🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@boomzilla said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Those are usually hollow and made of glass. Ouch...
Didn't think anything needed a "Do Not Fuck" warning but I guess these need a "Do Not Fuck" warning.
-
@Gribnit Considering I have heard of people trying to use them as sex toys with horrible results, yeah.
-
-
-
-
On a Windows Server 2012. Is that bad? I feel like that's bad.
-
@pie_flavor said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
-
@pie_flavor said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Still better than the "Just say no" campaign against the recent wave of rape cases in Finland (and Europe in general):
https://www.facebook.com/yleoulu/videos/vb.190153419756/10153825767184757/?type=2&theater&_fb_noscript=1Short translation of the content: "Say no. Push with hands. Hit with handbag (but not so hard that it'd constitute an assault)."
EDIT: Typos. The text entry box hates me, or just WYSIAWYG.
-
@Cursorkeys said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@pie_flavor said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
"When outlaws are outlawed, only outlaws will be outlaws."
-
@pie_flavor said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Well, duh. That's what the gun is for! Consent obtained!
-
@anonymous234 said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
I don't think that's it.
Citing any part of the US Code is (probably) BS. Under most circumstances, ordinary robbery is outside the purview of the Federal government. Robbery and most other common crimes are illegal under the laws of the state (or subdivision thereof) where they occur, and the Feds don't have any legal cause to be involved.
-
@HardwareGeek Bad idea: the US
legal system.
-
This could have gone in the In Other News Today thread, but since it's a few days old and spectacularly bad it can go just as well in here (though it could also have gone in an Arizona Man thread):
-
@boomzilla said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
-
@Cursorkeys said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@pie_flavor said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
I think she is missing a step or two there.
-
-
-
@boomzilla this is a good idea. now trees are not a problem.
-
-
@Tsaukpaetra It took me a while to realise that was just one, rather than two having a hug.
-
You're not allowed to say it out loud!
-
@Cursorkeys that also explains why there are no vaccines.
-
@boomzilla said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@Cursorkeys that also explains why there are no vaccines.
Underlines the importance of publicly-funded health R&D I guess. To fill in the gaps where lack of potential profitability is pushing private research in different directions.
-
@Cursorkeys said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@boomzilla said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@Cursorkeys that also explains why there are no vaccines.
Underlines the importance of publicly-funded health R&D I guess. To fill in the gaps where lack of potential profitability is pushing private research in different directions.
Probably less that you think. That R&D usually doesn't include all of the stuff that's required to be tested before a drug gets approved. Though special orphan disease type programs fill in some of the gaps. But let's look at this statement from TFA:
To get around the sustainability issue overall, the report suggests that biotech companies focus on diseases or conditions that seem to be becoming more common and/or are already high-incidence.
I mean...that's just basic economics, and generally good sense. When you decide to spend money on rare diseases, you're deciding not to spend money on common ones (though it's not a given that spending money necessarily leads to new treatments with any sort of scale).
Plus, the people who own the cure may be different people than who own whatever the previous treatment was. So they weren't necessarily making any profit off of the long term treatment. And even those end up going generic after a while, so what's long term? And what about new people getting the disease and therefore needing the cure?
-
@acrow said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
"Say no. Push with hands. Hit with handbag (but not so hard that it'd constitute an assault)."
A self-defense claim is that useless there?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@Gribnit said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
trees are not a problem.
Nah, Trees is never a problem!
Tell that to Sonny Bono.
-
@djls45 said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@acrow said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
"Say no. Push with hands. Hit with handbag (but not so hard that it'd constitute an assault)."
A self-defense claim is that useless there?
In short:
From what I hear, yes.A longer explanation:
Most fistfights end up in court with both parties charged for assault, no matter who started it. I'm neither expert nor lawyer, but these end up in the news often enough. I don't remember if it's happened specifically in cases of rape, but I seem to have a faint memory of charges/fines from a slap after an ass-fondling, or something like that. In general (according to my teacher on practical civil law in high-school, so this may be out of date), if it was theoretically possible to run away from a situation (ignores your property or loved ones being left behind), or theoretically possible to keep the other party at arm's length without bruising them, then any bruise WILL constitute assault. Welcome to Finland.
Compare and contrast "castle doctrine" in U.S. law.
-
I thought just being at arm's length in Finland was a crime?
-
@Zecc I get the impression that Finland is TRBI.
-
@Zecc said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
I thought just being at arm's length in Finland was a crime?
Could be worse (and on-topic for this thread):
Another example is that some people who work here take public transit and there is a bus stop outside of our office. To accommodate Casey [an employee with OCD, the aforementioned 'mental health' problem] we were directed by management to line up for the bus as male/female/male/female, etc.. so the line is orderly.
-
Someone was given a written warning for only wearing a ring on one hand and was asked to remove their wedding ring because they didn’t have a second ring, and we were told we will be written up if we don’t comply.
Holy crepes.
But what you quoted is arguably worse, as it's out of the company's purview.
-
@Zecc said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Someone was given a written warning for only wearing a ring on one hand and was asked to remove their wedding ring because they didn’t have a second ring, and we were told we will be written up if we don’t comply.
Holy crepes.
But what you quoted is arguably worse, as it's out of the company's purview.
I think what you quoted is worse, as it stomps on employee's freedom to wear a religious symbol how they like.
As the fear of a lawsuit appears to be the only thing that will get through to them, someone could (should) sue the employer for that, and "Casey" should be personally named as a defendant...
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
As the fear of a lawsuit appears to be the only thing that will get through to them, someone could (should) sue the employer for that, and "Casey" should be personally named as a defendant...
What should they be sued for? To repeat what the author mentioned numerous times in the comments:
There’s nothing really to involve the state over though. The government can’t enforce laws that don’t exist, and there’s no law preventing employers from regulating dress and jewelry, as long as they’re applying it evenly and not based on a protected characteristic like race or religion (and as long as they’re making exceptions for religious requirements, etc.).
If you’re in the U.S., the only thing I can see here that might be illegal is the thing about lining up by gender (and even there, probably not). The rest of it, no. Like I wrote above, the government can’t enforce laws that don’t exist, and there’s no law preventing employers from regulating dress and jewelry, as long as they’re applying it evenly and not based on a protected characteristic like race or religion (and as long as they’re making exceptions for religious requirements, etc.).
That said, a company like this one that clearly doesn’t understand the law may be cowed by this kind of threat, who knows. But in a more general sense, it’s usually not useful to make legal threats when there’s no basis for them in law.
Regarding wedding rings (by someone else)
It’s okay to ask people to remove a religious symbol, though; and in this case it falls into a broader category of “jewelry,” which it’s okay to ask people not to wear in the workplace.
Something’s being a religious symbol isn’t the same as its being obligatory to your religion to wear it all the time.
-
@PJH Over here, the company may only command the parts of the dress which have a direct impact on your work. I.e. it would be reasonable to tell a car mechanic not to wear jewelry. But for an office drone? Nope.
There can be a dresscode, of course, but it has to be reasonable. The rules detailed here would likely be cashiered by our courts.
-
@PJH said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
What should they be sued for? To repeat what the author mentioned numerous times in the comments:
Literally right there.
there’s no law preventing employers from regulating dress and jewelry, as long as they’re applying it evenly and not based on a protected characteristic like race or religion (and as long as they’re making exceptions for religious requirements, etc.).
Wearing a wedding ring is a religious requirement for person X. Telling person X to remove their wedding ring is just as much a violation of their religious rights as telling a disabled person to FOAD is a violation of their ADA rights (assuming that either the wedding ring or the disability can be reasonably accommodated in the workplace).
Something’s being a religious symbol isn’t the same as its being obligatory to your religion to wear it all the time.
For some people, it might be. Anyway, you can only force them to modify their religious behavior if you cannot reasonably accommodate it.
Being allowed to wear a wedding ring is a reasonable accommodation in the vast majority of workplaces. The only places where it's not would be if it's a safety hazard, e.g. could be caught on something and rip your finger off. This does not get to be dictated by the whims of some OCD idiot.
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Being allowed to wear a wedding ring is a reasonable accommodation in the vast majority of workplaces. The only places where it's not would be if it's a safety hazard, e.g. could be caught on something and rip your finger off. This does not get to be dictated by the whims of some OCD idiot.
I wonder how they'd cope with people who have a significant bilateral asymmetry. I used to work with someone who had one arm much shorter than the other (due to a quirk of genetics rather than a chemical insult like prenatal thalidomide of the wrong handedness) and there's literally no way that he'd have put up with Mr OCD freaking out over that.
-
@dkf One might suspect they'd cope relatively well because their "disability" is really just a front for being allowed to bully everyone around them. And bullies generally only pick fights that they think they can win.
-
@PJH quoted in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Another example is that some people who work here take public transit and there is a bus stop outside of our office. To accommodate Casey [an employee with OCD, the aforementioned 'mental health' problem] we were directed by management to line up for the bus as male/female/male/female, etc.. so the line is orderly.
How are they supposed to line up if there aren't an even number of men and women?
@Zecc quoted in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Someone was given a written warning for only wearing a ring on one hand and was asked to remove their wedding ring because they didn’t have a second ring, and we were told we will be written up if we don’t comply.
Wearing a ring can be a danger in certain jobs, mainly those involving heavy machinery, certain chemicals, or high-voltage electricity. Even though in those cases PPE should provide enough protection, the extra precaution of removing the ring reduces the risk of having something go wrong.
But yeah, removing it just to enable someone's OCD is beyond appropriate.
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Wearing a wedding ring is a religious requirement for person X.
In which religion?
@dkf said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
I wonder how they'd cope with people who have a significant bilateral asymmetry.
Amputees and those wearing eye-patches were mooted in the comments...
@djls45 said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
How are they supposed to line up if there aren't an even number of men and women?
Some people get to walk home instead...
-
@PJH said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
In which religion?
Theirs. You don't get to tell someone how they should believe in their own religion. That would be like saying "well some Muslims don't believe that Islam requires women must always wear hijab, therefore you may not wear hijab because you're Muslim (even though your job consists of sitting at a desk all day answering the telephone and is not affected in the least by you wearing it)".
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
Theirs. You don't get to tell someone how they should believe in their own religion. That would be like saying "well some Muslims don't believe that Islam requires women must always wear hijab, therefore you may not wear hijab because you're Muslim (even though your job consists of sitting at a desk all day answering the telephone and is not affected in the least by you wearing it)".
Welcome to France:
-
@PJH Prohibiting clothing worn in public that conceals your identity is a different issue (though, I don't think a total ban on them would be constitutional in the US like it is in France apparently).
If your employer used facial recognition to verify the identity of employees when they enter/leave the workplace, then they might have a valid case to expect employees to remove items of clothing that would interfere with the facial recognition system. But even then, they would only have a case to require you to remove it long enough for the facial recognition system to recognize you when you clock in/out, and it'd be a question of whether they could reasonably accommodate you with, say, a magnetic ID card instead of making you go through the face scanner.
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@PJH Prohibiting clothing worn in public that conceals your identity is a different issue.
But religion.
-
@PJH I was about to edit my post, because I don't think it would fly in the US. France is special I guess.
There are laws in some areas of the US that prohibit clothing that hides your identity if it's worn for the purposes of committing crimes without being identified. That's not just a blanket ban on those clothes, though. A blanket ban probably wouldn't be constitutional here.
-
@brie said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@PJH I was about to edit my post, because I don't think it would fly in the US. France is special I guess.
Well, the term "laïcité" is not exactly hiding its origins
They're very strict on that whole separation of church and state. For them the US is practically a theocracy akin to Iran.
-
-
@djls45 said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
How are they supposed to line up if there aren't an even number of men and women?
Put a woodchipper at the end.
-
@brie Werll, no, it's OCD, but it's apparently unmanaged and untreated. So okay, you've talked me around to this OCD person is also a bully. Deal with yer shit, people...
-
@PJH said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
@Zecc said in 🙅 THE BAD IDEAS THREAD:
I thought just being at arm's length in Finland was a crime?
Could be worse (and on-topic for this thread):
Another example is that some people who work here take public transit and there is a bus stop outside of our office. To accommodate Casey [an employee with OCD, the aforementioned 'mental health' problem] we were directed by management to line up for the bus as male/female/male/female, etc.. so the line is orderly.
Fucking amazing. 'We will accommodate you by telling other people to accommodate you.' That's CenturyLink levels of full compliance.
-