norms to take hold. The problem comes in during the paradigm shift, when the old and new co-exist. This issue is further exacerbated by what I see as an increasing pace of the moral cycle within contemporary times. Let me provide an example. Norms and morals around sex and dating have changed drastically while I’ve been alive. A lot of the recent change has been galvanized by the #MeToo movement and women coming forward with their stories on social media. Now before moving forward, I just want to say I’m going to try to avoid giving my own moral meta-commentary or opinions on any of the examples provided; please don’t read this absence of appraisal as support or lack of support for any given stance – I just don’t want to get bogged down in specifics for the grander argument. Anyway, expectations for dating behavior and definitions surrounding consent are evolving quite rapidly, which is striking given that a generation or two prior to now the dominant moral norm surrounding dating and sex was simply abstinence. Thus, we’ve gone from what was essentially a wild west, nearly amoral landscape to a state where consensus around how one should and shouldn’t behave in the domain of sex is rapidly forming. And this is where the complexity comes in – to be a moral person (i.e., a “good person”) in this context, you have to be up on the discourse where there was previously a void. Of course, morals have always changed throughout cultures across time – there’s nothing special about that. What I am arguing is that the rate that moral expectations change is accelerating to a point where we cannot expect a majority of people to be able to adjust their beliefs and behaviors to match. And if most people legitimately can’t live by it, it’s not a good moral in my view (e.g., abstinence from sex/masturbation). Simply put, we’re adding more and more morals onto the social compendium for everyone to keep track of and it feels overwhelming. What’s worse, with the world being increasingly connected via social media/globalization and us entering what I consider to be more and more of a surveillance state, moral transgressions carry much more of a burden with them than they did before. Simply put, we didn’t evolve to be able to morally judge people from afar or to handle being morally judged from afar, for that matter. But now we can, and I think social punishments are harsher for it. This greater interconnectivity also feeds into the other emerging moral crisis. **Moral Divergence** Not only do morals change across time, they differ across different communities as well. And I’m not talking different regions of the globe or different countries. I’m talking people living side-by-side with one another. A perfect example is the nexus of American political polarization and COVID-19 restrictions. Liberals and conservatives view things like mask mandates and lockdowns through completely different moral lenses and come to diametrically opposed moral conclusions. A more liberal person will think you have a moral mandate to wear a mask, whereas a conservative might view that moral stance itself as oppressive and immoral. Thus, we are left in a position where there’s not a single way to be a “good person” – you have to be satisfied with being a good person within a specific community. Now, in the olden days, this wouldn’t have been so much of an issue – just stay within your own group and problem solved. Such social isolation is increasingly becoming a luxury in today’s world, though, for reasons noted above. I’ve given this a lot of thought, and I can anticipate many objections already; namely, things like “just wear a mask” or “consent isn’t that hard to grasp.” And while I do agree with those sentiments, I don’t want to get too attached to these examples – they were just the best things I could think of for right now. The larger point is that society’s expectations are rapidly getting higher and more diverse, and while I think this is generally a good thing, human beings are fallible and I don’t want us to set ourselves up for failure. Change my view. ​ TL;DR: moral expectations are changing too quickly and becoming too diverse for normal people to keep up; we shouldn’t make morality and good citizenship too difficult to achieve. Assistant:Who is going to set these limitations on moral grounds?

Human: [FL] I was “promoted” 3 months ago and still haven’t received my promised raise, my official title, or job description. Boss keeps telling me they’re waiting on HR, and HR is unreachable. I love my job but I am fed up - is there any way I can move things forward? Hi! I’ve been at my current company for 7 months. I was originally hired into a position I was very overqualified for. Once I learned that role I expressed to my boss that I would like to do more advanced work. In June he offered me a new role that had not previously existed at our company but he saw there was a need for. Because of this he mentioned that he was still getting everything figured out with HR - such as the official title, responsibilities, and salary. Important to note that our company was bought out by a larger corporation a few months previously, so I understand there’s a transition to deal with. He said that I could start transitioning into the new role in the meantime, and I accepted that. It has been 3 months since that conversation. I am now fully transitioned into this role, which is much more technically challenging and high stress compared to my previous position. I really enjoy it though, and from what I can tell I’m doing a great job in the role. Yet, I STILL don’t even know what my position is called. I don’t know what my official job description is, which makes it extremely hard to say no to tasks because I’m not sure if they’re my responsibility or not. AND I am still getting paid the same as when I started in the entry level position. I asked my boss what the status was on the documentation / raise etc last week. He told me that he had signed all of the paperwork with HR and that now the company is surveying the area to determine what other companies are paying someone in my position. Why is this taking so long? Is this a normal timeline after a promotion? I also am unable to get in touch with our HR rep - he does not work onsite and has been unreachable by email and phone. I am frustrated beyond belief. I have put so much time and energy into this job that I genuinely love. I don’t think my boss is being malicious and I trust him when he says it’s out of his hands at this point, but I honestly don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I don’t have anything in writing , as far as I know there is no documentation saying that I’ve worked in this role for months. So I don’t know how I would put this on my resume if I decided to look for a new job. On top of that my transportation situation is terrible. I was offered a similar job for more than twice my current pay in a town ~40 minutes away, but I wouldn’t be able to get to work. I feel so stuck. I feel so stupid for giving so much to this company and job that I really love and care about and getting bullshit in return. I am so tired of it and it is affecting my work and my mood. Is there any way I can improve this situation? I want to just have a conversation with HR so I at least have some idea of what’s going on. I want a straight answer but I don’t even know who to ask. TLDR: 3 months ago I was given a new role with much more skill and responsibility required. Was originally told I would transition into the role and that HR would get my documentation / salary sorted asap. I still have not received any new information since then and cannot reach my HR rep. Need advice on how to get a straight answer out of anyone. Assistant:From my read you have not been given the new role yet. All that has happened so far is that you've been told by your boss that they intend to make the new role and are working through the processes to create that new role. You were told the intention was to give you the new role and asked if you would like to start taking on the responsibilities ahead of being given it. You don't actually have the new role yet and won't until you have something in writing. Especially in larger companies creating a brand new position can be a significantly longer process than promoting someone into a role that already exists. Depending on the level of complexity and governance processes of your organisation this could actually be what as soon as possible looks like.

Human: [FL] I was “promoted” 3 months ago and still haven’t received my promised raise, my official title, or job description. Boss keeps telling me they’re waiting on HR, and HR is unreachable. I love my job but I am fed up - is there any way I can move things forward? Hi! I’ve been at my current company for 7 months. I was originally hired into a position I was very overqualified for. Once I learned that role I expressed to my boss that I would like to do more advanced work. In June he offered me a new role that had not previously existed at our company but he saw there was a need for. Because of this he mentioned that he was still getting everything figured out with HR - such as the official title, responsibilities, and salary. Important to note that our company was bought out by a larger corporation a few months previously, so I understand there’s a transition to deal with. He said that I could start transitioning into the new role in the meantime, and I accepted that. It has been 3 months since that conversation. I am now fully transitioned into this role, which is much more technically challenging and high stress compared to my previous position. I really enjoy it though, and from what I can tell I’m doing a great job in the role. Yet, I STILL don’t even know what my position is called. I don’t know what my official job description is, which makes it extremely hard to say no to tasks because I’m not sure if they’re my responsibility or not. AND I am still getting paid the same as when I started in the entry level position. I asked my boss what the status was on the documentation / raise etc last week. He told me that he had signed all of the paperwork with HR and that now the company is surveying the area to determine what other companies are paying someone in my position. Why is this taking so long? Is this a normal timeline after a promotion? I also am unable to get in touch with our HR rep - he does not work onsite and has been unreachable by email and phone. I am frustrated beyond belief. I have put so much time and energy into this job that I genuinely love. I don’t think my boss is being malicious and I trust him when he says it’s out of his hands at this point, but I honestly don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I don’t have anything in writing , as far as I know there is no documentation saying that I’ve worked in this role for months. So I don’t know how I would put this on my resume if I decided to look for a new job. On top of that my transportation situation is terrible. I was offered a similar job for more than twice my current pay in a town ~40 minutes away, but I wouldn’t be able to get to work. I feel so stuck. I feel so stupid for giving so much to this company and job that I really love and care about and getting bullshit in return. I am so tired of it and it is affecting my work and my mood. Is there any way I can improve this situation? I want to just have a conversation with HR so I at least have some idea of what’s going on. I want a straight answer but I don’t even know who to ask. TLDR: 3 months ago I was given a new role with much more skill and responsibility required. Was originally told I would transition into the role and that HR would get my documentation / salary sorted asap. I still have not received any new information since then and cannot reach my HR rep. Need advice on how to get a straight answer out of anyone. Assistant:Is there any one above the HR rep like VP of HR or anyone who this HR rep reports to? Can you reach out to them and write an email to them mentioned that you have been waiting on the new paper since last three months. Also in case you have the emails you sent to this HR rep attach those when you write to the VP/Head of HR. Since you mentioned that your manager has informed you that it’s with HR, I believe your manager should also reach out to the HR rep/VP of HR etc. Sometimes it does take 1 month or so if the processes are manual like writing contracts n stuff. But three month is definitely late.

Human: 5 year old with serious behavioral issues My kid, 5 1/2 yo female (approx 50 pounds and 46", white) has been having some serious behavior issues to the point that she hurts herself and others. There were some signs of issues about 6 months ago, but it's devolved significantly in the last three or so months. Some background: she got really sick a year and a half ago and eventually was hospitalized with an infectious disease (RMSF). Around the same time, she had a bunch of friends leave for school and had her first sibling born. Before that, she was pretty much a model kid (not perfect, but "normal"). In the last six months, she has had so many behavioral issues, she was dismissed from her daycare. She has been going to a new summer camp, but after several good weeks, recently had an outburst there and was assaulting teachers. We have been attending a therapist for a couple months now, but doesn't seem to be helping. My wife and I have taken Little Big Feelings course, read every online article we could find, asked our friends and family for advice, but it seems to only be getting worse. Even the therapist at the last session was flummoxed—she said she's never had a kid behave like this. We have tried talking to her pediatrician about it, but they have told us they don't work with issues like that. They referred us to a child psychologist, but the psychologist said they don't see kids this young. We have tried reaching out to our insurance, but they do not have any places in our area taking new patients. We tried going to an out-of-network pediatric psych clinic on our own dime, but they told us for her age, they just offer therapy - which we are already doing for 1/3rd the price. I don't know what to do at this point. She seems to snap between being a great kid to being this absolute demon that cannot be stopped. She'll hit, kick, throw, and spit - even if she hurts herself in the process. She just doesn't stop. Being put in her room by herself, she'll scream until she loses her voice and hit the door until she can't take the pain anymore. Punishments (which we always follow through on, and are not ever physical) do nothing. She is supposed to be starting school in about a month, but I don't see a way that she doesn't get almost immediately expelled. What avenue am I missing? How do I get treatment for my kid? How do I protect her and everyone else? I feel like a total failure of a parent. Assistant:Is there any children’s hospital that specializes in RMSF or PANDAS in your area? I wonder if this is some kind of post-infectious neuro-psych disorder similar to PANDAS. Though PANDAS is usually after a streptococcal infection. The environmental changes absolutely make sense but I would almost want to rule out any other possible diagnoses given that you seem to be doing everything from a psych perspective with little improvement. My advice would be she needs to see a super specialist (maybe infectious disease) at an academic children’s hospital for further testing.

Human: 5 year old with serious behavioral issues My kid, 5 1/2 yo female (approx 50 pounds and 46", white) has been having some serious behavior issues to the point that she hurts herself and others. There were some signs of issues about 6 months ago, but it's devolved significantly in the last three or so months. Some background: she got really sick a year and a half ago and eventually was hospitalized with an infectious disease (RMSF). Around the same time, she had a bunch of friends leave for school and had her first sibling born. Before that, she was pretty much a model kid (not perfect, but "normal"). In the last six months, she has had so many behavioral issues, she was dismissed from her daycare. She has been going to a new summer camp, but after several good weeks, recently had an outburst there and was assaulting teachers. We have been attending a therapist for a couple months now, but doesn't seem to be helping. My wife and I have taken Little Big Feelings course, read every online article we could find, asked our friends and family for advice, but it seems to only be getting worse. Even the therapist at the last session was flummoxed—she said she's never had a kid behave like this. We have tried talking to her pediatrician about it, but they have told us they don't work with issues like that. They referred us to a child psychologist, but the psychologist said they don't see kids this young. We have tried reaching out to our insurance, but they do not have any places in our area taking new patients. We tried going to an out-of-network pediatric psych clinic on our own dime, but they told us for her age, they just offer therapy - which we are already doing for 1/3rd the price. I don't know what to do at this point. She seems to snap between being a great kid to being this absolute demon that cannot be stopped. She'll hit, kick, throw, and spit - even if she hurts herself in the process. She just doesn't stop. Being put in her room by herself, she'll scream until she loses her voice and hit the door until she can't take the pain anymore. Punishments (which we always follow through on, and are not ever physical) do nothing. She is supposed to be starting school in about a month, but I don't see a way that she doesn't get almost immediately expelled. What avenue am I missing? How do I get treatment for my kid? How do I protect her and everyone else? I feel like a total failure of a parent. Assistant:It’s hard to know what’s going on with a strong degree of confidence just from your description. You mention that these problems first developed only six months ago, so I’m assuming normal development and attachment bonds before this. Around 18 months ago she was unwell and hospitalised, plus a new sibling and changes in her peer group - sometimes adjustment maybe a factor, but given the further 12 months before the onset of behaviour problems it’s possible that all these changes are unrelated and could be a red herring. Has there been any other changes at home or for the family, or possible trauma or abuse ? Any issues within your marital relationship that she might have observed and might be distressing her? My apologies that these are distressing things to consider, but depending on the answer there could be further avenues to explore. I’m surprised to hear a child psychologist might not work with a child her age, possibly ask for a referral to one that does work with five year olds. Child therapy is often about working with the family system rather than the child individually, and so a family therapist might be worth considering to look at any systemic issues which might be impacting, and to work on effective and consistent behaviour management programs. You mentioned you are considering seeing a child psychiatrist- this may not be a bad idea if you have tried everything else. You could see them for an assessment and to get their advice on therapy strategies to work on with your usual therapist. I don’t advocate medication before giving talking therapy a reasonable go, but best to discuss this with the psychiatrist if you do decide to see them. I don’t know what is available in your area, but for serious behaviour issues in this age group I often recommend PCIT or Incredible years. If you think these might be help, see whether any one in your area provides these therapies. Links below: http://www.pcit.org/what-is-pcit.html https://incredibleyears.com Best of luck.

Human: CMV: The two party political system is a poor system opposed to multi-party system and therefore voting for the running up 3rd party (ie.Garry Johnson in 2016 election) is my best bet to support this belief. This is the stance I've recently taken, albeit not very rigidly yet. As much as I'd like to be, i'm not very knowledgeable of the intricacies of politics due to several reasons but I do try my best to find my definitive stances so I can voice and act out accordingly. So this viewpoint takes a few things into consideration; firstly that the two party system that dominates US politics is not ideal. Having more parties that actually have a chance in the election is an improvement weather that be a singular party addition or a whole plethora. This is for several reasons but mostly because the individual will have a representative to vote for that more accurately shares their values and political stances. The best way as an individual to push for this is to vote for the leading running up behind the major two parties. I can't even remember where I heard this but I have heard that if this party achieves about 5% of votes during the election, they receive a huge increase in budget for the next election. Even if this isn't necessarily true, giving this party a vote means i'm supporting a party outside of the major two. The third party doesn't even have to be the most personally optimal candidate because the idea is to get the party most likely to compete against the major two a chance. A sort of sub-stance I have held in the past goes something like: I should not change my vote to one of the two major candidates simply because I know any other party will lose. I feel there is likely a large group of voters who do do this and only feeds into the loop because they reinforce the fact that nobody else will win an election. Thanks ahead of time for having a discussion with me! I'm new to the sub but I think I've figured out the delta system. _____ > *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 like to start by saying I agree, two party political systems have a number of un-addressable weaknesses and should definitely be altered. That said, voting third party may very well be the best option to express your support for the belief - but it unfortunately it is not the most effective way to see the positive change in the direction you would like. The two party system exists based upon the system of voting we have, in most western countries, some variation of "first past the post" - which always gravitates individuals to vote for one of two major parties if they wish to win and have their change in the world. Unfortunately, when people vote third party they inevitably take votes away from the two major parties. This would be fine, even desirable in a different system, but in the system we have has massive negative consequences for you personally. By voting third party you are assisting the party furthest away from your political position to gain power. This reduces the odds of you seeing your preferred change in the world. Your side of the political spectrum ends up divided and voiceless against a united opposition who will always win. I think it's more effective to try and change the system of voting from a place of power, from within one of the two major parties. Third party votes in first past the post systems will never see enough power to change the world. Positive change needs to happen both in-and-against the system (within the two parties), rather than from outside it (a third party). A fantastic explanation of first past the post is presented by CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo He has a lot of videos on voting systems that I highly recommend, such as single transferable vote, and the alternative vote. The voting system decides the number of parties, changing that has to come from the top.

Human: CMV: The two party political system is a poor system opposed to multi-party system and therefore voting for the running up 3rd party (ie.Garry Johnson in 2016 election) is my best bet to support this belief. This is the stance I've recently taken, albeit not very rigidly yet. As much as I'd like to be, i'm not very knowledgeable of the intricacies of politics due to several reasons but I do try my best to find my definitive stances so I can voice and act out accordingly. So this viewpoint takes a few things into consideration; firstly that the two party system that dominates US politics is not ideal. Having more parties that actually have a chance in the election is an improvement weather that be a singular party addition or a whole plethora. This is for several reasons but mostly because the individual will have a representative to vote for that more accurately shares their values and political stances. The best way as an individual to push for this is to vote for the leading running up behind the major two parties. I can't even remember where I heard this but I have heard that if this party achieves about 5% of votes during the election, they receive a huge increase in budget for the next election. Even if this isn't necessarily true, giving this party a vote means i'm supporting a party outside of the major two. The third party doesn't even have to be the most personally optimal candidate because the idea is to get the party most likely to compete against the major two a chance. A sort of sub-stance I have held in the past goes something like: I should not change my vote to one of the two major candidates simply because I know any other party will lose. I feel there is likely a large group of voters who do do this and only feeds into the loop because they reinforce the fact that nobody else will win an election. Thanks ahead of time for having a discussion with me! I'm new to the sub but I think I've figured out the delta system. _____ > *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:This is not exactly, but close to, the see spoiler effect (by voting for a 3rd party, you are not likely to get the candidate you are closer to agreeing with, to win) Plus, the change you want can be done in state legislatures (make all EV proportional), so why demonstrate every 4 years in a national election when you could write your state congressmen?

Human: CMV: Just like sex education, religion should be introduced to children only after they have reached a certain age and level of maturity. Let me be clear. I know this cannot be imposed in any form by a government or a law. I am proposing this simply as a guideline for current and future parents. My arguments are as follows: * Children in their early formative years are incapable of rational, informed thought. Their entire universe is structured around what their parents tell them. If you tell them that the Earth is the shape of an upside down ice-cream cone and the sun is at the tip of it, they will believe you. Not just believe you, this will become their truth. * As an adult, your religious beliefs directly influence the life you lead . It will influence the decisions you make in terms of your life partner you choose, the company you keep, the vote you cast and the path you take in life. It should not affect these things in an ideal world, but we do not live in such an ideal world. * Considering the vast impact that your religious beliefs have, it seems very unfair to have one particular strict, unflinching dogma drilled into you during your formative years as a kid. Religion should be a choice just like your hobbies, your friends and your career. * You may argue that many of us were raised this way, and we eventually "grew out of it" or changed our views once we reached maturity and broadened our horizons, but that is not a valid argument in my book. For every story of a person who has changed or given up religion, there is another story of someone who's upbringing was extremely strict or orthodox and it continues to define them as an adult, with our without their knowing consent. * This particular point may be directed to a very small sub-section of the parent population but I'm going to make it anyways. Some parents use religion as a crutch to assist them in raising their children. By this I mean that, God is the perfect, scary, all-powerful, metaphorical carrot & stick for your kids. Teach your kids not to steal, because it is the wrong thing to do. Not because God is watching. Teach your kids to help the poor because it is the right thing to do, not because it will help them get into Heaven. I don't want to tell parents how to raise their kids but I am drawing from my own personal upbringing. The gist of my argument is this: Religion is a beautiful thing **if** understood and practiced as it is meant to be. If not, it can turn ugly and cause misery to oneself and others. Therefore, it should be introduced to children carefully and only once they are mature enough to grasp its meaning and purpose. Assistant:I agree in general, but i think there's something vital that you're missing. Religious people *believe* in their religion. Full stop. They believe that they *know the truth.* It's not dogma, it's not a choice, it has nothing to do with rationality. It's just The Truth for those people. There are lots of things we mostly agree to be true in our culture that aren't agreed upon in other cultures, and there are *legitimate scientific facts* that some people will despute the veracity of. So where do you draw the line? If it's not okay for someone to teach their religion (which they believe to be true) to their kids... ~~How is it okay for me to teach my child that the earth is round when the Flat Earth folks would disagree with that?~~ **How is it okay for me to teach my child that X, Y, or Z is *wrong* when there are certainly people out there who disagree?** EDIT: I'm getting a lot of responses that address the "flat earth" example, but it appears that people are stopping there instead of reading the rest of my comment. It admittedly wasn't the perfect example, but one bad example doesn't negate a good example or show that my argument is flawed. I'm just going to ignore these types of responses from now on because they're not relevant to the point being made. If you want to engage with this argument, you'll need to address the second example (which I've now bolded).

Human: CMV: Just like sex education, religion should be introduced to children only after they have reached a certain age and level of maturity. Let me be clear. I know this cannot be imposed in any form by a government or a law. I am proposing this simply as a guideline for current and future parents. My arguments are as follows: * Children in their early formative years are incapable of rational, informed thought. Their entire universe is structured around what their parents tell them. If you tell them that the Earth is the shape of an upside down ice-cream cone and the sun is at the tip of it, they will believe you. Not just believe you, this will become their truth. * As an adult, your religious beliefs directly influence the life you lead . It will influence the decisions you make in terms of your life partner you choose, the company you keep, the vote you cast and the path you take in life. It should not affect these things in an ideal world, but we do not live in such an ideal world. * Considering the vast impact that your religious beliefs have, it seems very unfair to have one particular strict, unflinching dogma drilled into you during your formative years as a kid. Religion should be a choice just like your hobbies, your friends and your career. * You may argue that many of us were raised this way, and we eventually "grew out of it" or changed our views once we reached maturity and broadened our horizons, but that is not a valid argument in my book. For every story of a person who has changed or given up religion, there is another story of someone who's upbringing was extremely strict or orthodox and it continues to define them as an adult, with our without their knowing consent. * This particular point may be directed to a very small sub-section of the parent population but I'm going to make it anyways. Some parents use religion as a crutch to assist them in raising their children. By this I mean that, God is the perfect, scary, all-powerful, metaphorical carrot & stick for your kids. Teach your kids not to steal, because it is the wrong thing to do. Not because God is watching. Teach your kids to help the poor because it is the right thing to do, not because it will help them get into Heaven. I don't want to tell parents how to raise their kids but I am drawing from my own personal upbringing. The gist of my argument is this: Religion is a beautiful thing **if** understood and practiced as it is meant to be. If not, it can turn ugly and cause misery to oneself and others. Therefore, it should be introduced to children carefully and only once they are mature enough to grasp its meaning and purpose. Assistant:It doesn't matter when you introduce religion to a child if you introduce it in the wrong way either way. The goal is to instill religious values in children to make them better people from a young age. I'd argue that not teaching religion is effectively teaching atheism, which would definitely not fly for majority of people.

Human: [NJ] Someone left a note under my windshield wiper that I damaged their bumper pulling into a parking space. That definitely never happened. How should I respond? This morning I drove to the train station and parked in a parking space without any incident. No weird noises, no impact, nothing. I turned off my engine and sat around for a few minutes catching up on Twitter, then caught my train. I went to work, and during the day, there was a snow squall that dropped maybe a bare 1/4" in the area. When I got back to my car, there was a note under the windshield, utterly untouched by any snow. It reads: "Hello you scraped (Badly) my bumper pulling into yor space, today at the %townnameredacted% train station parking lot. I *have pictures* (this is underlined in the original) Please, call me to resolve. ~~I will"~~ (this was indeed written and struck through) Below this is a phone number, the name on the paper, and 1/30/2019. I googled the phone number and it shows up as a landline, but the person whose name is on the paper did show up next to it in a Facebook posting. There is zero damage to my car. I've had fender-benders and minor paint scrapes before, and there is zero of anything that looks like I hit someone. Other than a paint chip the size of a quarter that's been on the front and center, off to the right, of the front bumper cover, there's absolutely nothing to indicate any kind of physical contact with anything else. My rims and tires are in fine shape without any scrapes more drastic than hitting a curb in the past. I have not called the number yet. My thoughts are that this is a mixup of some sort. How should I respond? My instinct is to use a Google Voice number that I don't use for anything other than throwaway stuff like Craigslist, job stuff, etc. It's not presently found on google and I can abandon it if I need to. I'd use a pseudonym, record the call, deny all knowledge of this, and ask her to either file a police report or open a claim with her insurance. My reason for the paranoia is that if she gets my real name, THAT is far less private. It smells like a scam, but at the bare minimum she has my license plate number, make, and model of my car. What's the best course of action here? Assistant:Someone could actually have hit her car, saw the note when they got back to their car, then moved it over to yours so they wouldn't have to deal with it. If the person really needs evidence that you did it, then couldn't they just get security cam footage from the train station? I wouldn't call that number.

Human: [NJ] Someone left a note under my windshield wiper that I damaged their bumper pulling into a parking space. That definitely never happened. How should I respond? This morning I drove to the train station and parked in a parking space without any incident. No weird noises, no impact, nothing. I turned off my engine and sat around for a few minutes catching up on Twitter, then caught my train. I went to work, and during the day, there was a snow squall that dropped maybe a bare 1/4" in the area. When I got back to my car, there was a note under the windshield, utterly untouched by any snow. It reads: "Hello you scraped (Badly) my bumper pulling into yor space, today at the %townnameredacted% train station parking lot. I *have pictures* (this is underlined in the original) Please, call me to resolve. ~~I will"~~ (this was indeed written and struck through) Below this is a phone number, the name on the paper, and 1/30/2019. I googled the phone number and it shows up as a landline, but the person whose name is on the paper did show up next to it in a Facebook posting. There is zero damage to my car. I've had fender-benders and minor paint scrapes before, and there is zero of anything that looks like I hit someone. Other than a paint chip the size of a quarter that's been on the front and center, off to the right, of the front bumper cover, there's absolutely nothing to indicate any kind of physical contact with anything else. My rims and tires are in fine shape without any scrapes more drastic than hitting a curb in the past. I have not called the number yet. My thoughts are that this is a mixup of some sort. How should I respond? My instinct is to use a Google Voice number that I don't use for anything other than throwaway stuff like Craigslist, job stuff, etc. It's not presently found on google and I can abandon it if I need to. I'd use a pseudonym, record the call, deny all knowledge of this, and ask her to either file a police report or open a claim with her insurance. My reason for the paranoia is that if she gets my real name, THAT is far less private. It smells like a scam, but at the bare minimum she has my license plate number, make, and model of my car. What's the best course of action here? Assistant:Common scam. Any normal person would have called the cops.

Human: CMV: Most, If Not All, Major Proposed Gun Control Measures in the United States Will Have No Discernible Impact on Crime, and Will Most Likely Do More Harm Than Good In 2018, there were nearly 40,000 gun deaths in the United States each year. Given this, it is not surprising that over 50% of those under 18 and about 1/3 people from the age of 18-24 cite gun violence as their most worrying fear. This has led to many proposals of gun control legislation that I believe to be ineffective or a net harm to gun owners. Now, I think it is important to add that I *don't* believe that people on either side of the isle on the gun control issue in the United States hold their position in bad faith, and I would be open to changing my perspective given appropriate evidence and statistical data. As for my position on gun control, I believe that every major piece of legislation (see each point below) is ineffective (or a net harm to the country), and such proposals should not be on the forefront of politics in the United States given the minor significance (that is not to say I don't sympathize with people who have lost loved ones to any form of violence; I just believe that violent crime is not a major issue in the United States as compared to other countries) of gun violence in the country. # Gun Deaths Are Not a Good Metric for Measuring Gun Violence in the US In 2016, 38,658 people died from firearm related injuries ^(see) **^(Firearm Mortality)** ^(on p.12). Looking at the number of deaths from selected causes in the United States in 2016, there were a total of 44,695 deaths by suicide and 19,362 homicides ^(see) **^(table 6)** ^(on p.35). Of the deaths by suicide, 22,938 were committed by discharge of a firearm. That means that 59.3% of the *total gun deaths* are from suicides, and 51.0% of suicides were committed using firearms. Of the deaths by homicide, 14,415 of them were a result of the discharge of a firearm - meaning 74.4% of all homicides were committed using firearms. Each of the points will be discussed in further detail below. The reason that I am including this to preface the rest of my post is because it is important to remember that the approximately 40,000 deaths by firearms in the United States is not reflective of gun violence, but rather an indication that the United States has a significant mental health problem (though, I will discuss why I believe gun control is not effective in combating suicide). From here on out, I will use the number **15,720 deaths** to quantify gun violence (which includes homicides, unintentional deaths, legal intervention, and undetermined intent) - even though this doesn't described violence, and this is a larger number than what many other sources use. I just want to use it to make a more balanced argument. # Gun Violence Is Not a Good Metric for Comparing Violence Across Countries, and Guns Are Likely Not Responsible for the US's High Homicide Rate A discussion about gun violence domestically in the United States requires the use of gun violence statistics. However, when people try to argue about the US in comparison to other countries, many cite the US's relatively high *gun* violence rate (as compared to other developed countries) as a means to justify their gun control measures. However, given that there are an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 residents in the United States ^(see) **^(table 2)** ^(on p.4 in) **^(Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers)**, it is unsurprising that much of the crime (in this case, homicide) is committed using firearms as compared to other countries. It is more accurate to compare all forms of homicide when discussing the US compared to other countries (as this accounts for mortality \knives are not *as* deadly as guns\]). Here is the US homicide rate compared to all other countries: ​ [Homicide Rate Across the World \(US is in red, light blue is average\) Here is the US compared to developed countries: ​ Homicide Rate Across Developed Countries \(Us is in red\) Seeing these charts alone, even when only comparing homicide rates across developed countries, one may be inclined to believe that guns are responsible for these rates, however I contend that this is untrue. Following is my reasoning for believing that guns are not responsible for high homicide rates. Below is all the developed countries vs. their homicide rate. However, I believe the downward trend (where more guns = less homicide) is slightly misleading for a couple reasons. Firstly, the trend is relatively small, and is likely due to random chance (due to a small sample size - the developed countries). Secondly, countries that have higher homicide rates are likely to institute more gun control to combat the murders, and this may skew the countries with more homicides to have fewer gun ownership. This all leads me to believe that there is no causation between high gun ownership and high homicide rates. I personally believe this is a result of countries' predisposition to high crime and other *non-gun related policies* (gun laws, culture, **geography** etc.) that lead them to have higher homicide rates. (Something to note about this is that it is outdated, and the US actually falls farther to the right of the graph \gun ownership is actually around 120 guns per 100 residents\]) ​ [Firearm Ownership in Developed Countries vs Homicide Rate With all this being said, the US *does* have a higher homicide rate as compared to other countries worldwide, however the significance of it is often exaggerated using gun deaths, and that is misleading. Furthermore, there is little to no correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership in developed countries, and it is unlikely (given the data of other countries) that the US's high gun ownership *causes* its high homicide rate. Moreover, 15%-25% of gun homicides in the US are linked with gang & drug activity - so not being involved with such activities further reduces the (already *very* low \see **Preventable Causes of Death** image under the **Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens** section\]) probability that one would be a victim of gun violence. In reality, guns are most likely not to blame for the US’s raised homicide rate - this is why I believe that gun control will have little to no effect on crime (mainly homicide). It is more likely that the American countries have a generally higher crime rate than their European counterparts, and gun ownership rates in American countries do not have any meaningful correlation with the homicides. # Firearms in the United States Are More Often Used for Self-Defense Than for Crime [48 percent of gun owners in 2013 cited protection (self-defense) as their primary reason for owning a firearm. The right to self defense has been a huge part of US society and culture since the founding of the country. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz published a study about the use of firearms in self-defense (in the US) in **The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology** concluded that there were "about 2.2 to 2.5 million \[defensive gun uses\] of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns" in 1995. The reason that this number is significantly higher than the reported number of defensive uses, is because, in most cases, the firearm is not discharged. Instead, many times, a homeowner simply *showing* a gun to a potential criminal is enough to prevent a crime from occurring (I recommend you read this study, it explains the potential errors in calculations very well). This number is particularly difficult to measure due to this, and this study is outdated (and, since the crime rate in 1995 was higher, there were likely more self-defense incidents). There are other studies that look into self-defense uses, but this study is the most prevalent and most often cited (if someone could link the CDC study, I would appreciate that - I cannot find the original). Given that there are 15,720 deaths (my calculated, relatively liberal statistic), and there are likely over 500,000 (this was the lower bound of the \politicized\] CDC report about self-defense using guns; 22.7% of the lower bound of the Kleck & Gertz study) uses of guns in self-defense. This means that there are likely at least 31.8 times as many self-defense uses of guns as there are violent, criminal uses of guns. In my opinion, the good here significantly outweighs the bad. # Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens All of the prior points lead up to my final point: that all major proposed (and many existing) gun control measures are ineffective, illogical, or harmful. Something that I believe is highly important to consider when legislating is the magnitude of the problem. In reality, gun deaths make a very small portion of preventable deaths, and ultimately this means that legislating for gun violence will likely have minimal effect on the country as a whole. The reason I am mentioning that it has such a small scale is because I think that drastic measures should not be taken for such a small incident (especially if those proposals won't be effective and will hurt people who need to defend themselves). Anyway, here is the breakdown of preventable deaths in the United States (annually): ​ [Preventable Causes of Death in the United States As you can see, firearm deaths are a *very* low percentage of the preventable causes of death in the United States. Going off of numbers, we as a country should be more focused on reducing tobacco usage, countering obesity, preventing alcohol deaths, improving medicine, and improving driving safety in order to save more lives. Anyway, here are some major gun law proposals, and why I believe they are ineffective: **Gun Free Zones:** Anywhere from 13% to 96.2% of Mass Shootings take place in gun-free zones (depending on the definition of "gun-free zone" and "mass shooting"). In my opinion, this doesn't matter, but some people find it important (I am including it for transparency). In reality, a would-be mass shooter is not going to be dissuaded from committing an atrocity because they would face the charge of a possession of a gun within a gun-free zone - that's ridiculous. Gun-free zones only prevent people who abide the law from carrying a gun in those areas. Given the number of defensive uses of firearms in the country, it is likely that these gun-free zones prevent at least some instances of self defense - and do little to deter criminals from committing crime. Some people say that mass shooters target gun-free zones - and, in my opinion, it is insignificant given all the other variables in the situation. But the idea that gun-free zones do anything to prevent crime is (in my opinion) ridiculous, and such laws strictly target people who *already follow the law*. If someone can cite a valid study that shows that law-abiding, trained citizens who conceal carry a weapon are more likely to commit a crime (not get involved in civil lawsuits - almost all cases of self defense result in the victim being sued; I mean murder, unjustified killings, etc.) than protect people, then I would willing to change my view. As for the anecdotal (and logical) argument for why a mass shooter would target gun-free zones, it is pretty simple. A person who plans to commit an atrocity isn't going to shoot up a police department or a shooting range because the criminal knows that someone will shoot back. The criminal is more likely to shoot up an unarmed group of people (and, most likely, a lot of unarmed people will be in gun-free zones). I don't find this argument particularly effective, but it is at least *an* argument. **"Assault Weapons" Ban:** I don't want to debate semantics, but for the purpose of this discussion I will use the definition of "assault weapon" from the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Also, I will use this 1994 ban as the subject of my criticism of all Assault Weapons bans. My main criticism is that this ban is based entirely on cosmetics, and not the function of the gun. A "barrel shroud" (which is better described as a hand-guard), a vertical grip, a forward assist (which has nothing to do with firing fast - basically, it forces the bolt-carrier group forward when there is something such as dirt blocking it from doing so), and pistol grips all do nothing to change the function of the rifle, and are entirely cosmetic. The gun fires the same (semi-automatic, meaning one bullet is fired per action of the trigger) with or without all of these features. The fact that these "look" dangerous is why I believe they are subject to ban, not because they actually permit the gun to do anything different. This is why I consider this very bad policy. In order to change my view on this, I would like to see evidence as to *why* these different aspects *should* be banned. Also, I think it is important to mention that *all* rifles (in 2016) were used in 374 rifles were used in homicides (as opposed to 7105 with handguns) (though it is important to note that 3077 firearm types were unspecified) were used in homicides. Going after all rifles to reduce gun violence (of which so called "assault weapons" make up an even smaller portion of these homicides) is illogical. Instead, if one were to base their policy on what *most* crimes are committed using, they would focus on handguns. Either way, I don't believe either should be targeted given the small magnitude (though I am not dismissing the loss of life) of the scale of the problem. **Waiting Periods for Purchasing:** My main issue with this legislation is that could prevent people who need a firearm from getting it when they need it. I don't think it would affect *most* gun owners, but I am concerned that someone who is being targeted (potentially someone in fear of being followed by a stalker or someone who has received threats) would be prevented from getting a self-defense weapon in time to defend themselves. I cannot find a statistic regarding how many times this could happen (because it would be difficult if not impossible to measure), and I would be interested to see how a waiting period impacts crime. I would like to see an analysis on the impact on crime vs. the impact on people's ability to get a self-defense weapon on time in order for me to change my view. **"*****Universal*****" Background Checks:** This sounds good on paper. I believe that all firearm sales from an FFL should have a background check (which is currently the status quo). That being said, requiring it for individual transfers/gifts would be impossible to regulate. How could the government know when a grandfather gives his childhood rifle to his grandson - nobody would report this transaction to the government, and a crime would be committed (which, in reality, would be a victimless crime). I would be willing to change my mind if someone could propose how to regulate non-FFL transfers without incriminating people who have no intent of committing a crime. **Gun Registry/High Capacity Magazines:** I believe that this is a dangerous, ineffective proposal. I don't want to rant about gun confiscation, but I cannot help but think of that when any form of a gun registry is proposed. I cannot think of any reason that a governing body would need to know who has guns unless they plan on confiscating them at some point. If you advocate for a confiscation - I urge you to look at Nazi Germany, the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cuba, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, South Sedan, and Venezuela. Gun confiscations are a recipe for government overreach. That all being said, it would impossible to get a comprehensive gun registry in the United States. I don't have a source for the percentage, but I can tell you that a massive portion (if not all) of the gun owners (that I know) will not register any of their guns with the government. All that this type of law will do is incriminate a lot of gun owners. Not to mention that criminals (who already can't legally own their guns) *obviously* won't register them. There will be millions of unregistered weapons, and criminals would still be able to get their hand on them regardless of whether or not there is a gun registry. The reason that I included the proposed ban on high capacity magazines under this section is because there are literally 10's of millions (if not more) that exist in the US - and the government does not know who owns them. I can't find a specific source of how many there are, however there are approximately 5 to 10 million AR-15 style rifles that exist in the United States. If we assume that for each gun, an owner has 2 "high capacity" (10+ rounds per magazine) magazines (which is likely higher because many people who own these types of guns stockpile these magazines because they fear that they will be banned), there are somewhere around 10-20 million AR-15 high capacity magazines in circulation. This is only the number of AR-15 style magazines, and does not include other semi-automatic rifle high capacity magazines or pistol magazines with more than 10 rounds (a large portion of modern handguns have magazines of this size). This all means that there are well over 10-20 million high capacity magazines in circulation, most of which will not be turned over in the case of a confiscation (not to mention, the government will not be able to do anything about it because the owners of these magazines are unregistered/unknown - they can only punish people who they catch). This means, that if a mass shooter wanted one (even if they were banned and a confiscation attempt was made), it would be easy for them to get (comparable to drugs in the US - they are banned, but their prevalence makes them easy to get). In order for me to change my mind on this, there would have to be significant evidence that this would improve the safety of the country, and a demonstration of how this is possible would be important in my consideration. ​ Overall, I am ignoring the implications of these laws as they relate to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (mainly because I think that is an uninteresting debate - always the same), however I am instead basing my beliefs on statistical evidence and logical steps (based on statistically justifiable premises). I believe that all of these would have minimal impact on preventing gun violence, and have a net harm on law-abiding gun owners. If someone can justify their position with more accurate/precise statistics or demonstrate why these proposals would have any major impact on gun violence in the United States (and wouldn't have a net harm on people who require guns for self-defense), I am very willing to reconsider my views. Assistant:You believe that the data when looked at in full context will show your view, and fair enough. However, there isn’t a lot of good independent research on gun violence because lobbying efforts have prevented federal funding for high quality studies around those topics. Very generally, it has been proponents of gun control that want more studies examining the topic and groups opposed who are blocking it. Why do you think this is? Gun manufacturers would have very strong financial incentives to push for more research if they believed (as you do) that the research would support their positions, and yet they oppose additional research fiercely. Would you agree that this implies that they believe (as much as a broad organization can have a unified belief) that additional research would not support your view?

Human: CMV: Most, If Not All, Major Proposed Gun Control Measures in the United States Will Have No Discernible Impact on Crime, and Will Most Likely Do More Harm Than Good In 2018, there were nearly 40,000 gun deaths in the United States each year. Given this, it is not surprising that over 50% of those under 18 and about 1/3 people from the age of 18-24 cite gun violence as their most worrying fear. This has led to many proposals of gun control legislation that I believe to be ineffective or a net harm to gun owners. Now, I think it is important to add that I *don't* believe that people on either side of the isle on the gun control issue in the United States hold their position in bad faith, and I would be open to changing my perspective given appropriate evidence and statistical data. As for my position on gun control, I believe that every major piece of legislation (see each point below) is ineffective (or a net harm to the country), and such proposals should not be on the forefront of politics in the United States given the minor significance (that is not to say I don't sympathize with people who have lost loved ones to any form of violence; I just believe that violent crime is not a major issue in the United States as compared to other countries) of gun violence in the country. # Gun Deaths Are Not a Good Metric for Measuring Gun Violence in the US In 2016, 38,658 people died from firearm related injuries ^(see) **^(Firearm Mortality)** ^(on p.12). Looking at the number of deaths from selected causes in the United States in 2016, there were a total of 44,695 deaths by suicide and 19,362 homicides ^(see) **^(table 6)** ^(on p.35). Of the deaths by suicide, 22,938 were committed by discharge of a firearm. That means that 59.3% of the *total gun deaths* are from suicides, and 51.0% of suicides were committed using firearms. Of the deaths by homicide, 14,415 of them were a result of the discharge of a firearm - meaning 74.4% of all homicides were committed using firearms. Each of the points will be discussed in further detail below. The reason that I am including this to preface the rest of my post is because it is important to remember that the approximately 40,000 deaths by firearms in the United States is not reflective of gun violence, but rather an indication that the United States has a significant mental health problem (though, I will discuss why I believe gun control is not effective in combating suicide). From here on out, I will use the number **15,720 deaths** to quantify gun violence (which includes homicides, unintentional deaths, legal intervention, and undetermined intent) - even though this doesn't described violence, and this is a larger number than what many other sources use. I just want to use it to make a more balanced argument. # Gun Violence Is Not a Good Metric for Comparing Violence Across Countries, and Guns Are Likely Not Responsible for the US's High Homicide Rate A discussion about gun violence domestically in the United States requires the use of gun violence statistics. However, when people try to argue about the US in comparison to other countries, many cite the US's relatively high *gun* violence rate (as compared to other developed countries) as a means to justify their gun control measures. However, given that there are an estimated 120.5 firearms per 100 residents in the United States ^(see) **^(table 2)** ^(on p.4 in) **^(Estimating Global Civilian-held Firearms Numbers)**, it is unsurprising that much of the crime (in this case, homicide) is committed using firearms as compared to other countries. It is more accurate to compare all forms of homicide when discussing the US compared to other countries (as this accounts for mortality \knives are not *as* deadly as guns\]). Here is the US homicide rate compared to all other countries: ​ [Homicide Rate Across the World \(US is in red, light blue is average\) Here is the US compared to developed countries: ​ Homicide Rate Across Developed Countries \(Us is in red\) Seeing these charts alone, even when only comparing homicide rates across developed countries, one may be inclined to believe that guns are responsible for these rates, however I contend that this is untrue. Following is my reasoning for believing that guns are not responsible for high homicide rates. Below is all the developed countries vs. their homicide rate. However, I believe the downward trend (where more guns = less homicide) is slightly misleading for a couple reasons. Firstly, the trend is relatively small, and is likely due to random chance (due to a small sample size - the developed countries). Secondly, countries that have higher homicide rates are likely to institute more gun control to combat the murders, and this may skew the countries with more homicides to have fewer gun ownership. This all leads me to believe that there is no causation between high gun ownership and high homicide rates. I personally believe this is a result of countries' predisposition to high crime and other *non-gun related policies* (gun laws, culture, **geography** etc.) that lead them to have higher homicide rates. (Something to note about this is that it is outdated, and the US actually falls farther to the right of the graph \gun ownership is actually around 120 guns per 100 residents\]) ​ [Firearm Ownership in Developed Countries vs Homicide Rate With all this being said, the US *does* have a higher homicide rate as compared to other countries worldwide, however the significance of it is often exaggerated using gun deaths, and that is misleading. Furthermore, there is little to no correlation between homicide rate and gun ownership in developed countries, and it is unlikely (given the data of other countries) that the US's high gun ownership *causes* its high homicide rate. Moreover, 15%-25% of gun homicides in the US are linked with gang & drug activity - so not being involved with such activities further reduces the (already *very* low \see **Preventable Causes of Death** image under the **Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens** section\]) probability that one would be a victim of gun violence. In reality, guns are most likely not to blame for the US’s raised homicide rate - this is why I believe that gun control will have little to no effect on crime (mainly homicide). It is more likely that the American countries have a generally higher crime rate than their European counterparts, and gun ownership rates in American countries do not have any meaningful correlation with the homicides. # Firearms in the United States Are More Often Used for Self-Defense Than for Crime [48 percent of gun owners in 2013 cited protection (self-defense) as their primary reason for owning a firearm. The right to self defense has been a huge part of US society and culture since the founding of the country. Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz published a study about the use of firearms in self-defense (in the US) in **The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology** concluded that there were "about 2.2 to 2.5 million \[defensive gun uses\] of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns" in 1995. The reason that this number is significantly higher than the reported number of defensive uses, is because, in most cases, the firearm is not discharged. Instead, many times, a homeowner simply *showing* a gun to a potential criminal is enough to prevent a crime from occurring (I recommend you read this study, it explains the potential errors in calculations very well). This number is particularly difficult to measure due to this, and this study is outdated (and, since the crime rate in 1995 was higher, there were likely more self-defense incidents). There are other studies that look into self-defense uses, but this study is the most prevalent and most often cited (if someone could link the CDC study, I would appreciate that - I cannot find the original). Given that there are 15,720 deaths (my calculated, relatively liberal statistic), and there are likely over 500,000 (this was the lower bound of the \politicized\] CDC report about self-defense using guns; 22.7% of the lower bound of the Kleck & Gertz study) uses of guns in self-defense. This means that there are likely at least 31.8 times as many self-defense uses of guns as there are violent, criminal uses of guns. In my opinion, the good here significantly outweighs the bad. # Gun Control Is Either Ineffective or a Net Harm to Citizens All of the prior points lead up to my final point: that all major proposed (and many existing) gun control measures are ineffective, illogical, or harmful. Something that I believe is highly important to consider when legislating is the magnitude of the problem. In reality, gun deaths make a very small portion of preventable deaths, and ultimately this means that legislating for gun violence will likely have minimal effect on the country as a whole. The reason I am mentioning that it has such a small scale is because I think that drastic measures should not be taken for such a small incident (especially if those proposals won't be effective and will hurt people who need to defend themselves). Anyway, here is the breakdown of preventable deaths in the United States (annually): ​ [Preventable Causes of Death in the United States As you can see, firearm deaths are a *very* low percentage of the preventable causes of death in the United States. Going off of numbers, we as a country should be more focused on reducing tobacco usage, countering obesity, preventing alcohol deaths, improving medicine, and improving driving safety in order to save more lives. Anyway, here are some major gun law proposals, and why I believe they are ineffective: **Gun Free Zones:** Anywhere from 13% to 96.2% of Mass Shootings take place in gun-free zones (depending on the definition of "gun-free zone" and "mass shooting"). In my opinion, this doesn't matter, but some people find it important (I am including it for transparency). In reality, a would-be mass shooter is not going to be dissuaded from committing an atrocity because they would face the charge of a possession of a gun within a gun-free zone - that's ridiculous. Gun-free zones only prevent people who abide the law from carrying a gun in those areas. Given the number of defensive uses of firearms in the country, it is likely that these gun-free zones prevent at least some instances of self defense - and do little to deter criminals from committing crime. Some people say that mass shooters target gun-free zones - and, in my opinion, it is insignificant given all the other variables in the situation. But the idea that gun-free zones do anything to prevent crime is (in my opinion) ridiculous, and such laws strictly target people who *already follow the law*. If someone can cite a valid study that shows that law-abiding, trained citizens who conceal carry a weapon are more likely to commit a crime (not get involved in civil lawsuits - almost all cases of self defense result in the victim being sued; I mean murder, unjustified killings, etc.) than protect people, then I would willing to change my view. As for the anecdotal (and logical) argument for why a mass shooter would target gun-free zones, it is pretty simple. A person who plans to commit an atrocity isn't going to shoot up a police department or a shooting range because the criminal knows that someone will shoot back. The criminal is more likely to shoot up an unarmed group of people (and, most likely, a lot of unarmed people will be in gun-free zones). I don't find this argument particularly effective, but it is at least *an* argument. **"Assault Weapons" Ban:** I don't want to debate semantics, but for the purpose of this discussion I will use the definition of "assault weapon" from the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Also, I will use this 1994 ban as the subject of my criticism of all Assault Weapons bans. My main criticism is that this ban is based entirely on cosmetics, and not the function of the gun. A "barrel shroud" (which is better described as a hand-guard), a vertical grip, a forward assist (which has nothing to do with firing fast - basically, it forces the bolt-carrier group forward when there is something such as dirt blocking it from doing so), and pistol grips all do nothing to change the function of the rifle, and are entirely cosmetic. The gun fires the same (semi-automatic, meaning one bullet is fired per action of the trigger) with or without all of these features. The fact that these "look" dangerous is why I believe they are subject to ban, not because they actually permit the gun to do anything different. This is why I consider this very bad policy. In order to change my view on this, I would like to see evidence as to *why* these different aspects *should* be banned. Also, I think it is important to mention that *all* rifles (in 2016) were used in 374 rifles were used in homicides (as opposed to 7105 with handguns) (though it is important to note that 3077 firearm types were unspecified) were used in homicides. Going after all rifles to reduce gun violence (of which so called "assault weapons" make up an even smaller portion of these homicides) is illogical. Instead, if one were to base their policy on what *most* crimes are committed using, they would focus on handguns. Either way, I don't believe either should be targeted given the small magnitude (though I am not dismissing the loss of life) of the scale of the problem. **Waiting Periods for Purchasing:** My main issue with this legislation is that could prevent people who need a firearm from getting it when they need it. I don't think it would affect *most* gun owners, but I am concerned that someone who is being targeted (potentially someone in fear of being followed by a stalker or someone who has received threats) would be prevented from getting a self-defense weapon in time to defend themselves. I cannot find a statistic regarding how many times this could happen (because it would be difficult if not impossible to measure), and I would be interested to see how a waiting period impacts crime. I would like to see an analysis on the impact on crime vs. the impact on people's ability to get a self-defense weapon on time in order for me to change my view. **"*****Universal*****" Background Checks:** This sounds good on paper. I believe that all firearm sales from an FFL should have a background check (which is currently the status quo). That being said, requiring it for individual transfers/gifts would be impossible to regulate. How could the government know when a grandfather gives his childhood rifle to his grandson - nobody would report this transaction to the government, and a crime would be committed (which, in reality, would be a victimless crime). I would be willing to change my mind if someone could propose how to regulate non-FFL transfers without incriminating people who have no intent of committing a crime. **Gun Registry/High Capacity Magazines:** I believe that this is a dangerous, ineffective proposal. I don't want to rant about gun confiscation, but I cannot help but think of that when any form of a gun registry is proposed. I cannot think of any reason that a governing body would need to know who has guns unless they plan on confiscating them at some point. If you advocate for a confiscation - I urge you to look at Nazi Germany, the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Cuba, Afghanistan, Kenya, Uganda, South Sedan, and Venezuela. Gun confiscations are a recipe for government overreach. That all being said, it would impossible to get a comprehensive gun registry in the United States. I don't have a source for the percentage, but I can tell you that a massive portion (if not all) of the gun owners (that I know) will not register any of their guns with the government. All that this type of law will do is incriminate a lot of gun owners. Not to mention that criminals (who already can't legally own their guns) *obviously* won't register them. There will be millions of unregistered weapons, and criminals would still be able to get their hand on them regardless of whether or not there is a gun registry. The reason that I included the proposed ban on high capacity magazines under this section is because there are literally 10's of millions (if not more) that exist in the US - and the government does not know who owns them. I can't find a specific source of how many there are, however there are approximately 5 to 10 million AR-15 style rifles that exist in the United States. If we assume that for each gun, an owner has 2 "high capacity" (10+ rounds per magazine) magazines (which is likely higher because many people who own these types of guns stockpile these magazines because they fear that they will be banned), there are somewhere around 10-20 million AR-15 high capacity magazines in circulation. This is only the number of AR-15 style magazines, and does not include other semi-automatic rifle high capacity magazines or pistol magazines with more than 10 rounds (a large portion of modern handguns have magazines of this size). This all means that there are well over 10-20 million high capacity magazines in circulation, most of which will not be turned over in the case of a confiscation (not to mention, the government will not be able to do anything about it because the owners of these magazines are unregistered/unknown - they can only punish people who they catch). This means, that if a mass shooter wanted one (even if they were banned and a confiscation attempt was made), it would be easy for them to get (comparable to drugs in the US - they are banned, but their prevalence makes them easy to get). In order for me to change my mind on this, there would have to be significant evidence that this would improve the safety of the country, and a demonstration of how this is possible would be important in my consideration. ​ Overall, I am ignoring the implications of these laws as they relate to the Second Amendment of the Constitution (mainly because I think that is an uninteresting debate - always the same), however I am instead basing my beliefs on statistical evidence and logical steps (based on statistically justifiable premises). I believe that all of these would have minimal impact on preventing gun violence, and have a net harm on law-abiding gun owners. If someone can justify their position with more accurate/precise statistics or demonstrate why these proposals would have any major impact on gun violence in the United States (and wouldn't have a net harm on people who require guns for self-defense), I am very willing to reconsider my views. Assistant:I skimmed your specifics. My only issue is your opposition to waiting periods and background checks. Waiting periods having any impact on self defense doesn't really hold water for me. If you need to defend yourself, a new gun that you don't know how to use isn't the best plan if danger is *that* imminent, call the police, stay with a friend, etc. Background checks seem like common sense, too. But, as part of that, there needs to be a permit to purchase. This would indicate that the background check is current and they meet any other requirements as decided by their state. Grandpa shouldn't give junior a gun until he has a minimal amount of training and a background check. And a gang member shouldn't be able to buy a gun off Craigslist.

Human: Turned down for a job, asked what the issues were. Told "your sexuality may be an issue with the atmosphere of the office environment". I finished my degree a little bit ago but was asked by my current employer if I could finish out a project I was very involved in. The project is coming to an end and have been looking for a job that pays better and where I can actually begin using what I've been going to college for. I made it to the third interview that was directly with the head of the division on Wednesday and thought it went extremely well. The previous interviews also went very well and I thought I had this job in the bag until Wednesday, the interview went pretty well with a few odd questions thinking back on it but I brushed it off ass him trying to see what my homelife was like and see if I was available to work OT to meet deadlines etc. Questions along the line of "Do you gave a girlfriend or fiance at home?" "No, but I do have a significant other and he's entirely understanding of the importantance of finishing up a project on time and correctly" "You have a boyfriend? You seemed very masculine, very well let's move on" and more basic questions ending in "We have a lot of office/family events, would your boyfriend be joining us?" "Yes, of course he would if he was available". Now I brushed this off mostly due to the age of this man, he's in his 50s and while people can be really understanding about gay relationships sometimes older individuals just word things a bit differently and not entirely "PC" but generally mean well overall. Today I received a call from HR thanking me for my time however I am not being offered a position at this time. I tried to do the most professional thing and ask them what their policies are on reapplying within the company for other positions etc in the field because I really do want to work there, feel like I'd be a fit blah blah blah. HR was really nice and explained all their policies and then gave me the head of the divisions email so I could connect with him a bit more. Okay! Great, I can reach out and ask him about other positions or possibilities in the future and network a bit. So I sent him an email earlier in the day thanking him for his time and politely asking about other positions and very nicely asking is there anything I could have improved on or can work on currently to make myself more suited for the company. What I got back was quite different than I was expecting. He very nicely answered everything then at the end in regards to my question about being more suited to the company sent back this "Your sexuality may be an issue with the atmosphere of the office environment I have helped create here. Thank you for your interest in (company) however I will not be able to have you work in my department now or in the future." I sent him an email to his company email and received the response from his company email. I've never been actually really discriminated against due to being gay in such a way in a professional setting. I'm not super flamboyant or shout out that I am gay at every turn, I'm quite masculine and it really throws people off when they find out that I'm gay. Do I contact a higher up in the company about this? I'm perfectly suited for what they were looking for, right experience and degree and even know a handful of the people I would be working with and they sent emails to HR recommending me. I feel he directly didn't hire me because I am gay. What are my options here? This is a large company that's multinational and located in Seattle, WA. Assistant:If you have him admitting you didn't get the job because of your sexuality (close enough to "sexual orientation") you've got a unicorn. Think about how many gay people were discriminated against without any evidence -- usually people are smart enough not to say stuff like this. You have many avenues to pursue this, including a lawsuit. You could also contact the Seattle Human Rights Commission; they have powerful contacts in the city government and might be able to encourage positive change at the company such as better training for hiring managers.

Human: Turned down for a job, asked what the issues were. Told "your sexuality may be an issue with the atmosphere of the office environment". I finished my degree a little bit ago but was asked by my current employer if I could finish out a project I was very involved in. The project is coming to an end and have been looking for a job that pays better and where I can actually begin using what I've been going to college for. I made it to the third interview that was directly with the head of the division on Wednesday and thought it went extremely well. The previous interviews also went very well and I thought I had this job in the bag until Wednesday, the interview went pretty well with a few odd questions thinking back on it but I brushed it off ass him trying to see what my homelife was like and see if I was available to work OT to meet deadlines etc. Questions along the line of "Do you gave a girlfriend or fiance at home?" "No, but I do have a significant other and he's entirely understanding of the importantance of finishing up a project on time and correctly" "You have a boyfriend? You seemed very masculine, very well let's move on" and more basic questions ending in "We have a lot of office/family events, would your boyfriend be joining us?" "Yes, of course he would if he was available". Now I brushed this off mostly due to the age of this man, he's in his 50s and while people can be really understanding about gay relationships sometimes older individuals just word things a bit differently and not entirely "PC" but generally mean well overall. Today I received a call from HR thanking me for my time however I am not being offered a position at this time. I tried to do the most professional thing and ask them what their policies are on reapplying within the company for other positions etc in the field because I really do want to work there, feel like I'd be a fit blah blah blah. HR was really nice and explained all their policies and then gave me the head of the divisions email so I could connect with him a bit more. Okay! Great, I can reach out and ask him about other positions or possibilities in the future and network a bit. So I sent him an email earlier in the day thanking him for his time and politely asking about other positions and very nicely asking is there anything I could have improved on or can work on currently to make myself more suited for the company. What I got back was quite different than I was expecting. He very nicely answered everything then at the end in regards to my question about being more suited to the company sent back this "Your sexuality may be an issue with the atmosphere of the office environment I have helped create here. Thank you for your interest in (company) however I will not be able to have you work in my department now or in the future." I sent him an email to his company email and received the response from his company email. I've never been actually really discriminated against due to being gay in such a way in a professional setting. I'm not super flamboyant or shout out that I am gay at every turn, I'm quite masculine and it really throws people off when they find out that I'm gay. Do I contact a higher up in the company about this? I'm perfectly suited for what they were looking for, right experience and degree and even know a handful of the people I would be working with and they sent emails to HR recommending me. I feel he directly didn't hire me because I am gay. What are my options here? This is a large company that's multinational and located in Seattle, WA. Assistant:I am not a lawyer: I read all of your replies, and I completely understand how you want to go into your first job based on your merit and not a lawsuit. Bravo! If you found out that your boyfriend/family member/friend was denied a job because of something illegal, what you say? You said that this is a big multinational company and I’m sure they would not like the negative press from illegal hiring processes. I would be surprised if this went to court and your name was brought out. There could also be an NDA accompanied with everything. I think talking to a lawyer is a great first step, as they will be able to walk you through what exactly will/should happen and how they can protect you. Remember, what the company did was illegal and not your fault. We have these laws to protect everyone from not having a fair shot at employment.

Human: CMV: The obligation to "state your pronouns" creates an emphasis on gender in a world that would probably benefit from de-emphasizing it I labored over the title and I apologize if it sounds too harsh. It's hard to put into a single sentence. It is very common in the social and professional circles I find myself in these days to go in a circle and all state our pronouns at the beginning of a meeting. I feel happiest when I can minimize the necessity to talk about my gender identity at all -- I don't see the need for rigid definitions, I don't see myself as strictly male or female, and I would prefer to live in a world where, socially, these distinctions mattered less over time rather than more. I understand that for some people, their gender identity feels very integral to who they are as a person, and while I don't understand what that feels like, I respect that it's a way that some people feel. I understand that we go in a circle and all say our pronouns so that someone with a different pronoun won't feel called out or put on the spot having to bring it up. I understand the goal is to make it a safe space where people of all identities feel welcome. But it also feels like there's less and less room to opt out of this mode of self-identifying. Must we \*all\* feel such a strong attachment to our gender that we need to state it at the top of every meeting? Personally, I'd love to get away from the emphasis our society places on gender altogether. But we're just talking about it with such increasing specificity that I start to feel like we're just emphasizing gender MORE. I'm not interested in identifying as "non-binary," I would never ask someone to use a word like "they" as my pronouns, though I don't care if that's how someone refers to me. I'm supportive when that's how someone else chooses to identify, but I'm not interested in asking people to do this. I feel like it's just asking someone to spend more time thinking about my gender rather than less. And introducing myself as "she" or "he" just feels disingenuous. I must be missing something. Is this just the awkward phase we have to go to in order to get to the part where our gender doesn't have to define us? Or do most people prefer the idea of a world where gender is explicitly discussed (not in a binary but certainly still with labels) forever after? Is there a good side to that which I'm not seeing? Assistant:>It is very common in the social and professional circles I find myself in these days to go in a circle and all state our pronouns at the beginning of a meeting. I feel happiest when I can minimize the necessity to talk about my gender identity at all -- I don't see the need for rigid definitions, I don't see myself as strictly male or female, and I would prefer to live in a world where, socially, these distinctions mattered less over time rather than more. When you say "male or female", you mean "man or woman" no? Or was you switch between sex and gender intentional? did you mean something else? > Must we \*all\* feel such a strong attachment to our gender that we need to state it at the top of every meeting? > I'm not interested in identifying as "non-binary," I would never ask someone to use a word like "they" as my pronouns, though I don't care if that's how someone refers to me. [...] And introducing myself as "she" or "he" just feels disingenous You can legit just say "Hi, I'm WordPain, I have no pronoun preference". Might trip up a few people, especially at first. But that's literally what I went with before I realised that non-binary counts as trans. Now I go with NB. But you certainly don't have to. >Personally, I'd love to get away from the emphasis our society places on gender altogether. But we're just talking about it with such increasing specificity that I start to feel like we're just emphasizing gender MORE. > Is this just the awkward phase we have to go to in order to get to the part where our gender doesn't have to define us? Yeah I think you have it about right. Thing is, the status quo is not one that's at all ready for gender abolition/elimination gender and gender roles have become so deeply enmeshed in our society, that it's practically impossible to simply default to a gender neutral society without something like this transitionary phrase. Plenty of people are actually non-binary, but since they have no disphoria or other deeper issues with their assumed gender, they just go along life assuming the gender identity they were assigned at birth. the more such people are given the space and opportunity to reflect on and assert themselves as such, the more other people see this as a possible way of being. eventually (hopefully) leading to a society with less gender based restrictions - because we would have decoupled gender expression and assumed gender roles. It's like racism (and homophobia). given that we come from an era of dehumanisation of black people, in order to move into a more equitable society, we need to actively assert the equality of black people (in opposition to their passive dehumanisation by eurocentric society). And so it makes sense that, even in a society that is working to make race relevant, it is still important and necessary to have campaigns like Black Lives Matter (or LGBT+ Pride). (even though, to some people, it may seem like engaging in racial distinction and seperation again) Edit: okay y'all it's midnight. i'm done responding!

Human: CMV: The obligation to "state your pronouns" creates an emphasis on gender in a world that would probably benefit from de-emphasizing it I labored over the title and I apologize if it sounds too harsh. It's hard to put into a single sentence. It is very common in the social and professional circles I find myself in these days to go in a circle and all state our pronouns at the beginning of a meeting. I feel happiest when I can minimize the necessity to talk about my gender identity at all -- I don't see the need for rigid definitions, I don't see myself as strictly male or female, and I would prefer to live in a world where, socially, these distinctions mattered less over time rather than more. I understand that for some people, their gender identity feels very integral to who they are as a person, and while I don't understand what that feels like, I respect that it's a way that some people feel. I understand that we go in a circle and all say our pronouns so that someone with a different pronoun won't feel called out or put on the spot having to bring it up. I understand the goal is to make it a safe space where people of all identities feel welcome. But it also feels like there's less and less room to opt out of this mode of self-identifying. Must we \*all\* feel such a strong attachment to our gender that we need to state it at the top of every meeting? Personally, I'd love to get away from the emphasis our society places on gender altogether. But we're just talking about it with such increasing specificity that I start to feel like we're just emphasizing gender MORE. I'm not interested in identifying as "non-binary," I would never ask someone to use a word like "they" as my pronouns, though I don't care if that's how someone refers to me. I'm supportive when that's how someone else chooses to identify, but I'm not interested in asking people to do this. I feel like it's just asking someone to spend more time thinking about my gender rather than less. And introducing myself as "she" or "he" just feels disingenuous. I must be missing something. Is this just the awkward phase we have to go to in order to get to the part where our gender doesn't have to define us? Or do most people prefer the idea of a world where gender is explicitly discussed (not in a binary but certainly still with labels) forever after? Is there a good side to that which I'm not seeing? Assistant:Would saying “any pronouns are fine with me” work for you? For example, if you’re in the kitchen, is “they are in the kitchen”, “she is in the kitchen” and “he is in the kitchen” all equally acceptable to you?

Human: California: neighbor owns a motorcycle so loud it triggers car alarms. He leaves for work every day 6am...7am blasting loud music. Closing windows doesn't help with the hellish noise. My mental health is affected, and I'm struggling with my work performance. Police won't help. What are my options? It started a few weeks ago. A neighbor bought a motorcycle. Overnight it's parked in the street in front of his house, not far from where I live. Now every work day he leaves for work between 6am and 7am riding the bike. I don't think I've seen a motorcycle louder than this, ever, anywhere. The noise from the exhaust pipes precedes him a couple blocks over. The noise from the car alarms beeping in response is trailing him. It's a deep, rumbling, pulsating noise that penetrates closed windows and even walls. It's far, FAR louder than gas-powered leaf blowers. The bike is loud at any speed; even when idling it sounds like a normal motorcycle at cruising speed. I do not understand how it's possible for an engine to be this loud. I struggle with my sleep schedule now. I had it under control before, I've worked with my doctor and fixed it, but now it's chaos again because of this person. I am tired all the time now and I have a very demanding job; it's hard to stay focused while I'm working because of how tired I am. I need to wake up at 8am, my work day begins at 9am. I need 8 hours of sleep or else I'm in bad shape. My partner, who does not have sleep issues normally, also wakes up early every day now because of the noise. I have not spoken with the neighbors, but I am certain we are not the only ones suffering because of this individual. There are several blocks of residential areas that he goes through before he reaches the freeway. I cannot imagine the havoc he's wreaking with many people's lives. I called police, they said I need to call them when it happens. If I did that, he'd be long gone by the time the info is relayed to the officers. They firmly refused to station a police car on site, despite the fact that it happens every day on a predictable schedule. I taped a paper to his bike, politely explaining the problems he's creating, and the reason for the problems. He took a break for a few days, but maybe it was the bad weather. Or maybe he asked a lawyer. Anyway, now he's at it again, every work day. I live in a rental home. There is a mix of rental and owner homes nearby. The area is relatively prosper and low crime, as is most of the city. What are my legal options? Assistant:Contact your city council member. You’d be surprised how available they are. I contacted mine because of a police officer issue. He contacted the mayor. Forwarded my video along and reached back out to me to follow up.

Human: California: neighbor owns a motorcycle so loud it triggers car alarms. He leaves for work every day 6am...7am blasting loud music. Closing windows doesn't help with the hellish noise. My mental health is affected, and I'm struggling with my work performance. Police won't help. What are my options? It started a few weeks ago. A neighbor bought a motorcycle. Overnight it's parked in the street in front of his house, not far from where I live. Now every work day he leaves for work between 6am and 7am riding the bike. I don't think I've seen a motorcycle louder than this, ever, anywhere. The noise from the exhaust pipes precedes him a couple blocks over. The noise from the car alarms beeping in response is trailing him. It's a deep, rumbling, pulsating noise that penetrates closed windows and even walls. It's far, FAR louder than gas-powered leaf blowers. The bike is loud at any speed; even when idling it sounds like a normal motorcycle at cruising speed. I do not understand how it's possible for an engine to be this loud. I struggle with my sleep schedule now. I had it under control before, I've worked with my doctor and fixed it, but now it's chaos again because of this person. I am tired all the time now and I have a very demanding job; it's hard to stay focused while I'm working because of how tired I am. I need to wake up at 8am, my work day begins at 9am. I need 8 hours of sleep or else I'm in bad shape. My partner, who does not have sleep issues normally, also wakes up early every day now because of the noise. I have not spoken with the neighbors, but I am certain we are not the only ones suffering because of this individual. There are several blocks of residential areas that he goes through before he reaches the freeway. I cannot imagine the havoc he's wreaking with many people's lives. I called police, they said I need to call them when it happens. If I did that, he'd be long gone by the time the info is relayed to the officers. They firmly refused to station a police car on site, despite the fact that it happens every day on a predictable schedule. I taped a paper to his bike, politely explaining the problems he's creating, and the reason for the problems. He took a break for a few days, but maybe it was the bad weather. Or maybe he asked a lawyer. Anyway, now he's at it again, every work day. I live in a rental home. There is a mix of rental and owner homes nearby. The area is relatively prosper and low crime, as is most of the city. What are my legal options? Assistant:Police really aren't the right enforcement agency/arm when it's more of a noise ordinance violation. I'd suggest contacting code enforcement. If you can provide decibel meter recordings/data to back up your complaint, even better.

Human: Co-workers talking about me in secret. Can't catch them in the act. HR thinks I'm nuts. What to do? Hi AskHR I work in law. I am the only african-american in a predominantly asian firm. I work with three other administrative assistants in a center pool, each of us supports two lawyers, though during crunch times we are all expected to work together. I get along great with nearly everyone at the office except for two of the other administrative assistants who have never liked me. They are younger asian women who are tremendous suck-ups and constantly flirt with the male lawyers. Ever since I was hired here they have been extremely condescending to me, treating me like I was *their* secretary rather than an equal. Any time I make a mistake, they always make a big deal about it. They have actually gotten me in serious trouble twice, both times leading to a reprimand over a simple mistake where they could have simply told me I was doing something wrong. I hate them. The AA pool is meant to be quiet when not directly answering phones or working on something directly business related. Recently I noticed these two women have been smirking a lot and more than once they have broken out into laughter seemingly at nothing. We are not allowed to IM or text at work, but I assumed they were doing this anyway somehow. It was only when we were all working on a big load of paperwork for a case together that I noticed what was going on. They were blinking at each other in morse code! I actually know morse, my older brother and I were big into HAM radio and you used to have to take a test on morse to get your amateur first class license. However it had been a long time since I had used morse and they were too fast for me to make out what they were blinking. They are best friends and play a lot of bridge, and I guess this is how they cheat? I wanted to know what they were saying, so I brushed up on morse code that night. (If you want to learn or practice I highly recommend http://aa9pw.com/morsecode/so-you-want-to-learn-morse-code/ ) The next day I paid special attention to them, and then I found I could make out what they were blinking. "OMG SO SLO" and then the other one blinked out "DUMB N**GER" and then they both giggled and went back to work. I was so angry I could not even speak. I had known it couldn't be anything good, but I didn't expect it to be so bad. They kept doing this throughout the day, and I was just boiling with rage. Usually I leave before them but I waited until they went home that night and asked to speak directly to our HR. I was very angry but I thought at least the two would get fired for such flagrant racism. I could not have been more wrong. Our HR manager took their side over mine. She said I was the lowest performing member of the administrative assistant pool, that I had no proof, and that I was on thin ice. I couldn't believe it. I went out and cried in my car for almost an hour. For the next week, I tried several times to get a recording of the two talking bad about me in morse but I am sure the HR lady tipped them off as they have been very covert about it. Then later a memo went out about not using personal cell phones at work, which I'm sure was directed at me. I just don't know what to do at this point. I am sure if I try to go over HR's head to one of the partners I would be terminated. I'm looking for a new job but nothing has happened on that front so far. What can I do if I can't catch them on film doing this? Assistant:To be honest if someone came to me with a story about people blinking in Morse code I would think they may be suffering a paranoid delusion. I'm not saying you're lying, but it does sound... Unique. Other people have given you good advice. And I'm sorry you had a bad experience with HR where they didn't even investigate your claims. I agree that you should keep your head down and look for a new job. In the future, if you experience workplace bullying again, I would suggest going to HR with a calm demeanor and telling them how you feel, not laying down accusations, unless you have proof of something. For example, explain that you feel bullied by certain team members, instead of saying "they talk about me in secret, and I have no proof but I swear they do". When someone walks into my office spitting fire and rage, and making wild accusations with no proof, my warning bells go off. In your current job, it sounds like HR has shut you down, so I would not advise going back to them unless u have solid proof. But don't continue recording them. Just get through this while looking for a new job. Im sorry youre going through this. I hope you find something better.

Human: Co-workers talking about me in secret. Can't catch them in the act. HR thinks I'm nuts. What to do? Hi AskHR I work in law. I am the only african-american in a predominantly asian firm. I work with three other administrative assistants in a center pool, each of us supports two lawyers, though during crunch times we are all expected to work together. I get along great with nearly everyone at the office except for two of the other administrative assistants who have never liked me. They are younger asian women who are tremendous suck-ups and constantly flirt with the male lawyers. Ever since I was hired here they have been extremely condescending to me, treating me like I was *their* secretary rather than an equal. Any time I make a mistake, they always make a big deal about it. They have actually gotten me in serious trouble twice, both times leading to a reprimand over a simple mistake where they could have simply told me I was doing something wrong. I hate them. The AA pool is meant to be quiet when not directly answering phones or working on something directly business related. Recently I noticed these two women have been smirking a lot and more than once they have broken out into laughter seemingly at nothing. We are not allowed to IM or text at work, but I assumed they were doing this anyway somehow. It was only when we were all working on a big load of paperwork for a case together that I noticed what was going on. They were blinking at each other in morse code! I actually know morse, my older brother and I were big into HAM radio and you used to have to take a test on morse to get your amateur first class license. However it had been a long time since I had used morse and they were too fast for me to make out what they were blinking. They are best friends and play a lot of bridge, and I guess this is how they cheat? I wanted to know what they were saying, so I brushed up on morse code that night. (If you want to learn or practice I highly recommend http://aa9pw.com/morsecode/so-you-want-to-learn-morse-code/ ) The next day I paid special attention to them, and then I found I could make out what they were blinking. "OMG SO SLO" and then the other one blinked out "DUMB N**GER" and then they both giggled and went back to work. I was so angry I could not even speak. I had known it couldn't be anything good, but I didn't expect it to be so bad. They kept doing this throughout the day, and I was just boiling with rage. Usually I leave before them but I waited until they went home that night and asked to speak directly to our HR. I was very angry but I thought at least the two would get fired for such flagrant racism. I could not have been more wrong. Our HR manager took their side over mine. She said I was the lowest performing member of the administrative assistant pool, that I had no proof, and that I was on thin ice. I couldn't believe it. I went out and cried in my car for almost an hour. For the next week, I tried several times to get a recording of the two talking bad about me in morse but I am sure the HR lady tipped them off as they have been very covert about it. Then later a memo went out about not using personal cell phones at work, which I'm sure was directed at me. I just don't know what to do at this point. I am sure if I try to go over HR's head to one of the partners I would be terminated. I'm looking for a new job but nothing has happened on that front so far. What can I do if I can't catch them on film doing this? Assistant:You are doing the right thing by looking for a new job. For your office situation, people can be assholes. People can be racist. The major thing to do is keep your nose clean. Ignore them, and be the best employee you can be. Anytime you spend trying to record people blinking morse code is not going to work out for you. First, because you are going to stop doing work to record it. Second, you are not going to get a clean video anyway that would have any evidence. Lastly, and I'm being honest here, it sounds a little far fetched. So, in summary, look for another job while being the best employee they have ever had while ignoring those two juveniles.

Human: Internal Hire was told job paid 100K, offered 30 less. Throw away account... I have a bachelors degree in IT, one in Advertising and Graphic Design, and a masters in UX Development. I have 10+ years of experience. I was hired 2 years ago for a position I was over qualified for, editing simple HTML files in the marketing dept, I took it because I was burnt out/depressed and i needed a reason to get out of bed. Ive been promoted multiple times in the dept already. Recently I applied for a position in the UX team and ended up getting an offer. The position was supposed to pay 100K. I currently make 60K. The offer they came with was 70K. Which puts me well under paid, and I would most def be the least paid person on an all-male team. (I'm a women, I know we get underpaid and under appreciated in the tech world). I tried negotiating and all I got was a hard "No". They are calling it a promotion and they, under their own policies, can only give me a certain % increase. Even though it was told to me during my first interview that the salary was 100K, and this was already in the budget. The skills and knowledge needed for this position in no way match what I do now. Completely different dept, leadership, everything. HR even said they would pay me the 100K if I was an external candidate. The company got bought out by a major, big name company and are in the process of a merger/synchronization of salaries and positions. I asked the HR rep im working with if the salary offered to me fits within the scope/grade that this position falls into. She said she didnt know...i still dont have an answer. I know internal hires get hit with this issue, we have no leverage in negotiation...and I know I can not accept and stay in my mindless job or go to another company and make more money. My main issue is, I was given a number...and they changed the number after I had already been offered the position. Is this ethical? I tried to be as concise and simple as i could in writing this, so im sorry for the huge wall of text. A lot of back and forth has gone on in the last week and I would like it all noted in my HR record that this happened. How would I go about doing that? Just writing a grievance letter and requesting it be put in my record? 100K to 70K is a huge difference. Would appreciate any help...kind of lost on what to do. Assistant:Many companies have stupid internal policies that have a maximum increase allowed with a promotion. This probably has nothing to do with being female and everything to do with taking a low paying job in the first place and now you're stuck in this company. That said, there are always exceptions and I'd go down that route. "Originally, you said you budgeted $100k for this job and you're offering me $70k. That's a big difference. I know there's a company policy of only allowing a maximum pay increase of $10k, but in this situation, the jobs are different and if I were an external hire you'd offer $100k. What can do to get this offer up to market rate?" If that doesn't budge them, I'd pull out the gender card. "There will be a huge salary discrepancy between my coworkers and me. That will look like sex discrimination and when you do your government reporting, it will be clear that the female on the team is underpaid. " If that doesn't work and you want to do the work, take the position and immediately start looking for a company that treats you right.

Human: Internal Hire was told job paid 100K, offered 30 less. Throw away account... I have a bachelors degree in IT, one in Advertising and Graphic Design, and a masters in UX Development. I have 10+ years of experience. I was hired 2 years ago for a position I was over qualified for, editing simple HTML files in the marketing dept, I took it because I was burnt out/depressed and i needed a reason to get out of bed. Ive been promoted multiple times in the dept already. Recently I applied for a position in the UX team and ended up getting an offer. The position was supposed to pay 100K. I currently make 60K. The offer they came with was 70K. Which puts me well under paid, and I would most def be the least paid person on an all-male team. (I'm a women, I know we get underpaid and under appreciated in the tech world). I tried negotiating and all I got was a hard "No". They are calling it a promotion and they, under their own policies, can only give me a certain % increase. Even though it was told to me during my first interview that the salary was 100K, and this was already in the budget. The skills and knowledge needed for this position in no way match what I do now. Completely different dept, leadership, everything. HR even said they would pay me the 100K if I was an external candidate. The company got bought out by a major, big name company and are in the process of a merger/synchronization of salaries and positions. I asked the HR rep im working with if the salary offered to me fits within the scope/grade that this position falls into. She said she didnt know...i still dont have an answer. I know internal hires get hit with this issue, we have no leverage in negotiation...and I know I can not accept and stay in my mindless job or go to another company and make more money. My main issue is, I was given a number...and they changed the number after I had already been offered the position. Is this ethical? I tried to be as concise and simple as i could in writing this, so im sorry for the huge wall of text. A lot of back and forth has gone on in the last week and I would like it all noted in my HR record that this happened. How would I go about doing that? Just writing a grievance letter and requesting it be put in my record? 100K to 70K is a huge difference. Would appreciate any help...kind of lost on what to do. Assistant:Well...you weren’t offered 100k. You were told that the job pays 100k, there’s an important distinction there. Most positions are budgeted UP TO a certain amount. Not getting the max is common. I don’t know that it’s unethical, someone may have just spoken prematurely or out of turn. In the end, if the company’s policies limit the size of the increase then you might just be stuck. You might try a last-ditch effort to see if they’d be willing to commit to an increase after, say, six months upon meeting performance goals. 80k is very low for experienced UX dev, HR acknowledged that when they told you they’d pay 100k for an external candidate, there may be leverage there to get you closer, knowing they’d have to shell it out if they hire from the outside. They may be trying use this opportunity to preserve some of the budget for other positions or purposes. Noting it for your file isn’t really a thing. They don’t have to do that - I’d just keep my own records.

Human: Vet is trying to get me to sign a waiver saying I guilted them into making an exception. Will part ways if I don't comply. I'm going to redact any identifiable information as I'm not in the business of blowing up someone's business on the internet, but I feel like this is worth sharing to understand if I am in the wrong here. We took our dog to the vet we've been seeing for a year last week for vaccines. They said that they wanted to break up the vaccines into two visits to ensure the dog doesn't get upset from the vaccines. Nothing out of the ordinary I suppose and I had no issues with that. They stated that the next appointment would be at the "vet tech" rate which was much cheaper ($60 or so). After the first round of vaccines the dog had what seemed to be an allergic reaction, so we gave her some Benadryl that the vet had previously prescribed. This helped her get to sleep and she was fine the next day. Fast forward a few days to the second appointment, and I told the vet about the reaction. They mentioned that they could give her some Benadryl while she was there this time. I told them no need, as we still had some at home, however, if they felt it was necessary to administer it, then to give me a call and let me know beforehand about the added cost. The vet still requires you to wait in your car (due to covid), so I waited for the call after the appointment and they said the cost for the visit was $180, with an added $60 charge for the Benadryl! This is not the first time they've tacked things on without consent, so I very calmly told them that we've spent thousands of dollars at their clinic over the last year and that I explicitly asked for consent before administering anything if they went that route. I'm always open to paying for their services but I'm not happy to do this without some explanation of why, and an upfront estimate (She stated to me that they can't give estimates, maybe there is a reason for this). She then put me on hold for over 20 minutes, came back, and said she admits to miscommunication and will give me a 20% discount on the Benadryl. I calmly stated that while I appreciate the offer, I don't feel as if they listened to me when I told them I already had the medication at home. She then put me on hold for another 15 minutes, came back, and said "I can give you a 50% discount on the Benadryl". I told them at this point that they can charge what they like, and I just wanted my dog back so I can leave as it had been close to an hour and a half. They had a nurse come out who very aggressively gave me the leash to my crying dog without saying a word and then stormed back inside. Later that night, my partner approached me with an angry email from the vet office staff saying that I tried to guilt them into not paying for treatment and that if I don't sign an attached legal waiver stating I was in the wrong and that I will no longer question their billing practices or guilt them into making "exceptions", that they will have to drop our dog as a patient. Not once did I say I wasn't going to pay, I even told them to charge me whatever they wanted as I just wanted to leave. I'm going to stand by the fact that I was calm, collected, and simply asked them to be upfront with me about this. By cc'ing my partner they caused even more issues for me. A lot more issues (maybe that was their intention, who knows). I don't really have a problem signing the waiver, as being right or wrong about $60 is not worth the time or effort, however, I want to know what my options are in terms of getting some kind of transparency from them for their services without striking their seeming sensitive nerves around money. Is this normal behavior? I've never encountered this before really at any business Assistant:Sounds like all parties are better off if you find a new clinic.

Human: Vet is trying to get me to sign a waiver saying I guilted them into making an exception. Will part ways if I don't comply. I'm going to redact any identifiable information as I'm not in the business of blowing up someone's business on the internet, but I feel like this is worth sharing to understand if I am in the wrong here. We took our dog to the vet we've been seeing for a year last week for vaccines. They said that they wanted to break up the vaccines into two visits to ensure the dog doesn't get upset from the vaccines. Nothing out of the ordinary I suppose and I had no issues with that. They stated that the next appointment would be at the "vet tech" rate which was much cheaper ($60 or so). After the first round of vaccines the dog had what seemed to be an allergic reaction, so we gave her some Benadryl that the vet had previously prescribed. This helped her get to sleep and she was fine the next day. Fast forward a few days to the second appointment, and I told the vet about the reaction. They mentioned that they could give her some Benadryl while she was there this time. I told them no need, as we still had some at home, however, if they felt it was necessary to administer it, then to give me a call and let me know beforehand about the added cost. The vet still requires you to wait in your car (due to covid), so I waited for the call after the appointment and they said the cost for the visit was $180, with an added $60 charge for the Benadryl! This is not the first time they've tacked things on without consent, so I very calmly told them that we've spent thousands of dollars at their clinic over the last year and that I explicitly asked for consent before administering anything if they went that route. I'm always open to paying for their services but I'm not happy to do this without some explanation of why, and an upfront estimate (She stated to me that they can't give estimates, maybe there is a reason for this). She then put me on hold for over 20 minutes, came back, and said she admits to miscommunication and will give me a 20% discount on the Benadryl. I calmly stated that while I appreciate the offer, I don't feel as if they listened to me when I told them I already had the medication at home. She then put me on hold for another 15 minutes, came back, and said "I can give you a 50% discount on the Benadryl". I told them at this point that they can charge what they like, and I just wanted my dog back so I can leave as it had been close to an hour and a half. They had a nurse come out who very aggressively gave me the leash to my crying dog without saying a word and then stormed back inside. Later that night, my partner approached me with an angry email from the vet office staff saying that I tried to guilt them into not paying for treatment and that if I don't sign an attached legal waiver stating I was in the wrong and that I will no longer question their billing practices or guilt them into making "exceptions", that they will have to drop our dog as a patient. Not once did I say I wasn't going to pay, I even told them to charge me whatever they wanted as I just wanted to leave. I'm going to stand by the fact that I was calm, collected, and simply asked them to be upfront with me about this. By cc'ing my partner they caused even more issues for me. A lot more issues (maybe that was their intention, who knows). I don't really have a problem signing the waiver, as being right or wrong about $60 is not worth the time or effort, however, I want to know what my options are in terms of getting some kind of transparency from them for their services without striking their seeming sensitive nerves around money. Is this normal behavior? I've never encountered this before really at any business Assistant:A nurse was aggressive while returning your crying dog? Any vet that doesn’t treat my animals right would be my former vet. Not sure about your situation but, a few red flags that would have me seriously considering if it isn’t time to move on. Hopefully you’re in an area w a decent number of other vets. Best wishes for you and your pup

Human: The use of "harassment" and "bullying" in post titles in this sub is a bit out of hand. I've been in this sub for a while now and participate here and there, but the use of the words "harassment" and "bullying" in posts INCORRECTLY is a bit frustrating. While certain treatments can *feel* like bullying or harassment, there are very specific legal definitions for these terms in a Human Resources / Employment Law sense and it's hard to give good, sound advice when these are used so improperly to describe scenarios. I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but I find sometimes I catch myself wanting to correct the language used because it will impact the response I give, but that detracts from a good response because no one wants to be constantly corrected when they're frustrated with a situation already. I appreciate that writing "Blah blah blah incorrect use of that term blah blah" is obnoxious, but from an HR perspective, these words have certain legal ramifications and it's really critical to use them correctly as the process followed can differ whether someone just has a "jerk" of a boss / co-worker, or if they are facing bullying, harassment or discrimination from a legal perspective. **HARASSMENT (def.)\*\*** Someone makes unwelcome remarks or jokes about your race, religion, sex, age, disability or any other of the grounds of discrimination; threatens or intimidates you because of your race, religion, sex, age, disability or any other of the grounds of discrimination; makes unwelcome physical contact with you, such as touching, patting, or pinching. **BULLYING (def.)\*\*** Bullying is generally defined as an **intentional** act that causes harm to others, and may involve verbal harassment, verbal or non-verbal threats, physical assault, etc. \*\*There are variations to these definitions and most workplaces have clearly defined definitions as to what constitutes bullying and harassment, but they generally follow the above definitions. **WHAT IS NOT BULLYING OR HARASSMENT (in 90% of cases)** \- Colleagues or a supervisor being rude, abrupt, sarcastic, mean, angry, or otherwise generally jerk-ish \- Someone complaining about you to a supervisor or their colleagues, even if they complain in a way that is shitty \- Your boss asking you to do tasks, micromanaging you, or sending you snarky emails **In Summary** I'm not saying the non-bullying or harassment situations are pleasant, ethical, or a good thing. But if someone writes a post title like "My boss is harassing me" the responses should be tailored to the mostly legal protocol that should be followed as it relates to human rights violations - not responses tailored to a post where your boss is a jerk and you should find a new job. Those are two very different situations. I think the casual misuse of these terms is problematic because it really reduces the severity of people who are facing actual discrimination on the basis of race, gender or another protected class. **And lastly...** On almost every single post I see, at least one commenter will remind OP that HR has a responsibility to protect THE COMPANY from a legal perspective, not necessarily advocate for employees (although good HR should do that). Advocating and supporting employees is the mandated role of union reps, EFAPs, federations, associations and other bodies dedicated especially to do such things. NOT HR! I would love to see moderation of this sub tweaked so that posters have greater clarity about who is answering in this sub (HR profs) and what types of answers we're going to give because I think a lot of great advice is wasted on regurgitating the same remarks over and over again when posters don't really understand the role of HR. **DISCLAIMER \[aka please be nice to me\]** Yes, I am speaking in general terms here. Yes, there are many variations of harassment. No, I am not intending to invalidate anyone's experience and posts where an employee is facing mistreatment should still be welcome in this sub regardless of whether or not they meet the legal definitions of B&H. Yes, different countries have different rules. No, I'm not trying to complain about this sub, I really like it and I'm suggesting a few modifications to make it better. :) :) :) If my tone comes across as 'angry,' I'm really passionate about the topic, so please read it enthusiastically and not like yelling. Assistant:I absolutely agree with you, but do remember that people are coming here to anonymously ask an HR professional for help. They clearly don't have anyone else to ask about employment relations, legislation etc and I imagine very few of them have spent time on this sub beforehand. I also spend time in r/legaladviceUK and the number of people 'advising' that OP has been discriminated against for something that isn't protected is staggering, but on the whole people responding here tend to know what they're talking about. Maybe we need an FAQ and a reminder to read it before posting. But then as you say, laws are different in different countries! I'd also like to see more flairs too on each commenter which will explain their professional (or lack of) background.

Human: The use of "harassment" and "bullying" in post titles in this sub is a bit out of hand. I've been in this sub for a while now and participate here and there, but the use of the words "harassment" and "bullying" in posts INCORRECTLY is a bit frustrating. While certain treatments can *feel* like bullying or harassment, there are very specific legal definitions for these terms in a Human Resources / Employment Law sense and it's hard to give good, sound advice when these are used so improperly to describe scenarios. I'm not sure if others feel the same way, but I find sometimes I catch myself wanting to correct the language used because it will impact the response I give, but that detracts from a good response because no one wants to be constantly corrected when they're frustrated with a situation already. I appreciate that writing "Blah blah blah incorrect use of that term blah blah" is obnoxious, but from an HR perspective, these words have certain legal ramifications and it's really critical to use them correctly as the process followed can differ whether someone just has a "jerk" of a boss / co-worker, or if they are facing bullying, harassment or discrimination from a legal perspective. **HARASSMENT (def.)\*\*** Someone makes unwelcome remarks or jokes about your race, religion, sex, age, disability or any other of the grounds of discrimination; threatens or intimidates you because of your race, religion, sex, age, disability or any other of the grounds of discrimination; makes unwelcome physical contact with you, such as touching, patting, or pinching. **BULLYING (def.)\*\*** Bullying is generally defined as an **intentional** act that causes harm to others, and may involve verbal harassment, verbal or non-verbal threats, physical assault, etc. \*\*There are variations to these definitions and most workplaces have clearly defined definitions as to what constitutes bullying and harassment, but they generally follow the above definitions. **WHAT IS NOT BULLYING OR HARASSMENT (in 90% of cases)** \- Colleagues or a supervisor being rude, abrupt, sarcastic, mean, angry, or otherwise generally jerk-ish \- Someone complaining about you to a supervisor or their colleagues, even if they complain in a way that is shitty \- Your boss asking you to do tasks, micromanaging you, or sending you snarky emails **In Summary** I'm not saying the non-bullying or harassment situations are pleasant, ethical, or a good thing. But if someone writes a post title like "My boss is harassing me" the responses should be tailored to the mostly legal protocol that should be followed as it relates to human rights violations - not responses tailored to a post where your boss is a jerk and you should find a new job. Those are two very different situations. I think the casual misuse of these terms is problematic because it really reduces the severity of people who are facing actual discrimination on the basis of race, gender or another protected class. **And lastly...** On almost every single post I see, at least one commenter will remind OP that HR has a responsibility to protect THE COMPANY from a legal perspective, not necessarily advocate for employees (although good HR should do that). Advocating and supporting employees is the mandated role of union reps, EFAPs, federations, associations and other bodies dedicated especially to do such things. NOT HR! I would love to see moderation of this sub tweaked so that posters have greater clarity about who is answering in this sub (HR profs) and what types of answers we're going to give because I think a lot of great advice is wasted on regurgitating the same remarks over and over again when posters don't really understand the role of HR. **DISCLAIMER \[aka please be nice to me\]** Yes, I am speaking in general terms here. Yes, there are many variations of harassment. No, I am not intending to invalidate anyone's experience and posts where an employee is facing mistreatment should still be welcome in this sub regardless of whether or not they meet the legal definitions of B&H. Yes, different countries have different rules. No, I'm not trying to complain about this sub, I really like it and I'm suggesting a few modifications to make it better. :) :) :) If my tone comes across as 'angry,' I'm really passionate about the topic, so please read it enthusiastically and not like yelling. Assistant:>On almost every single post I see, at least one commenter will remind OP that HR has a responsibility to protect THE COMPANY from a legal perspective, not necessarily advocate for employees (although good HR should do that). Advocating and supporting employees is the mandated role of union reps, EFAPs, federations, associations and other bodies dedicated especially to do such things. NOT HR! I agree with most of your post.. but in some organizations, it IS HRs job to advocate for employees. I'd also like to add to your post, there is ALWAYS a person who writes, ,"unless you're in Montana you're an at-will employee and your employer can fire you for any non-discriminatory reason." It's true, but for the love of Christ, no good HR professional is EVER going to allow someone to be fired without proper documentation. That one just irritates me every time I see it!

Human: CMV: Claims that 'capitalism' or 'socialism/communist' is ruining society is misused and people don't actually understand the supposed society that would happen if the thing they oppose gets abolished Here are two ways to change my mind: the terms are actually well used and people actually understand what 'capitalism' and 'socialism' is or The systems they criticize that gets abolished will give them exactly the utopia they want. ​ So now let me illustrate my beef on why I think people are idiots, and I think this is why I want my view changed. I don't like viewing people as idiots, it's pretty depressing. So lets say a tax hike is introduced, the common rebuttal is 'see, our communist/socialists elites are killing us'. (Yes, I am aware communism and socialism are not the same, but I see them used together so that's also my beef) Now secondly, what do they mean by communism? Do they mean that taxes are an indication of communism? You can dislike the percentage of taxes while still recognize the importance of taxes. To me, these arguments sound like they want 0 taxes. For background, I live in Canada. Having 0% taxes would mean no public money for roads, schools, etc. This is why I think opponents that cry 'socialism' are insane. On the flip however, lets look at rising prices. Say a man sells me a TV for 500$. I wish it was 400$. I complain online. Someone says 'ugh, this is why capitalism ruins things' What this sounds like to me is that they want us to either barter for things or things are in a fixed price. Doing away with the 'capitalism' they envision, something tells me they will NOT like it. Do I think there are problems with the state paying for things? Yes. Do I think there are problems with having private people determining price? Yes. For example, if employers could get away with paying people 10 cents a day, they probably would, and that is a problem. However, my point is, we can't have 100% abolish concepts of capitalism nor socialism in a large country like Canada. So help me understand what people mean by 'socialism bad' or 'capitalism bad'. Because all I really see is greed. There should be some way to regulate people. I am not sure how, but the issue isn't concepts of 'capitalism bad' or 'socialism bad'. Assistant:>Do they mean that taxes are an indication of communism? You can dislike the percentage of taxes while still recognize the importance of taxes. To me, these arguments sound like they want 0 taxes. You can not want a tax hike and want taxes to be above 0%. 0% taxes would mean there isn't a government and these people usually want a Conservative government, so they obviously want there to be taxes. They think "socialism bad" > On the flip however, lets look at rising prices. Say a man sells me a TV for 500$. I wish it was 400$. I complain online. Someone says 'ugh, this is why capitalism ruins things' What this sounds like to me is that they want us to either barter for things or things are in a fixed price. Doing away with the 'capitalism' they envision, something tells me they will NOT like it. I have never seen anyone blaming the price of luxury goods on capitalism. Capitalism makes luxury goods cheaper. When people complain about capitalism raising prices it's usually necessity goods, the most common example on Reddit being the price of insulin in the United States. I don't know what the best Canadian example would be but maybe the cost of rent? ​ The main problem seems to be you think there's only 2 forms of economic systems people can want, either being 100% or 0%. I can say capitalism is bad and still want parts of capitalism in the same way I can say someone that kicks a puppy every day and donates to animal shelters is bad while still wanting people to donate to animal shelters.

Human: CMV: Claims that 'capitalism' or 'socialism/communist' is ruining society is misused and people don't actually understand the supposed society that would happen if the thing they oppose gets abolished Here are two ways to change my mind: the terms are actually well used and people actually understand what 'capitalism' and 'socialism' is or The systems they criticize that gets abolished will give them exactly the utopia they want. ​ So now let me illustrate my beef on why I think people are idiots, and I think this is why I want my view changed. I don't like viewing people as idiots, it's pretty depressing. So lets say a tax hike is introduced, the common rebuttal is 'see, our communist/socialists elites are killing us'. (Yes, I am aware communism and socialism are not the same, but I see them used together so that's also my beef) Now secondly, what do they mean by communism? Do they mean that taxes are an indication of communism? You can dislike the percentage of taxes while still recognize the importance of taxes. To me, these arguments sound like they want 0 taxes. For background, I live in Canada. Having 0% taxes would mean no public money for roads, schools, etc. This is why I think opponents that cry 'socialism' are insane. On the flip however, lets look at rising prices. Say a man sells me a TV for 500$. I wish it was 400$. I complain online. Someone says 'ugh, this is why capitalism ruins things' What this sounds like to me is that they want us to either barter for things or things are in a fixed price. Doing away with the 'capitalism' they envision, something tells me they will NOT like it. Do I think there are problems with the state paying for things? Yes. Do I think there are problems with having private people determining price? Yes. For example, if employers could get away with paying people 10 cents a day, they probably would, and that is a problem. However, my point is, we can't have 100% abolish concepts of capitalism nor socialism in a large country like Canada. So help me understand what people mean by 'socialism bad' or 'capitalism bad'. Because all I really see is greed. There should be some way to regulate people. I am not sure how, but the issue isn't concepts of 'capitalism bad' or 'socialism bad'. Assistant:Do you think Canada is currently in some measure socialist?

Human: The Concept of Marriage Proposing is Outdated, Consumerist, and Sexist, CMV We all know the concept of proposing for marriage, and it's know as popping the question with a ring. Consumerist -Diamonds, as well all know, aren't rare anymore (http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/01/10-facts-about-diamonds-you-should-know/#!vTkC4). That's a quick article but you can find studies all over the place that show diamonds are not rare. Proposing with a ring already purchased is just fueling our consumerism habits but doesn't actually mean anything. When talking about spending the rest of your life with someone, is a gift really necessary? It seems awfully cheap and it's as if you're buying property (IE- you get to hold onto this valuable item ONLY if you stay with me forever) Outdated- We all know divorce rates are at roughly 50%. Clearly there should be more open communication than an on-the-spot yes or no question. I'm sure you can talk about these things pre-engagement, but still, reducing it down to a yes or no in the moment question, shouldn't it be a long talk? As in, let's figure out everything first, in advance, and then go from there? The thing is, you can talk about it in advance, but still there's a lot of societal pressure to surprise the woman with the question, just on my facebook today a video popped up with a proposal. In /r/chicago there's a picture of a diamond ring and a caption "wish me luck". Sexist- We all know that men are the ones, in a hetero relationship, to pop the question. (I don't have the stat to back it up but I'm sure it's above 90%). Isn't this incredibly sexist? First off, only a man proposes. That right there is sexist. But going further, doesn't this reinforce the idea that men have more power in society? Now you can say a woman has equal power because she can say yes or no, so that's 50-50. The problem with that argument is women can only react. I'm going to argue that only being able to react is far less power than the ability to initiate the question. So there has it. I think we should get rid of marraige proposals, it shouldn't be a "she said yes" but a "after a long talk on goals, wants, needs and finances, we mutually decided to get married". Change My View Assistant:The benefit of a proposal is that it is a concrete, non-ambiguous event that allows parties to (a) announce the change to a new culturally-perceived relationship type, and (b) start making firm plans for a wedding. I don't know how universal it is, but all the engagements that I have any familiarity with (friends, family, acquaintances, etc.) *are* a matter of "after a long talk on goals, wants, needs and finances, we mutually decided to get married, and then there was a proposal and it was accepted." I feel comfortable in saying that this is a pretty broadly followed practice the U.S. and other western nations I am familiar with, though. I don't disagree at all about the emptiness of the diamond ring gesture, or the idea that any engagement should be the result of mutual consideration and discussion. But I think your antipathy to proposals is misplaced -- proposals, like weddings and graduations, are just the templates used to announce significant changes to socially recognized statuses, and the specifics can be adapted to the needs of the people involved.

Human: The Concept of Marriage Proposing is Outdated, Consumerist, and Sexist, CMV We all know the concept of proposing for marriage, and it's know as popping the question with a ring. Consumerist -Diamonds, as well all know, aren't rare anymore (http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/01/10-facts-about-diamonds-you-should-know/#!vTkC4). That's a quick article but you can find studies all over the place that show diamonds are not rare. Proposing with a ring already purchased is just fueling our consumerism habits but doesn't actually mean anything. When talking about spending the rest of your life with someone, is a gift really necessary? It seems awfully cheap and it's as if you're buying property (IE- you get to hold onto this valuable item ONLY if you stay with me forever) Outdated- We all know divorce rates are at roughly 50%. Clearly there should be more open communication than an on-the-spot yes or no question. I'm sure you can talk about these things pre-engagement, but still, reducing it down to a yes or no in the moment question, shouldn't it be a long talk? As in, let's figure out everything first, in advance, and then go from there? The thing is, you can talk about it in advance, but still there's a lot of societal pressure to surprise the woman with the question, just on my facebook today a video popped up with a proposal. In /r/chicago there's a picture of a diamond ring and a caption "wish me luck". Sexist- We all know that men are the ones, in a hetero relationship, to pop the question. (I don't have the stat to back it up but I'm sure it's above 90%). Isn't this incredibly sexist? First off, only a man proposes. That right there is sexist. But going further, doesn't this reinforce the idea that men have more power in society? Now you can say a woman has equal power because she can say yes or no, so that's 50-50. The problem with that argument is women can only react. I'm going to argue that only being able to react is far less power than the ability to initiate the question. So there has it. I think we should get rid of marraige proposals, it shouldn't be a "she said yes" but a "after a long talk on goals, wants, needs and finances, we mutually decided to get married". Change My View Assistant:Diamond rings are not mandatory for marriage proposals. It's not mandatory that the man proposes (even if this does happen most of the time). And often a couple *will* decide together that they want to get married, but will also have a proposal at some point after that. It seems like your issue is with what you feel are social expectations surrounding marriage proposals, not proposals themselves.

Human: CMV: There is no such a thing as cultural appropriation, because no one can own an idea. I have arrived at this view due to the influence and confluence of two philosophies. Primarily, my view is influenced by contemporary views such as the open content movement, copyleft movement and advocacy for digital piracy. Simply put, I do not believe a non-physical entity can be "owned" or proprietary. Whether it be the data that comprises a song distributed via torrent or the methods of constructing a plains Indian war bonnet, no one can say "this is my idea, and you cannot use it how you see fit." This argument for me is primarily *moral* and *rights-based*. I do not believe that anyone has the right to restrict the usage and evolution of an idea, or that someone's desire to perpetuate their particular idealized version of their culture trumps my right to freedom of expression. Ideas, being non-physical constructs, are inherently free and cannot be locked down. My second argument is that of the dialectic. I believe all ideas, when they interact, grow stronger in some capacity from this interaction. The thesis and antithesis become synthesis, and the synthesis is inherently stronger because it has adapted in some way, by either incorporating traits of both influencing theses or having the thesis develop new traits in order to triumph over the antithesis. For me, this is a *practical* argument. When Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration, the culture they created was a synthesis of Japanese and western ideals, goals, technologies, values and methods, which propelled them into a world power. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping's introduction of western Capitalism into the Sino-Communistic worldview has made China a preeminent world power poised to possibly eclipse the current hegemon (at least temporarily). In the arts, this is even more evident. Heavy metal, as an art form, has a clear continuity to western African folk music but has undergone so much synthesis with various other influences through the centuries since the African diaspora was introduced to America that it has become its own truly unique beast. Said art form, a distinct and vibrant art form, would not have existed through the synthesis of various forms of European, African, Native American and in later years, even Asian influences. In other spheres, consider the Mughal empire at its height, which only arose through Muslim conquerors appropriating techniques, culture, politics and methods of the local Hindu population (themselves the result of earlier Central-Asian Aryan influence). I find it therefore both offensive on a moral standpoint and myopic from a practical standpoint when someone might, for instance, criticize Iggy Azalia for "acting black" or "appropriating black culture". *All ideas are fundamentally iterative* in my position, which can be considered a sub-view that I am willing to have changed. A relevant, but anecdotal, piece of information is the fact that I am by most definitions mixed-race and consider myself to have little to no ethnic or racial identity. The groups I personally identify with are not defined by ancestry, nationalism or temporal or geographic considerations. _____ > *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 a fellow critic of IP laws, I think applying those principles here is misguided. Yes, it's an abomination that in the name of "protecting artists' work", we have allowed them to **legally censor** other artists' work from getting published, just because it's based on the earlier one, in the same manner as Shakespeare and Virgil based their work on sources. Allowing the government to forbid the creation of certain art, sounds like a dystopian nightmare from pretty much any perspective that hasn't gotten as used to it as ours did. But that's not what we are talking here. No one is even saying that native americans own the concept of war bonnets as a property, in the same way as D.C. owns Superman. There is absolutely no threat that africans can censor music genres inspired by Africa, in the same way as Warner Music censors "Happy Birtday". There no discussion on the table about banning cartoons that are too similar to anime. Someone's fashion, artistic tools, or mannerisms being criticized for cultural appropriation, means that it has been called distasteful, not that it has been called ciminal. The situation is far more similar to an uninspired, painfully derivative, shallow novel being trashed by critics for being a blatant knockoff of an earlier success, or "jumping on the bandwagon" of a recently popular genre, than it is to a writer recieving C&D letters and forced to shut down work because they infringed specific copyrighted themes. Even if IP laws didn't exist, the former would still happen at times. The legal ability to use derivative ideas, doesn't mean protection from being criticized for using derivative ideas transparently, or shallowly. We could make it legal to publish fanfiction (and we should!), but the ones where a Mary Sue self-insert wanders around having sex with everyone, would still get torn apart by critics. The same applies to culture, except that it's not just an aesthetic issue as it is with art. Ripping off book's themes can get criticized for being boring, or predictable, but ripping off a whole culture also has an issue of moral problems, in that historically, racist stereotypes, othering, and justifications of imperialist policy were all based on badly appropriated cultures. Orientalism, the Noble Savage, imitated accents, costumes exaggerated by pup-culture, all contribute to the mentality of us being normal, and all other cultures being whacky cartoon characters with infamous behaviors. It's reasonable that people would care at least as much about avoiding that, as they care about predicatble novel plots.

Human: CMV: There is no such a thing as cultural appropriation, because no one can own an idea. I have arrived at this view due to the influence and confluence of two philosophies. Primarily, my view is influenced by contemporary views such as the open content movement, copyleft movement and advocacy for digital piracy. Simply put, I do not believe a non-physical entity can be "owned" or proprietary. Whether it be the data that comprises a song distributed via torrent or the methods of constructing a plains Indian war bonnet, no one can say "this is my idea, and you cannot use it how you see fit." This argument for me is primarily *moral* and *rights-based*. I do not believe that anyone has the right to restrict the usage and evolution of an idea, or that someone's desire to perpetuate their particular idealized version of their culture trumps my right to freedom of expression. Ideas, being non-physical constructs, are inherently free and cannot be locked down. My second argument is that of the dialectic. I believe all ideas, when they interact, grow stronger in some capacity from this interaction. The thesis and antithesis become synthesis, and the synthesis is inherently stronger because it has adapted in some way, by either incorporating traits of both influencing theses or having the thesis develop new traits in order to triumph over the antithesis. For me, this is a *practical* argument. When Japan modernized during the Meiji restoration, the culture they created was a synthesis of Japanese and western ideals, goals, technologies, values and methods, which propelled them into a world power. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping's introduction of western Capitalism into the Sino-Communistic worldview has made China a preeminent world power poised to possibly eclipse the current hegemon (at least temporarily). In the arts, this is even more evident. Heavy metal, as an art form, has a clear continuity to western African folk music but has undergone so much synthesis with various other influences through the centuries since the African diaspora was introduced to America that it has become its own truly unique beast. Said art form, a distinct and vibrant art form, would not have existed through the synthesis of various forms of European, African, Native American and in later years, even Asian influences. In other spheres, consider the Mughal empire at its height, which only arose through Muslim conquerors appropriating techniques, culture, politics and methods of the local Hindu population (themselves the result of earlier Central-Asian Aryan influence). I find it therefore both offensive on a moral standpoint and myopic from a practical standpoint when someone might, for instance, criticize Iggy Azalia for "acting black" or "appropriating black culture". *All ideas are fundamentally iterative* in my position, which can be considered a sub-view that I am willing to have changed. A relevant, but anecdotal, piece of information is the fact that I am by most definitions mixed-race and consider myself to have little to no ethnic or racial identity. The groups I personally identify with are not defined by ancestry, nationalism or temporal or geographic considerations. _____ > *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:You provide an opinion and the use that opinoin as fact to defend your view? You cant just say the the world is this way based on your opinon. Your view isn't universal. Saying that information should be free doesn't simply make it so. Said in another way, saying that sports fans of Atlanta baseball team have just has much rights to certain images as people who spent gerneration after generation living a certain way is a bit of a stretch. culture and ties to culture are important.

Human: Can my dad really hire a bounty hunter to kidnap me from college and take me home? (MS/TN) I'm a freshman at a good school in Tennessee. My dad is a really difficult guy and has just gotten worse since I left for school. To make a long story short, when I stopped checking in every day he started calling the dean, and when the dean's office stopped taking his calls he started showing up here. The school really had my back and banned him from campus. Now he's calling my friends and their parents and saying I have to come home (my mom won't take his calls anymore and the court won't make her). My dad says that I "lack the legal standing for self-determination" because I'm a minor, since in Mississippi you're a minor until you're 21. He says that he's hired a "youth transportation service" to "escort" me home. Like those people who kidnap gay kids in the middle of the night and take them to conversation camps. Bounty hunters for kids. I told him that the fugitive slave act is a goner and that I only have to obey the laws of the state I'm in, which designates me an adult with the right to remain unkidnapped. He said that I'm bound by the "long arm statute" and that I haven't even established residency in Tennessee because I've only been here since mid-August and I'm still registered to vote in Mississippi. So I guess my main question is my title: is he right, can he really send someone to kidnap me and take me back to Mississippi? My mom says this is just him being crazy and trying to intimidate me but obviously I want to cover all my bases. If he's wrong, what can I do if that actually does happen? If some guy comes up to me and zipties my hands and says I have to go with him, do I? Can I fight back? If my friends are nearby and see me being kidnapped, can they help me? Since the episode that got my dad banned from campus, I've had a couple hefty guy friends offer to walk me back and forth from class. If one of them is with me and someone tries to take me, do they have to just let it happen, or do they have a right to help me not get kidnapped? I think that's all my questions for now. Thanks! Tl;dr: stopped talking to dad and he says he's going to have a bounty hunter bring me back to Mississippi because there I'm still technically a minor/child. Can he really do that? Assistant:I actually am a Tennessee attorney. You are not a minor in this state. Contact your local police department and campus security tonight. If your local courthouse has a magistrate working overnight, go and fill out a Petition for Order of Protection/Stalking Order. Here is a link to the Petition. If a magistrate is not available tonight, do it as quickly and early as possible tomorrow. Ex Parte Orders have and do get dismissed in court for not being timely - i.e. no imminent fear as the lapse of time between the alleged threat and application is too great. Many counties do provide assistance through Legal Aid for Ex Parte OP’s after they are issued. Lawyer up. Edit: Spelling. And thanks for the kindness y’all.

Human: Can my dad really hire a bounty hunter to kidnap me from college and take me home? (MS/TN) I'm a freshman at a good school in Tennessee. My dad is a really difficult guy and has just gotten worse since I left for school. To make a long story short, when I stopped checking in every day he started calling the dean, and when the dean's office stopped taking his calls he started showing up here. The school really had my back and banned him from campus. Now he's calling my friends and their parents and saying I have to come home (my mom won't take his calls anymore and the court won't make her). My dad says that I "lack the legal standing for self-determination" because I'm a minor, since in Mississippi you're a minor until you're 21. He says that he's hired a "youth transportation service" to "escort" me home. Like those people who kidnap gay kids in the middle of the night and take them to conversation camps. Bounty hunters for kids. I told him that the fugitive slave act is a goner and that I only have to obey the laws of the state I'm in, which designates me an adult with the right to remain unkidnapped. He said that I'm bound by the "long arm statute" and that I haven't even established residency in Tennessee because I've only been here since mid-August and I'm still registered to vote in Mississippi. So I guess my main question is my title: is he right, can he really send someone to kidnap me and take me back to Mississippi? My mom says this is just him being crazy and trying to intimidate me but obviously I want to cover all my bases. If he's wrong, what can I do if that actually does happen? If some guy comes up to me and zipties my hands and says I have to go with him, do I? Can I fight back? If my friends are nearby and see me being kidnapped, can they help me? Since the episode that got my dad banned from campus, I've had a couple hefty guy friends offer to walk me back and forth from class. If one of them is with me and someone tries to take me, do they have to just let it happen, or do they have a right to help me not get kidnapped? I think that's all my questions for now. Thanks! Tl;dr: stopped talking to dad and he says he's going to have a bounty hunter bring me back to Mississippi because there I'm still technically a minor/child. Can he really do that? Assistant:Why are you even taking this clown's calls, at this point? If someone approaches you and attempts to abduct you by force, call the cops. You can use reasonable force in defence of yourself, but your best option is evasion, not fighting. Take some self-defence classes, just in case.