|
Trabisnikof posted:There are a lot of men who think you "wear down" a woman into sex with you. That the initial "no" or "get out of my face" or "I have a boyfriend" is a challenge they must conquer. These men are then frightened by the idea that they might have to actually get stated consent and then she might say no and then "all their work is lost because she changed her mind". Unfortunately, this is also the way romance is portrayed in a ton of media. This is true, but gently caress them. They can cry and be big babies. gently caress 'em. You are either having consensual sex or you aren't, and frankly, it shouldn't be hard to tell. Anyone saying they are afraid that a woman they had sex with might come back later and cry rape, shouldn't have sex with that woman. Women are completely awesome and they are horny as gently caress and when they want to gently caress you, they will let you know.
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:There are a lot of men who think you "wear down" a woman into sex with you. That the initial "no" or "get out of my face" or "I have a boyfriend" is a challenge they must conquer. These men are then frightened by the idea that they might have to actually get stated consent and then she might say no and then "all their work is lost because she changed her mind". Unfortunately, this is also the way romance is portrayed in a ton of media. I have heard acquaintances say things like that many times. That kind of cultural dynamic isnt going to fade away quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I think that is a terrible way to live and socialize, but it is also exacerbated by women who proudly state things like "at first I turned him down, but I was so worth it that he kept trying". Yeah, unfortunately ego-centric people can't tell the difference between "two people got to know each other and liked each other better then" and "if only they get to know me the way I know me, they'll like me."
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
I finally re-registered to vote and was pretty sure I selected no party affiliation, but when I got the card, it said republican. That literally doesn't matter anymore, right? California has open primaries? edit: oh poo poo, page right before this one, awesome. welp, better head down to the registrar..... or should I? pathetic little tramp fucked around with this message at 22:36 on Oct 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I finally re-registered to vote and was pretty sure I selected no party affiliation, but when I got the card, it said republican. That literally doesn't matter anymore, right? California has open primaries? Depends if you care about voting for party apparatchiks and in the pretty much meaningless presidential primary. And I guess if you'd like to get mailers from Republican candidates in the mail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Oh god, I didn't even think of the republican mailers. Then again, that poo poo could be funny.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Pohl posted:This is true, but gently caress them. They can cry and be big babies. gently caress 'em. Let's not put women on a pedestal. Both men and women can be idiotic children when it comes to sex. Some women are awesome, some aren't. Just like some men are awesome and some aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
In the CA occasionally getting things right column the state passed a law mandating sick time benefits for all full-time employees: http://www.sfgate.com/business/networth/article/California-s-new-sick-leave-law-explained-5755162.php Note it's only three days max per year, on the bright side local areas which already have more generous sick leave laws like SF don't have to downgrade the mandatory benefit. etalian fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Oct 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 16:30
|
|
|
etalian posted:In the CA occasionally getting things right column the state passed a law mandating sick time benefits for all full-time employees: Yes, all the more reason for companies to avoid hiring full time workers. (I think this is great, but the people who need it most are in industries that are already flocking to a massive stable of part time employees instead of full timers)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
Or contractors, that's the other big thing. But really though, somehow countries with much more generous benefits still manage to employ people so I kind of always react badly to arguments about how new laws to protect/improve working conditions are going to hurt employment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Hell, you don't even need to ask "would you like to have sexual intercourse" like a robot (regardless how much internet nerds seem to think otherwise). These people are going as far as making jokes that now you need to have a girl sign a consent form and waiver whenever you're trying to have sex with her, lest you end up being labeled a rapist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
etalian posted:In the CA occasionally getting things right column the state passed a law mandating sick time benefits for all full-time employees: Where are you seeing only Full-Time employees? Unless I'm misunderstanding, the law reads "one hour [of sick leave] for every 30 hours worked", not that you have to work more than 30 hours per-week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
This part is still BS:quote:Q: If I leave my job, can I cash out my unused sick days, like I can with vacation and paid time off? I hate that vacation time can be cashed out but sick time can't. Way to punish people for being healthy...
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Where are you seeing only Full-Time employees? Unless I'm misunderstanding, the law reads "one hour [of sick leave] for every 30 hours worked", not that you have to work more than 30 hours per-week. Q: What employees are covered by this? A: Anyone who works more than 30 days in a year in California, including part-time and temporary employees, with several exceptions. Employees of In-Home Supportive Services, a public-sector program, are exempt. Private-sector home health workers are covered. Most employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement are exempt, as are people who work for an air carrier as a flight deck or cabin crew member, if they receive compensated time off. Yeah the main loopholes apply mainly to union and also air carrier employees
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:This part is still BS:
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 10:54
|
|
|
TACD posted:On the other hand, doesn't this encourage people to actually take time off when they're sick instead of crawling in, giving everybody else a cold and then cashing out an extra day at the end? Yeah it's pretty much a good idea since it makes sure people stay home instead of sharing it with their co-workers. I believe you can use the sick days too for things such as caring for loved one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
Yeah because most people that get sick only get sick for 3 days out of 365. Not to mention that the lack of vacation time makes people go to work sick and then use their handful of days of sick time to do vacation things. America is lovely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:11
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Yeah because most people that get sick only get sick for 3 days out of 365. basically http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/paid-sick-days-2009-05.pdf  
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
In a previous retail job, calling out sick resulted in accumulating attendance points, with or without a doctor's note. If you did it six times (assuming you're never late) you'd be automatically fired. However, they also stressed that we should never come in sick and make other people sick. Corporate did not see the problem with simultaneously encouraging and discouraging call-outs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Just had a chance to go through my voter information pamphlet, and the argument against measure Q (Santa Clara) is loving hilarious:quote:If you thought the Open Space Authority (OSA) was protecting your "view shed" --- think again. TL;DR - why bother protecting land that you can't see from your house and you are too fat and lazy to climb?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Why protect places you can't drive to? I vote sell 90% of it and then turn the rest into a parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:Just had a chance to go through my voter information pamphlet, and the argument against measure Q (Santa Clara) is loving hilarious: Based on a sample size of 1 taken shortly after the Mid-Pen version of the same measure passed and extrapolating that to Santa Clara, the people who live up in the mountains really hate the "flatlanders" for voting for things which might even remotely suggest that there will be government purchase of land up there. Surprise surprise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Based on a sample size of 1 taken shortly after the Mid-Pen version of the same measure passed and extrapolating that to Santa Clara, the people who live up in the mountains really hate the "flatlanders" for voting for things which might even remotely suggest that there will be government purchase of land up there. Surprise surprise. The Santa Clara OSA already has the land - they're looking for additional funding because they have no money and can't improve access/trails/maintenance without it. I just thought it was ridiculous and hilarious that the opponents had to resort to such a stupid argument (though to be fair the argument does later transition to "THIS AMATEUR AND CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION WANTS ARE HARD EARNED DOLLARS!!!!")
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Or contractors, that's the other big thing. It's been happening for over 100 years. "Eight hour workdays? We'll never turn a profit!" "No child labour? We'll never afford adult workers!" "Minimum wage!? Elizabeth I'm comin' to join ya honey!" Good businesses figure out the only way to success is through well-trained employees and you do whatever it takes to make them happy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
A couple of separate points: 1: the yes means yes rule does not apply to everyone in california, it just means that university disciplinary/hearing committees should follow that as a guideline towards determining what happened in sex crime/rape disputes. (if they don't they don't get funded by the state, or something. So yeah it's a big deal) 2: does anyone know anything about liccardo vs corteze for San Jose? I tried to do some digging (I can't even vote, but my wife can) and it looks like the San Jose Mercury is super into liccardo. They've even given him some space to write columns/articles, but all the comments on all the articles about him are stuff like "he's a loving dirty liar, the SJ mercury news is in the pockets of the rich and wealthy who support liccardo". Also he seems to not want/care too much about the san jose police, whereas cortese (who, I don't know, it seems has not done a hell of a lot in the past?) does. But I may be wrong since there are no real positive SJ mercury news articles about him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
redreader posted:They've even given him some space to write columns/articles, but all the comments on all the articles about him are stuff like "he's a loving dirty liar, the SJ mercury news is in the pockets of the rich and wealthy who support liccardo". The Mercury-News has done the same thing with Khanna (giving him space for columns and then endorsing him) so it is entirely possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
It has been many many years since I read the Merc on anything like a regular basis (I'm talking like 1990). Back then it was well-regarded in my generally blue/left household. Is it still OK or is it now a rag? Or perhaps a corporate mouthpiece, given the direction SJ's economic basis has taken in the last 20 years?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It has been many many years since I read the Merc on anything like a regular basis (I'm talking like 1990). Back then it was well-regarded in my generally blue/left household. I read it semi-regularly and I think it's still okay. They sometimes cover CA-only stuff that other newspapers don't. The main reason I've shied away from them recently is the massive amount of ads whenever I try to view their website.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Just tuned in briefly to the Honda/Khanna debate and unsurprisingly heard Honda legitimately address a question on the minimum wage and expanding his answer to mention his support for Warren's plan to peg student loans to the Fed rate. Khanna's response? A pivot to his well-worn attack on Honda's attendance record. I guess he somehow thinks that that's more important than his stances on substantive issues. I really need to catch up on my listening to this and the Forum eps on the various races/propositions though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:It has been many many years since I read the Merc on anything like a regular basis (I'm talking like 1990). Back then it was well-regarded in my generally blue/left household. One of the comments I read on the liccardo (sp) article said something like: Mercury went bankrupt and is now the mouthpiece of whoever bailed them out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:Khanna's response? A pivot to his well-worn attack on Honda's attendance record. I guess he somehow thinks that that's more important than his stances on substantive issues. Eagerly waiting for his reverse social welfare bakesale day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
ca. 1950  
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:Khanna is such a clown, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a high ranking College Republican. I can't wait for my mail-in ballot to arrive so I can vote against him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Finally got around to re-registering since I moved, and found out that the race in the 19th district is between two Democrats. I wasn't going to vote, until I learned that one of those Democrats is Robert Murray. This is interesting because in 2012 Robert Murray was a Republican, and as far as I can tell he hasn't shifted any of his positions to a more liberal viewpoint in line with his new party. So... what? I guess he figures that if he pretends to be a Democrat, people will suddenly vote for him?  I mean okay the 2012 voter split was 73/27 in favor of Lofgren so he certainly had to change tactics, but come on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
Sydin posted:So... what? I guess he figures that if he pretends to be a Democrat, people will suddenly vote for him? Considering how many people on both sides blindly vote the party line without taking even a minute to research what they're voting on.... yes, he probably correctly figures people will vote for him if he runs as a Dem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Surprise of surprises, fracking hosed our water.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
VikingofRock posted:Surprise of surprises, fracking hosed our water. It's wastewater injection wells, not fracking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Voting in CA has become a parody of itself, right? There are at least 100 decisions to make, and many of the offices are nonpartisan (including all the elected judges). I resorted to voting for whatever candidates the local county Democrats endorsed for the most part, but I still can't make heads or tails out of some of these local propositions. They seem like petty political slap fights that stakeholders pushed off to voters to give them some semi-random chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
withak posted:It's wastewater injection wells, not fracking. But those wastewater injection wells are part of the fracking process and are used by the fracking companies? I'm not sure why you're being pedantic here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Slobjob Zizek posted:Voting in CA has become a parody of itself, right? There are at least 100 decisions to make, and many of the offices are nonpartisan (including all the elected judges). I resorted to voting for whatever candidates the local county Democrats endorsed for the most part, but I still can't make heads or tails out of some of these local propositions. They seem like petty political slap fights that stakeholders pushed off to voters to give them some semi-random chance of winning. Well local government's only real discretionary powers are issuing bonds, deciding which friend to award contracts to and rejiggering property regulations so someone can make a quick buck. It only makes sense that the things that get put up for referendum are petty and/or confusing zoning adjustments without justification (because they have to leave out that the real reason is to forbid any competition from opening near the mayor's brother-in-law's restaurant or whatever). My city has a shitload of measures to vote on and surprisingly a couple of fun ones. One is a soda tax and I've gotten like a hundred mailers from restaurant groups telling me to vote no because it's not fair 
Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Oct 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 17:24
|
|
