It has everything to do with it because god said so:
“They basically told me that I should be ashamed of myself,” Timonet told a local news outlet. “That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.” “I felt like my life was over.”
Guys, it’s the same rules as any underaged closet atheist. Study your ass off, become financially independent, then twerk in front of your god fearing scholarship committee
Satanism is only necessary because religion is cancer though. Just like cancer, we need to use another thing that kills to kill it. I’m 100% in agreement with Satanism’s tenants, but it’s because they’re just humanist ideals wrapped in the garb of religion to use religion as a tool.
All religions are tools. Saying “religion is cancer” overlooks all of the good things that people get out of religion, such as a community with shared values that helps each other. If you can have a religion without superstition and dogma, where’s the harm? It’s not religion that’s cancer. It’s superstition and dogma.
Sure, but the term religion implies superstition and dogma. It’s literally part of the definition. What is religion without that? Community and tax exempt status? The former is just called community (which also implies shared values) and the latter is mostly a scam.
I’m not saying good things can’t come from religion, but they don’t come because they are religious. Any good they do is done regardless (or often despite) the supernatural beliefs.
Sure, but the term religion implies superstition and dogma. It’s literally part of the definition.
Definitions have to comport with reality, not the other way around. Satanism is not a social club. We have holidays, we have rituals, we have ministers who conduct wedding ceremonies. We even have church services.
I want to let you know I’m not the one downvoting you. I disagree, but I’m not downvoting.
Personally, I don’t think The Satanic Temple should be considered a religion. I think the term has been watered down, particularly in the US, because our laws are stupid. As long as there is an incentive to be called a religion it should be, but there shouldn’t be an incentive. Why should anyone’s beliefs be valued more because they’re tied to (usually at least) supernatural beliefs?
TST was created as religious satire. That’s the reason for the holidays, riguals, and other services. They need to conform to the appearance of a religion to work as a religion for their own purposes. That isn’t to say these are bad or wrong. They’re just as valid as any other religion. It’s just that the belief that it’s founded on is humanism, not something supernatural.
Why should anyone’s beliefs be valued more because they’re tied to (usually at least) supernatural beliefs?
TST agrees with you. In fact, this is almost word-for-word what it says in the FAQ under the question “If you don’t believe in the supernatural, how is TST a religion?”
TST was created as religious satire. That’s the reason for the holidays, riguals, and other services.
I mean if you’re going to be that pedantic about a comment that doesn’t strike me as intending to be nuanced and specific, there are versions of Christianity that are fine with twerking too
Seems like the easiest way to get into a really good school would be to sue, whip up a media frenzy, and frame it through a feminist lens. Write an essay about overcoming adversity by standing up for what is right, no matter the cost.
I’d get the dance team members in on it for vaguely impugning their reputations, because when asked why nothing happened to them, the answer more or less had the implied subtext “that’s fine for them because we expect them to act like hoes, but you’re our hood ornament and should behave better.”
edit: in case anyone is unclear on my position regarding twerking
I agree. She’s literally getting punished for having fun with her friends at a dance party. And her friends should get the same restitution because they were also, having fun. God forbid this incredibly intelligent girl go on to be anything but an avenue for childbirth, or her friends don’t follow the same path
“They basically told me that I should be ashamed of myself,” Timonet told a local news outlet. “That I wasn’t basically following God’s ideals, which made me cry even more.”
The principal inserted their religion into their job at a public school.
It’s crazy. She lost benefits over something somebody else did. I can’t make sense of it. The dogma and brining faith and religious righteousness into everything is out on hand and needs to stop
I can’t think of a worse marketing strategy for a company that relies on remote work to remain relevant. This would be like if General Motors forced every employee within 50 miles of an assembly plant to ride a bike to work.
I don't think that Zoom specifically advocates for companies to end work in the office.
Like, say you work for Coca-Cola. Their company health plan probably does not encourage people to drink nothing but Coca-Cola, even if they do make it available in the office.
the principal had referred to Bible scripture on several occasions and informed her he was ‘well within his right’ to enact the discipline he chose
Ah yes, I forgot that Jesus came down to earth and said “don’t enjoy yourself women, your only purpose is just to have children under our neofascist theocratic regime”
Devil’s advocate: it could just be poor choice of metaphors to say that she’s a representative of the school, which can reasonably choose to be associated — or not — with a certain image and perception of professionalism.
I’m getting pretty sick of people saying shitty things because they’re bad at metaphors. People who are bad at metaphors should just not use metaphors.
This person is the authority who is taking her potential scholarships because of dancing. Your take actually makes it worse. She is just a thing to him and not a young girl doing a popular dance that women do. It’s probably even worse in his mind because it’s a dance popularized by black people from the city.
This would only make sense if it was explicitly explained and forbidden to her beforehand.
And since there’s no way any school who cares about their reputation would do that, no, that’s not reasonable. You can’t hold me to a standard I didn’t agree with.
People only see this with the context that this is a youtuber doing a prank.
This man is 6 fucking 5. Imagine a random giant gets in your face, you think you’re about to be robbed or beaten. He advances. You retreat. He advances. You retreat, he advanced. Again, you retreat, he advances, all the while shoving something in your face. How many times do you need to tell someone to disengage and retreat before its okay to consider it a threat?
Just because this guy happened to be a youtuber doing a prank is irrelevant, imo.
Take away the gun for a minute. Would this guy be on trial if he instead hit him in the head with a blunt object? I’m not a fan of guns, not approving of firing them in public, so on and so forth, but I think this person may have been justified in defending themselves.
Yes, from what is presented here, it sure sounds like self-defense was warranted but the guy needed to try a less lethal weapon. Put them both in jail, plus seize the Ill-gotten gains of the asshole.
I know it’s easy to be brave on the internet, with plenty of time to think about it: I wanted to quip “that’s what I carry elbows for”. I certainly can’t claim to know whether I would react appropriately, but I don’t have to since I don’t carry a lethal weapon. If you do carry, you need to be able to respond appropriately instead of just blasting away at the first confrontation
That’s my point though, I think he may have reacted appropriately. If he carried the gun legally and he was within his right to defend himself I can’t fault him for the outcome. More over, if I’m picking incidents to show irresponsible use of firearms, this wouldn’t be high on my list.
But it’s great to put on a list of reasons for gun control! Most seem to agree that him responding to a perceived threat violently was acceptable, but he shouldn’t have used a gun. But if he’s legally carrying, then it sounds like the biggest threat here was the access to firearms. Maybe access to a pocket sized kill button is harmful to society?
This guy felt threatened. If it’s any of the gun-owners in this thread and they have no context and feel threatened, I’m sure they’d hate having people call for their imprisonment because they thought they were doing the right thing to protect themselves and it turns out they made the wrong call.
I agree with you. This is responsible use of firearms. This is just what responsible gun ownership looks like. It’s a machine who’s only purpose is to kill. The best outcome is trying but failing to kill someone. The most likely outcome is someone is dead. That’s how guns work.
What? This was a fucking 6ft 5in giant of an attacker. I suppose I’m happy that you never seem to have taken a sucker punch, or any serious strike to anywhere vital, but that sort of shit is a momentary action for the attacker that can easily leave the victim reeling and unable to react for literal minutes after.
The attacker doesn’t need a gun to permanently injure you, and only needs a moment to strike you when you attempt to do any of the options you crossed out as things that should have been attempted first. Plus it’s a hell of a lot easier to say any of those options you listed than successfully do them (besides crying for help of fucking course), especially when you have no training in self defense, you’re already intensely off balance, confused, scared, and tense because some random stranger is acting confusingly aggresive towards you.
You go to push him away. He elbows you in the face and proceeds to beat the ever loving shit out of you as you flail to block your vital organs, crying for help where you’ll be lucky if anyone responds at all, let alone fast enough to do anything to actually help you before you end up with broken bones and permanent brain damage (it doesn’t take much to do if someone’s going apeshit on your head once you’re already on the ground).
The unfortunate reality is that any threat to your physical safety by someone larger or stronger than yourself is inherently an existential threat to you unless you rely on your attacker not having lethal intent. You’ve been accosted by a complete stranger. You don’t know shit about their intent. You can only hope. This is true regardless of how each party is armed, guns, knives, or only with their fists. If they truly want to kill you and you have no way to equalize their advantage over you, you’re probably just fucked.
You can argue that people shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns and should be restricted to non-lethal options, but given the situation and the tools this guy had available, the gun was the only option that would guarantee his safety against unknown intent.
I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask someone to risk their own life just so they might allow an unknown aggressor with unknown intent the opportunity to live at the potential cost of their own life. The only way to know if you are in lethal danger in this situation is in retrospect. After the altercation is over, and the victim is potentially dead.
The aggressor is the one that chose to initiate the aggression. If the situation is a question of whether the victim ot the aggressor has more of a right to live, and it is a binary choice (as it has every potential to be), I don’t think it’s a hard call.
I wish that it didn’t have to be reduced to a kill or be killed judgement, but humans are far more fucking fragile than any of us like to admit or think about, and again we can only know if the attacker had lethal intent in retrospect.
According to your logic, he could’ve died 7 times that day.
And only then pulled out a gun. 🤦
That’s assinine. If he was so unsure about the threat level, then should have tried to run away and hide from the start; they weren’t out in the desert FFS.
Instead, he acted all sure of his own superiority with his gun, waiting for an excuse to use it. That’s closer to premeditated intent to kill, rather than self defense.
Tbf imo while I carry a gun, I also carry mace for shit like this. From the above description it seems normal force was certainly justified but deadly force is questionable, however I withhold personal judgement as I’m not following the case and the details reported could be (often are) wildly innacurate from the facts.
Well guess we should just shoot him to avoid overspray huh? Lol, like it or not this is exactly a perfect use case for it, normal force was justified but deadly, we shall see what the court says I guess.
Lol well we’ll see. Idk about you but if I can avoid the chance at prison (and have the time/ability to realize it’s his phone, of course), I’m using the mace which I keep for nondeadly threats on the nondeadly threat. DA in my area (and most areas actually) would definitely bring this case to trial, probably wouldn’t if I use normal force but still, if they do, simple assault is better than awdw and two gun charges in my humble opinion.
Self defense is allowed in most countries, the difference being appropriate measures. If someone attacks me and I punch them to get them off, that’s justified self defense and unless you’re unlucky it’s not going to be lethal on the attacking party. As soon as you’ve pulled out a gun, other brought a lethal tool into the mix.
So… you need to wait for this 6ft 5in dude to deck you in the face first?
(God this sounds like tryhard macho bullshit, but it’s true) If this prank YT douche had a knife he could have killed the guy before he could react. People are fragile, and the outcome of a violent altercation is often decided by the first blow.
If you’ve never taken an unexpected strike to the head or to one of the many sensitive spots in your torso, it’s nearly impossible to think straight in the moments after. I used to do some martial arts, and I’ve taken hits during sparring when hit where my gear didn’t cover. Hell, many hits even through sparring gear left me reeling. In a real fight someone with ill intent will capitalize on those moments where your head is spinning and it can be over in seconds, rather than your sparring partner immediately stopping, yelling “oh shit! are you ok?”, and you both falling over in a laughing fit at how in the hell he just managed to kick you in the throat because you dodged the exact wrong direction right into his damn foot so it hit you in the throat instead of your chest pad.
Guns aren’t the answer but this take is absolutely asinine.
So… you need to wait for this 6ft 5in dude to deck you in the face first?
I’ve taken hits during sparring […]
[…] this take is absolutely asinine.
This isn’t ”sparring” —that take is absolutely asinine—, this is ”Real Life™ GTFO”.
If a 6’5’’ dude seems like he might decide to deck you in the face, then you do whatever it takes to GTFO. Don’t wait around for the blows to start flying, don’t tell him three times to back away, you don’t need to prove how macho you are by “standing your ground”. Just give him a good push, and run away behind cover.
If he still acts like a threat, call the cops. Now you can take out your gun, machete, AR, whatever, and inform him it’s his turn to GTFO.
Not that the 6’5" idiot was much better:
Asked why he didn’t stop the prank despite Colie’s repeated requests, Cook said he “almost did” but not because he sensed fear or anger from Colie. He said Colie simply wasn’t exhibiting the type of reaction Cook was looking for.
If you decide to threaten/harass someone, and they remain calm, chances are you’re the one in danger.
I had a friend in Canada who defended his family against a home intruder with a firearm. He was locked up for trying to keep his kids and wife safe from somebody who broke into his safe space. He was locked up and even after getting out is not allowed to see his own children, even though the wife still stands behind his actions.
So sure, talk down to me because I’m American and I believe a man should be able to protect himself and his loved ones without ruining his life.
Depends on location, time of day/night, et cetera. America is big, like whole EU big, there are both extremely safe and extremely dangerous places contained within.
Thanks, I was out and about at the time I saw his question, but realized that while I was unaware of the exact proportions myself he was just as capable as I was of looking it up, so I didn’t bother.
Weeeelll because they aren’t* legally allowed to. Besides, we all know everyone in Brazil is already an off duty cop. We just not gonna talk about the RPG-7s in the Favelas though?
*(or is it now “weren’t” as of Ballscenario like last year?)
It’s a meme about how every video from Brazil is some criminal with a gun interacting with someone else in brazil who surprise! happens to be a police officer in plain clothes with a gun of their own. This may surprise you, but I’m aware that not “everyone in Brazil” (which would include grandmothers and toddlers and shit) is actually an off duty cop.
So yes. “They don’t carry weapons” because “they aren’t legally allowed to carry the effective ones.”
Legal gun ownership boomed with it “becoming legal.” This indicates that the reason those people weren’t is because it “wasn’t legal.” Those people want to carry, they just “follow the laws” unlike all those people who actually do carry guns in Brazil that we’re ignoring because they’re criminals.
Said “boom” was exclusive to rich, already illegally armed people. Notice the total number of registered gun owners doesn’t even reach 1% of the population? Again, you have a distorted view on things.
You’ve got to understand Brazil has some loaded history, despite being a relatively young nation. Between 1964 and 1990, the country underwent a USA-backed coup which, unsurprisingly, tried to americanize its population in several aspects. As a result, you have pockets of people brainwashed to think 'murica is the best and everything they do should be copied – mostly old rich fuckers and their kids, as poor people could see, or rather were forced to see, the reality of things.
Tbh I’m not exactly surprised to hear the people who bought guns were the people who could afford guns. The ones who can’t afford guns have to borrow a buddy’s and steal the one from the guy refilling the ATM.
In 2005, a large majority of Brazil’s population voted against banning the sale of guns and ammunition to civilians in a referendum.[1] Executive Order No. 5.123, of 1 July 2004[9] allowed the Federal Police to confiscate firearms which are not possessed for a valid reason; self-defense was not considered a valid argument.[10]
These measures saw mixed results. Initially, the crime rate dropped,[11] but subsequently rose in later years. 2012 marked the highest rate of gun deaths in 35 years for Brazil, eight years after a ban on carrying handguns in public went into effect,[12] and 2016 saw the worst ever death toll from homicide in Brazil, with 61,619 dead.[13] The death toll rose again in 2017 to 63,880, a 3.7% rise from 2016.[14]
0 context, assumption of causation, insistence on talking about something you don’t understand - congratulations and my condolences on being a stereotypical 'murican. No wonder your country is a shithole.
A shithole with legal civilian gun ownership and less gun deaths per capita than your gun free paradise? The gun free paradise with the most gun deaths per capita (any cause) in the entire world? El Salvador has you beat by a little if we’re only talking homicides, but still, your country has more than mine does and illegal guns and you’re trying to lecture me?! All due respect, pull your head out of your own ass.
Democrats should name all their laws after the Bible. Eye of the Needle bill: wealth tax and just demagogue that we need to pass this to save American souls. Mark 1:40 bill: universal healthcare
It’s a great idea but unfortunately it has some significant flaws.
First, I imagine quite a lot of the Christianity in American politics is performative. The politicians could just hand wave away the passages and say “That’s not what Jesus meant, he personally told me so”.
The fundamentalists suckers would believe them and vote for them even harder and the ones that are drawn to religion for the excuse to abuse people won’t care as long as their abusive itches get scratched.
The other problem is that if it did work, it’s comes across as more than a little Christofascist.
The far-right and religious “in it for abuse” crowds would take to it like flies to dog shit and the bible has some horrific stuff in it that you’d definitely never want becoming law.
Better to just pry fundamentalists and neoliberals from power so all they can do is seethe while progressives pass these kinds of laws. With genuine end times just around the corner, time is a factor.
Republicans will always find a way. Even if it contradicts what they just said a minute prior. You’re not gonna stop suckers from going along with ppl using them for power/money. We should just take the win.
Biblical Jesus misquoted the OT multiple times, the kinds of misquotes an Aramaic speaking Jewish rabbi would not have made. And only referenced parts of the OT that were translated into a popular Greek translation of a subset of the what is now the Hebrew Bible.
The Nazis came up with this concept of “German Christianity” or “Positive Christianity” that essentially took Christianity and emphasized its differences from Judaism, while downplaying Jesus as the messiah and elevating the Führer as the herald of a new covenant. I know we’re all joking here but this kind of thing has been done before, over, and over, and over.
See and this is how I know it’s all bullshit, what man in his mid to late thirties still has twelve friends? I’ve never even had twelve friends at the same time before.
But American Jeebus is so Kick Ass. He carries a machine gun and shoots immigrants like Rambo without the Vietnamese love interest, but let’s be honest that’s OK too? /s
Oh what a fucking Seppo-brained take. Best idea of what he looked like we have is that he looked like your average Palestinian (no shit Sherlock), that is, pretty much the same as half a gazillion people from the Mediterranean over Iran to fucking India.
Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous when you consider how at odds Jesus is with most of what capitalism entails. He didn't stutter when he said it's impossible for a wealthy person to get into heaven. He was unambiguously against accumulated wealth. His belief was that if you had resources to help people, you had an obligation to do so. If you kept wealth, then you were failing that obligation.
Granted, I'm an atheist, but I'm tired of the right wing Christianity in the US. Any person who actually followed Christianity, and didn't just use it as an excuse to support their hatred and biases, would undoubtedly vote against Republicans, abortion rights notwithstanding.
In Matthew 19:24, Jesus tells His listeners, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
(Copied from the Internet)
While not impossible, we haven’t made any micro camels yet.
“Truly, I say to you, tonly with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 uAgain I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter vthe kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus wlooked at them and said, x“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” 27 Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” 28 Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world,2 when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me awill also sit on twelve thrones, bjudging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 cAnd everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold3 and will dinherit eternal life. 30 But emany who are ffirst will be last, and the last first."
Sorry about all the numbered citations, and random letters. Too hard to edit that out on mobile lol
Still sounds like they need to give everything up and then they’ll be rewarded.
No it doesn't. It says that if you give everything up you will be rewarded, but it doesn't follow that you have to give everything up. Actually most would argue that giving everything up only works if you then follow Jesus.
Verse 26 is key here: "with God all things are possible." Most Christians will agree that there are many different ways to a reward. Some will put more limits on the number than others, but none suggest that the only way is to sell all. We see plenty of people in the bible who clearly didn't sell all and seem to be saved. Some of them even seem to be rich.
I mean, I guess you could get that camel through the eye of a needle by liquefying it first. Maybe the same step could be taken to get Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg into heaven.
Eye of the needle was a very narrow gate in ( I think) Jerusalem, through which goods had to pass because of some rule against bringing too much to market and establishing a monopoly.
Source: probably read it on the internet somewhere
Last time I traced that down (15 years ago), there was a midevil town that referred to their gate as the eye of the needed. However midevil is more than 1000 years after the passage in question. It was in Europe, not Jerusalem. Maybe someone cares enough to research and provide a citation.
The trouble with disgraphia is I know i'm wrong but I have no idea how to get close enough for autocorrect to get the right word. I'd say thanks, hit realistically I won't remember next time I need medieval
I remember some modern evangelicals saying that the needle is a location or something and that we’re all misinterpreting it. I think these were the ones trying to espouse the prosperity gospel BS, of course.
It's unlikely because again, Jesus believed you should use your resources to help. If you do not, you are not fulfilling your obligations. So it's certainly difficult as you need to be spending your wealth on helping, not creating more wealth. Jesus did not believe that you should ignore and refuse to help those in need. This is what a wealthy person implicitly does if they don't actively use their resources when possible.
So yeah, it's insanely difficult. Easier for a camel to fit through a needle.
“Easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle”
Then prosperity gospel dipshits made up some stupid shit about a particularly narrow gate in Jerusalem called “the eye of the needle” which must have been what Jesus was talking about
They would probably love Islam if they could get past the whole “brown people worship this religion” thing, Islam really seems far more their type than Christianity.
Coming soon to the Southern portion of the US, Vanilla ISIS!
I’ve seen genuine support in Appalachia for the Taliban on certain things. Given the economic situation, it may not be long before they have nothing left but their God and their guns.
It wouldn’t change a thing, they adapt their religion to their views, not the other way around. Religion is just the excuse they use to tell themselves they’re the good guys.
Since they're basically following Paul and John, why not change the name of their religion. (Paul is the prude, John the antisemite and general asshat).
Jesus was not a socialist. Some of what he taught overlaps with socialism, but not everything. Since Jesus came first perhaps it is better to say Socialists are Christians. (since socialism rejects religion this a weird thing to say)
My understanding of the passage you are alluding to is Marx viewed religion as palliative care. Religion was the opioid of the masses in the sense that people can’t or wont be given real medication. The patient is dying and nothing can stop that, so at least make sure they don’t suffer. The role of religion was to minimize suffering and would fade away when suffering was gone.
Also even if he had not thought that way he is not the be all end all on the subject.
The CDC just recommended a new round of boosters for everyone the other day. And as expected, conservative media is melting down about it again. But even beyond that, they’ve been getting back into “COVID temper tantrum” mode for about a week or so now that we’re moving into the fall.
It was never amusing. Earlier it was “only” kids dying of the measles because their dumbass parents were antivaxxers. With COVID-19, it started affecting adults so that’s why they get more attention. The public seems to be better able to tolerate children dying of preventable shit than adults.
There is literally nothing of substance behind the claims that “this one is different” it’s the exact same argument from the exact same unreliable sources. Literally the ONLY difference is that this vaccine was made controversal by American politics.
If you are against the covid vaccine then you are an anti-vaxxer, whether you realize it or not.
I imagine you’re not actually against the Vaccine, just pointing out the factual truth that it is indeed different then prior vaccines, however that doesn’t on it’s own make it unsafe.
Even said, “I imagine you’re not against the vaccine” because you were getting down voted because people are weird about facts that sound like something a nut would say even if factually true.
You’re technically correct so I don’t understand the downvotes, you most obviously didn’t imply anything else. Love the mrna technology, went out of my way to get vaccinated during pregnancy (because Germany was a bit slow with that), literally worked on Covid, Anti-Covid meds and mRNA in the lab, and you’ll have my upvote. You’re the best kind of correct after all. Don’t get discouraged.
Do want another level of insanity? Here in Germany, we got the news today that WEATHER TV persons get harrased by people that think there is no climate change and its just propaganda.
There was a meteorologist in the US, in Nebraska iirc, that resigned a couple of months ago after receiving death threats for daring to mention climate change during his weather report. They’re fucking unhinged.
“yeah it’s been the hottest year on record, pretty hot even here in Nebraska. Obviously we have no idea why this is happening, maybe it’s God punishing us for gay marriage”
Is that what they want. Like it’s getting hotter they can’t possibly try to deny that. Right?
This retort always reminds me of the SNL with Kate McKinnon as Laura Ingraham and she has a list of feel facts that might not be true but they feel true. One of them is “if global warming is real why are my feet cold”
Link if you’re looking for a laugh. It’s in the first two minutes
They’d be quicker to believe that tbh. Anything that lets them shirk all accountability for their own actions and justify their bigotry. Your facts << their feelings because skydaddy told them they’re special and he’s got it all under control.
Polarized. Two nearly identical people can easily be convinced to hate each other over all sorts of silly nonsense because of what media they choose to consume.
Nah, if you’re so unhinged that you’re making death threats simply because someone referenced objective and observable scientific facts that your warped fairy tale reality doesn’t let you accept, there’s no “once you cut through all your regressive, batshit beliefs, we’re really the same”. There’s no reasoning with them because the delusion (e.g. “owning the libs”) is their whole identity.
I’ve learned that trying to take the high road with people that revel in bigotry and corruption is a fruitless endeavor. I’m done being naive and giving them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps that’s because I live in the real world and actually deal with these people, rather than the pontificating about the intellectual concept of these people.
In France, on one of the main channels (the public TV, something like 5 or 6 channels, one of which is 24h news), the weather is now called “climate news” and addresses frontally climate stuff, with a link where you can send questions that they answer on air (whether what they answer are real questions or not is left as an exercise to the reader).
Of course that ruffled some feathers with the lunatic fringe, but they stuck with it, which is nice.
I used to really like Russell Brand. Not to say I don’t like him. I’ve never met him but from all accounts he seems to be a decent and caring person. But his recent weird ramblings are just… odd.
Gods above, now if only this had been your first attempt! 6/10, but hey thats a passing grade in some countries! The incest bit is trite, but I admire the choice of phrasing.
I think we are going to need to bring this up at the next parent teacher conference. Cheating is not acceptable behavior, and youve been warned multiple times about this.
You will be failing this class, as well. I am sorry, but I dont have much choice.
She’s not allowed to dance offsite at a private party but if you go to the school’s YouTube channel there are a couple cringy music videos of all the staff dancing (including the principal) on school property during working hours. www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qjnPeUOMjo
And why was he even watching these videos in the first place. They would have just been fun videos the friends made to share with each other outside of school. This was just about him being turned on by watching an under age girl dancing and then punishing the girl for his feelings.
in Kate Manne’s “Down Girl,” about misogyny she wrote: “They put women in their place when they seem to have ‘ideas beyond their station.’”
“Misogynist hostility encompasses myriad ‘down girl’ moves . . . to generalize: adults are insultingly likened to children, people to animals or even to objects. As well as infantilizing and belittling, there’s ridiculing, humiliating, mocking, slurring, vilifying, demonizing sexualizing or, alternatively desexualizing… and other forms that are dismissive and disparaging in specific social contexts.”
Emphasis mine to point out the most relevant portions in this case. It’s a solid read on misogyny that I definitely recommend to anyone.
I don’t think that’s fair. When he took over Twitter, he was there every hour of the day for the first few weeks, sleeping in the office. He’s now running 6 major companies all around the US and people complain about using private jets then about not using them to show up to some events.
Don’t get me wrong, I would never want to work for him and strongly prefer remote work, but this claim is just unfair, he’s not working from home, he’s working from other companies he’s running.
This smells really fishy. They quote her directly when it comes to her taking the side of Palestinians in general (aka, the oppressed population) but when it comes to her supposed support of Hamas in particular, all there is in the article is a paraphrase of THEIR version, not a direct quote.
And what bullshit would that be? Anything that would be a fireable offense?
That’s not rhetorical or sealioning btw. I’m genuinely asking since I’m not familiar with her at all other than clears throat some of her early work several years ago…
I don’t know so I won’t speak to that, and no judgement of right or wrong here, but this is the US. Anything is or can be a fireable offense so long as it’s not one of a few specific protected things. In almost every state. So making a post on social media pretty much regardless of content can be a fireable offense if the company deems it so.
Just because it’s technically allowed doesn’t mean it’s not reprehensible treatment of a mostly blameless person, though. I’m not sure it even IS technically allowed, actually. She might have a good libel and wrongful termination/breach of contract case…
As I said, no judgement from me one way or another. Also we have no way of knowing what kind of contract she had or whether there was some kind of morality clause. Maybe this violated it. Maybe not.
All I was saying was that, whether right or wrong, employment can be terminated pretty much anywhere in the United States for any reason as long as it’s not a protected thing, which this almost certainly is not. So saying something is or isn’t a fireable offense probably needs some context. Because anything could be a fireable offense if the company thinks it is.
Not true. They post hate speech from right wing politicians verbatim all the time.
As for the tweets being somewhere else, it seems that it’s this:
Can someone please tell the freedom fighters in Palestine to flip their phones and film horizontal
To the inattentive and/or wilfully misinterpreting, that might come off as an endorsement of Hamas as “freedom fighters”, but note that she doesn’t mention Hamas by name and that Hamas aren’t usually the ones filming any of their atrocities.
Add her clarification from a few days later and it’s clear she’s talking about regular people filming the atrocities of the Israeli oppressors and isn’t referring to terrorism at all, unless you define it broadly enough to include the Israeli state terrorism:
I just want to make it clear that this statement in no way shape or form is [inciting] spread of violence," she said. "I specifically said freedom fighters because that’s what the Palestinian citizens are… fighting for freedom every day
As I suspected, she didn’t do what they said she did. She just had the temerity to speak up against the apartheid regime.
I tried to read all her Tweets despite not having a Twitter account and yes, none of them mention Hamas or support Hamas. She’s just telling people to tear down the wall.
Apparently, that’s only okay in Berlin and other places. Clearly tearing down the siege wall surrounding Gaza or the apartheid wall that has plagued Palestinians and ruined their agricultural lands for years and years is a big no-no.
apartheid wall that has plagued Palestinians and ruined their agricultural lands for years and years is a big no-no.
Not to mention thousands being forced to go through military checkpoints to reach the nearest schools and hospitals, if they’re lucky enough to even be allowed to pass.
Actually, it turned out that the article DOES directly quote what she was cancelled for. It was just that the article made it sound like she’d declared her undying loyalty to Hamas when in actual fact she hadn’t even mentioned them. I’m just gonna copy a comment of mine from earlier today explaining the whole thing:
Can someone please tell the freedom fighters in Palestine to flip their phones and film horizontal," she wrote on the platform on Saturday.
That’s all. If you’re very inattentive or deliberately misinterpreting her words, you’d think that she was endorsing Hamas as “freedom fighters”.
But if you DO pay attention and know anything, you’ll notice that she never mentions Hamas and know that Hamas aren’t usually the ones filming any of their atrocities. Add her clarification from a few days later and it’s clear that she did NOT endorse Hamas and is the victim of character assassination because she had the temerity to speak up against the apartheid regime:
I just want to make it clear that this statement in no way shape or form is [inciting] spread of violence," she said. "I specifically said freedom fighters because that’s what the Palestinian citizens are… fighting for freedom every day.
I think there are maybe two times in my life I've been pro-second amendment, and watching that video just now is one of them.
That guy, threatening multiple people with what anyone with eyes would see as an extremely open murder threat? Often with a fake body to demonstrate their life actually is actively at stake in this moment? You can shoot that guy.
That clown-thing is one of the worst ‘pranks’ I’ve ever seen in my life. Someone could easily get PTSD from that, or someone else could easily assault the clown with lethal force because of the threat implied.
Good pranks are along the lines of the Just for Laughs / Gags series, not these dumbass American vigilante pranks, or that miserable ‘clown’ prank above.
No, they’re not. You also can’t speak for every person, in every city, in every country in Europe. Don’t be a moron. People are killed in Europe all the time.
the idea that sick days somehow impose a financial burden of the company is a blatant lie of criminal proportions. It is a justification for wage theft
I'm always amazed by how Americans in particular (sorry if you're not, I'm assuming) tend to go from one end of the spectrum to the other without any middle stops in common sense land. I once had a US friend go straight from "we have bad health care" to "we need a violent revolution" with no consideration to... you know, maybe good health care?
I mean, from my perspective it seems pretty obvious that you should only take as many sick days as you need, but you should take all the ones you need, to an unlimited total amount.
Like, that seems so simple. It's how it's always worked in the multiple countries I've lived in. You're sick? You call in sick. You need to be off for multiple days? You ask your doctor to officially declare that you're sick. The company is taking a hit? The government covers your wages during your long term sickness.
This works. We know this works. It's obvious this works.
Did you just say the government pays regular citizens?? Where I come from that’s communism. Governments are only supposed to pay corporations like the good lord intended.
We don’t believe that the government will let us have good Healthcare without revolution at this point. One side violently opposes it and the other dangles it like a carrot on a stick for votes, with no intention of actually providing it because if they actually improved things somewhat they’d lose a precious bargaining chip. This song and dance has been going on for as long as I’ve been alive. We’re losing hope here.
See? But that's the thought process that I find baffling. Because I can't find an American who doesn't claim to be dissatisfied, so... how do you land in that mix of conformism, where you don't think you can take political action of any sort to address it, but also extremism, where you think the logical endgame is full on armed conflict?
How do you massage a whole continent-sized country's psyche into just sitting there and taking it right up until the point where you start shooting people? I'm not even French and even I can see the glaring hole full of mass protesting right in the middle of that crap.
And hey, not to spoil any big secrets, but the US is literally the only democracy that hasn't rewritten its constitution fundamentally since its creation. You guys know that's allowed, right? Go argue for a proportional system or a parliamentary system or something. I mean, you guys could try doing something at all before deciding that it's full-on purge time.
Because if we try to change anything, we run the (very high) risk of losing our jobs, then our homes, and ending up on the streets. If you have a way to get over 300 million people all on the same page for a general strike, who are all willing to risk losing their income, please let me know.
I mean... as the other guy says below, if you're considering revolution surely a general strike is a notch below that level of commitment.
But also, I've lived through multiple general strikes. I don't know what to tell you, a party and a bunch of unions called for them, people followed them at will. Some changed stuff, others didn't. Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it's illegal to retalliate against a strike. Because, you know, we had strikes about that.
We're not even a particularly old democracy, we were an outright fascist country less than a century ago. My dad remembers running away from fascist police when he was in college. I don't know what to tell you.
In the US there are only two parties of any real significance. General strike is something neither of them would ever call for. Only about 10.1% of US workers have a union.
Nobody lost their jobs or homes, among other things because it’s illegal to retalliate against a strike.
In the US, strike retaliation, while technically illegal, is very rarely enforced. When it is, the penalty is … they have to undo the thing they did and were penalized for. No fine, no concession, no additional monitoring, and there was always the (very good) chance they’d get away with it.
Sadly, in a country where guns are common and unions aren’t, armed revolt is just more imaginable than a general strike.
I’m American and it’s never made much sense to me, either.
Afaik it’s fundementally 5 forces.
Severe distrust of the established institutions, including the democratic process.
Long-drawn, multi-generational unrest ever since late globalization and the decline of unions.
Anti-labor propaganda and institutional complacency.
Increased alienation and in-fighting among the population. Got much worse ever since the MAGA repubs cropped up. We’re fighting against 40-50% of the population for basic shit. (Have you seen our paralyzed congress?)
Finally, this unwillingness to be the first to bite the bullet. Inevitably, the first people to start off these grassroots movements are going to get the shortest end of the stick. They are people sacrificing their free time and economic security for a movement that begs others to do the same.
FWIW, I do recognize all of those from the outside looking in.
I also recognize that you have so few protections that action is riskier than it is here, where protesting can't be legally retaliated against and there are actual labor protections in place that make effecting change easier. Which in turn is part of the expectation that the government should proactively help you when you need it.
But still, it does seem like there should be a middle point somewhere where you get rid at least of point one and you tip over point three, right? That seems like it'd happen way before stuff gets really violent.
But then, culturally you guys fantasize about violently confronting the government since day one, which I guess is what happens when your foundational myth is also a colonial-revolutionary myth.
Okay, so, I’m going to ramble a lot because this is something that causes me a lot of anxiety and stress, but I’ll try and explain this, there are a lot of Americans who support better practices and would happily vote for politicians who claim to support them, and then often do, but the politicians often go back on their word, or at the very least, are stopped by the rest of their party or the opposing team (yes, team). Why do politicians go back on their word, or only attempt to follow through when the vote is stacked against them? Because often the things that will improve the lives of Americans are things that will go against corporate interests. Don’t be fooled, Democrats are bought and paid for by corporations too, the things the implement are usually things that will have little to no corporate cost. However, the moment you start talking about things like higher corporate taxes, taxes on the rich, public healthcare, etc, they act like they have no idea what you’re talking about. They basically serve the purpose of not being Republicans, while the Republicans serve the purpose of not being Democrats.
Okay, but at least Democrats aren’t running headlong towards fascism, right? Yes, however now you have the issue where many states have the votes rigged in favor of one party, typically republican. I live in a state that should have a significantly higher number of democrat representatives, both in the state and federal legislature. However, because the voting districts are gerrymandered to hell, it means Republicans get a significant advantage. Then, you have the issue where republicans are intentionally making kids idiots because they know it increases the chances of them being future republicans. You have the problem where your only choices are the politicians the Democrats or Republicans put in front of you.
You could try and start a new party, but remember that for every vote you capture, that’s possibly one less vote going to the only major party who doesn’t want a 4th Reich; because you probably won’t be capturing any republican votes. You have to be certain that you’re going to capture enough votes to beat the Republicans and the Democrats, otherwise the Republicans will probably win and try their damnedest to implement Project 2025. To steal a phrase, “if you’re going to kill the king, you’d better not miss”. Everything has to go right, which means it won’t.
So protest, right? Well, that only kinda works. The moment a protest runs into corporate interests, it hits a brick wall. You can be sure that every corporation will immediately start funnelling money into shady political groups who’ll use it to spread FUD and manufacture bad actors so the protest loses public appeal. You can try and upgrade the protest to a riot and commit property damage, but that’ll only make you look bad and you’ll struggle to find support from people. That means the likelyhood of a protest going well and having any real effect is pretty slim.
So… What else can you do at that point? These people have more money than God. Something like the top 40 richest people in the world have enough money that they could likely completely and permanently fix many of humanity’s global issues, and still have billions to play with. Yet they don’t.
Over here you have a hard limit on how much money private citizens and corpos can contribute, no donation can be anonymous. You can't even sell merch or collect cash donations if you're a political party.
But a more interesting point you made is the perception of protests. You picture them as... well, US protests. You get a cute little march with people giving cops flowers and then it escalates to "riot", which is already on the other end of the going straight to violence spectrum I find so weird.
The escalation point of a protest in my mind is a strike (which, weirdly, your relatively rich media people just successfully and very publicly did, and are still doing). The next step after that is a general strike.
Sure, I hear that there is likely not enough public support for that in the US. You seem to see that as part of the system that prevents nonviolent action from being useful, but surely the lack of support discards the option of violent action as well, right? When you talk violent or revolutionary acts you also need public support. If people aren't willing to put real pressure in other ways you're also not going to round up the capitalists using sticks and handguns any time soon.
I'm not surprised at the sense of powerlessness, I'm surprised by how the notion that violence solves the powerlessness is so prevalent.
Chicken and egg problem. In order to ban political contributions, you would need to elect enough polititans who will vote for that against the corporate interests mentioned. Not just a majority if polititians either.
Because the high court has decided that political contributions are “speech”, it would take a constitutional amendment to end them. That means 2/3 of both the upper and lower houses. Then, it has to get a majority in 3/4 of the state legislatures as well before actually taking effect.
For reference, in the last 41 years it hasn’t been possible to do that for an amendment saying women have the same rights as men, something that runs into far less corporate opposition than ending bribery political contributions.
Yeah, no, your constitutional system is broken beyond repair.
That's not up for debate. Like I said above, every other democracy has done a new Constitution or a full on rework at some point. Americans are pretty unique in getting hung up on their foundational moment like that.
I mean, SC precedent can be altered eventually, but even the really obviously flawed design of the court in general is a constitutional issue with obvious improvements available.
But again, a new Constitution seems like a much lower bar than... you know, The Revolution.
i think a lot of us feel the problems are so entrenched, and any lower bar to change so inaccessible, nothing short of violence will create any significant change.
given how difficult it would be to (for example) change our constitution or end corporate political contributions through non-violent means, what’s left? every part of our current system is self-reinforcing on the national level.
it doesn’t help that the sentimental commitment to “our founding fathers” is equivalent to something like religious faith (see - christofascism, american nationalism) and/or national identity (because we don’t have any other).
Someone already addressed your comment about political contributions, but…
But a more interesting point you made is the perception of protests. You picture them as… well, US protests. You get a cute little march with people giving cops flowers and then it escalates to “riot”, which is already on the other end of the going straight to violence spectrum I find so weird.
Because anything in the US that isn’t giving cops flowers gets escalated by cops and bad actors. Stick a few people in the crowd with molotovs and now the cops have an excuse to start swinging batons and shooting people with beanbags.
The escalation point of a protest in my mind is a strike (which, weirdly, your relatively rich media people just successfully and very publicly did, and are still doing). The next step after that is a general strike.
A lot of people don’t have the money to strike right now. Additionally, corporations have a lot of sway with local governments and sometimes building managers/landlords. They’re comfortable and entertained enough that it doesn’t feel urgent enough to risk being jailed, fired, and possibly evicted; and they don’t have the money to risk everything going south (and it probably would). I’ve seen other people make this comparison, so you mighta heard it before, but it’s like boiling a frog. If you do it slow enough, the frog won’t realize it’s dying. It’s honestly dystopian as fuck.
Sure, I hear that there is likely not enough public support for that in the US. You seem to see that as part of the system that prevents nonviolent action from being useful, but surely the lack of support discards the option of violent action as well, right? When you talk violent or revolutionary acts you also need public support. If people aren’t willing to put real pressure in other ways you’re also not going to round up the capitalists using sticks and handguns any time soon.
I think part of the hope is that if you go straight to violence, it’ll put pressure on people to pick a side, effectively shaking the fence or knocking them out of their “frog daze” to make them wake up to the reality they’re slowly being boiled alive.
Another part is that it might give them hope that they can actually change things, motivating them to join the cause. When you watch protests regularly escalate to violence because of cops or suspected plants while resulting in little to no improvement, you become jaded and hopeless. Look at how much effort it took to get states to start taking cop brutality seriously; and that was something a majority of Americans probably agreed was a huge issue that needed to be addressed sooner rather than later. Yet it took a hell of a lot of effort and a mini rebellion, and we still have issues in many states with police brutality.
Finally, violence against your oppressors, or the thought of it, gives you a feeling of power. When you feel powerless for long enough, the thought of finally having enough power to destroy the people responsible for the state of the world is, quite frankly, intoxicating.
These aren’t the only reasons people might have for wanting violence, I’m sure America’s culture of rebellion and violence is another part of it, but I think those are probably some of the more common reasons.
Political violence as a power fantasy does ring true to me. This entire thread has been a mix of "but there's nothing we can do", which seems pretty obviously less true than the average American seems to think, and "violent revolt would be needed", also probably not true.
There seem to be two intertwined fantasies: powerlessness as a balm for maybe a bit of class guilt, and a power fantasy of becoming a radical revolutionary once shit hits the fan. "Yeah, I could do something now, but it's futile, so I better carry on. But just you wait because when the revolution comes I'm so there", and so on.
That I can wrap my head around and seems to fit best with the stuff above. I mean, it's a pretty universal feeling, I think. It's definitely not US-exclusive, but you guys are really good at it, and it compounds with a bunch of other things that got mentioned in this thread, too.
Historically speaking, the most successful leaps forward have come about via methods that were branded as “terrorism” while they were happening. If we had restricted ourselves exclusively to what you call “constructive”, we would have never freed ourselves from the shackles of monarchy, or in the case of the American Civil War, the much more literal shackles of, well, shackles. Violence should be a last resort, but keeping off the table entirely is just naive.
Now, this? This is a crucial difference. As I was saying before, the foundational revolultionary myth of the US is a lot, and it sure looks like it sets the stage.
I mean, that statement is absurd on the face of it, seeing how... you know, the UK exists and it's ostensibly a democracy (a social democracy, even, by some definitions) and so are all the other colonial powers and a lot of the independent colonies, major liberal revolution or not.
It makes no sense, but you still said it as a fact. It's still bipartisan enough that you didn't picture it in your head as a bit of conservative historical fantasy mythmaking, you put it out there as a verifiable thing you can just say. The opposite notion is naive, even.
That must leave a mark, right? The indoctrination and warped perspective of the relationship with government, progress and change that mindset must give you HAS to be a part of this.
the american population, however, is deadlocked in their opposed visions of what progress looks like, and leadership is not strong enough to do much more than continue to consolidate and protect their own power and authority.
again, change at the lower bars you have proposed is very difficult indeed, and requires shared vision that is very hard to come by here. it doesn’t help people to feel change can be obtained through current systems or non-violent strikes that a) financial constraints are so much harder to overcome than in previous decades (i.e. trying to strike could mean inability to feed or house yourself or to afford needed medical care) and b) what change we managed in recent decades has been rolled back (roe v. wade) or is under attack (civil rights).
i hate that my comment is so negative and i don’t want to discourage any fellow americans from trying to create positive change. i’m just sharing my own voice and why it’s hard to imagine success short of revolution. i feel like advocacy and voting are all i can really do right now, and they are honestly not very effective.
It has been everywhere I’ve worked in the UK. Currently I get 26 fully paid sick days, and other concessions for long term sick. Every other place I’ve worked has just paid 80% for sick days
I work in Spain, we don’t have sick days. If the doctor says we are not apt to work, we take a leave intil the doctor says so. Indefinitely. No maximum. As long as the doctor says.
This limit thing is so weird. Yeah, you can use them as vacation of you are healthy but that’s an abuse and then when you need them you will be vulnerable without days. It’s better to have infinite days, to be used only when you are actually sick, as stated by your doctor.
Right right, if your leave is longer than a year the permanent inability (incapacidad permanente, diferente a una discapacidad) cards pop up, since chances are you will never be able to be able to return to the same work you did, like an ernia for a driver and so on.
In any case, people taking a year long leave is kind of rare and it’s practically limitless compared to the 2-30 days the other mentioned countries get.
(edit - i live in the us) i can purchase extra insurance for short-term and for long-term sick leave.
right now, i have ten days of paid time off for whatever reason per year (no explicit sick leave) and i pay about $650 a month for insurance which covers very little for myself and my kids until i have spent at least $6000 on any one of us or $15000 for all of us together. i make about $50k a year before tax and insurance.
and our compensation package (paid time off and insurance) is considered pretty good for my area.
i could buy better insurance and short and long term leave, but this would cost about half of what i make. unfortunately, half of what i make already goes to rent.
I’m in the US and I get 3 paid sick days a year. Anything more and I don’t get paid PLUS I get a point. After 8 points I lose my job. We come to work sick unless we are in the hospital.
Most Americans still have their hears shoved so far up their asses that they think all of Europe is a freedomless third world region where the governments silence all criticism and doctors still use leeches or something. Just completely delusional and in denial.
Of course most Americans haven’t even left their own state, never mind gone to Europe to experience it themselves.
Most Americans still have their hears shoved so far up their asses that they think all of Europe is a freedomless third world region where the governments silence all criticism and doctors still use leeches or something. Just completely delusional and in denial.
do you actually believe this or are you just trolling
Looking around places I’ve lived, and frequent, Many were in the 60% for level 3 literacy (much higher than average). But the countries around them were often below average sub 40%. Cities seem to be an exception and seem to have very low level 3 numbers.
i mean… i would like to go to europe, but where on earth do i find the time off work and the money to do it?
that americans are not better traveled is not entirely the fault of their attitudes. it’s easier for your average european to travel internationally for a number if reasons, both practical and systemic.
edit - for many americans, international travel is a privilege.
You’re right, it is a great privilege. I’ve never left the U.S. either. But I’m also not a fucking dumbass MURICAMAN that thinks a $5000 bill for a broken arm and 3 sick days a year is something to be grateful for.
I’m able to see that my country is super fucked up and that mlst of Europe seem to do most things better.
But it’s also a misunderstanding of how the US is governed and regulated. It’s setup more like Europe than people realize.
And yes, we’re fully aware of how much most of us are getting screwed on worker’s rights for time off. People in other countries don’t think we’re aware but we are. The question becomes, how do you fight for more rights? Our politicians absolutely suck. That’s the main issue. The two party system doesn’t work but we can’t agree what to do about it.
That’s an option but it would have to be something so heinous, to push us to unite, I couldn’t fathom it. Nothing, so far, has pushed us to that point.
Think about how many mass shootings we’ve had and that still doesn’t unite us. The issue is more complex than our European friends understand.
Yep. And that’s the American value system. Having your entire population under the veritable yoke of slavery and that isn’t enough to make you collectively revolt.
My last job had no sick days. I would get no pay for the day and a point, and at 6 points you’re gone.
The job I have now ALSO has no sick days, but at least the attendance policy is so lax I can literally skip 2/3 shifts and stay employed. Still no pay, but it’s a bit less shitty than my last job.
The bar is so fucking low I don’t think ground penetrating radar could find it.
Here specifically it's three days off (each time, not total) and then you need to get an official doctor declaration to stay home longer (which makes sense, if you've been sick for several days you should see a doctor anyway, and it's free, so why not).
And if the doctor says you're too sick to work, even if it's due to your mental health then you're off for as long as they say, with a compensation scheme that involves both your company and the government dealing with the cost for certain periods and so on.
In countries that do not exploit workers, if the doctor writes you a sick leave, you are at sick leave for that time. If doctor writes you 6 months, you can be away 6 months with full pay. In general company pays some initial weeks, and the system pays the rest.
So there is no max or min.
Also in many countries if you are in your paid vacation, and you get sick, you move for sick leave, and those days do not count as used vacation.
No. If you have paid time off it is part of your compensation package. A better way to look at it is if you work 52 weeks a year and your employment includes a week of PTO, then you are effectively due 53 weeks of pay and any time you take off is subtracted from that number.
Where I work (not California) this time is “use it or lose it” so no. Our comp is 52 weeks a year and we can take up to 3 weeks (not consecutive) of that off for whatever if scheduled or unscheduled for sickness. 1 week if you are new.
Still yes. The point is that PTO is part of your compensation package. If you don’t use it you are not receiving that compensation. Put it another way: if part of your compensation package is a company vehicle (just like everyone else in the company) but you work from home, are you going to consider that fair compensation?
I get 5% extra per year saved of sick leave on my pension, up to 2 years, adjusted to percent of the year left of sick leave. But my job is fun and people tend to want to work.
I don’t know if that’s reality though. Part of my new job’s compensation package that I negotiated in was unlimited days off. I’ve already taken a vacation I wouldn’t have been able to with my previous job. I know better than to abuse the privilege but the trade off of not getting it paid out on exit is already worth it for me.
because I am a big gobshite, I always mention this. They ask for feedback about benefits in most companies, I always say, “yeah you say unlimited time off but I’m not allowed to take 365 consecutive days?”
two separate companies have changed it to “flexible time off” because of my inability to keep my trap shut
nottheonion
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.