Minecraft Holmes posted:

Most boomers weren't hippies, it was a countercultural movement which by definition means that's a minority

Most boomers wore collared button ups tucked into their slacks in their 20s and bitched about the smell of pot smoke and the degeneration of society from the civil rights movement that happened during their childhoods

Shame Boy posted:

Back when Romney was running for prez they showed some of the footage of the pro-veitnam-war protests and the other awful poo poo Romney was front and center of and my mom got chills down her back and was all "man I was hoping I'd never have to hear that bullshit again, it was everywhere back then"

mojo1701a posted:

I remember reading -- maybe even a post here -- that the hippie movement eventually became overblown after the fact: both by hippies who wanted to inflate and romanticize their involvement and effect; and by the anti-hippie conservatives who wanted to inflate how much of a threat they had become, like conservatives who blamed hippies for losing in Vietnam, or Richard Nixon using hippies as a scare tactic.

Alobar posted:

Thanks for the insight. I sometimes tell my friends who don't live here (most live in Virginia) that San Francisco isn't some sort of liberal hippie town. Some people here still try to sell me on the "oh man, 10 years ago, before the techies came, it was *so* much better," and I'm like, gently caress that, this doesn't happen over the course of 5 years. This is deeply ingrained inequality, segregation, and economic exploitation. I've had to turn down jobs at michelin star restaurants because they don't pay me enough, and one of them is literally 3 blocks away from me. That's soul crushing.

I work with one chef who did a lot of stuff in New York, and he says that he feels safer in NYC than in SF. Where people are busy and they're passing each other by on the street in NYC, he said they're like "gently caress you!" "nah, man, gently caress you!" "ah whatever, gently caress off!" and that's the end of it because they have somewhere to be and poo poo to do. He said that when he's riding his bike around here people will turn their car around and get out and talk poo poo to him. That's coming from the guy who told me a story about having to escape down a fire escape and run away from a crazy coke dealer trying to shoot him. I've had a guy get in my face before over some stupid traffic thing out here, and I had to tell him "hey. what you're doing is pretty stupid. you have no idea who I am," and the guy was like "....yeah this is pretty stupid." I asked him what would make him do such a thing, and he said he was stressed out because he was going to go spread his grandma's ashes over something. So, obviously, I asked him if this is the sort of the thing his grandma would want him doing. He ended up apologizing and shaking my hand and...thanking me?

Long story short, this city has a reputation that could not be further from reality.

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

p. sure hst's high-water-mark monologue largely summarizes the reality of both the effect and thought process of the hippie movement

T-man posted:

Sounds interesting, any chance I could grab a link?

quote:

And that, I think, was the handle—that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting—on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave. . . .

So now, less than five years later, you can go up on a steep hill in Las Vegas and look West, and with the right kind of eyes you can almost see the high-water mark—that place where the wave finally broke and rolled back.

Pirate Radar posted:

some of the things people write in to Ask a Manager about are extremely corporatehellworld.txt

quote:

I have a situation that is so out there I almost wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t happening to me. The company I work at has three branches and around 100 employees. The owner of the company has a brother who needs a liver transplant. Two weeks ago, a company-wide memo went out that all employees would be required to undergo testing to see if they were a suitable liver donor for the owners brother. No exceptions.

Last week at the branch the owner works out of most of the time, his assistant went around to schedule days off for everyone so they could go get tested. People who declined were let go. One of these people was born with liver disease and therefore ineligible to donate. She had a doctor’s note. Other people also had medical reasons as well and some were just uncomfortable with the request and didn’t want to do it. One was pregnant. They were still terminated. My employer’s assistant has said that because our employment is at will, he can legally fire us.

I’m in remission from cancer. I’m ineligible to donate and any kind of surgery would put a major strain on my system. Even if I was healthy, I would still object to possibly being forced into donating an organ just to keep my job. Soon they will be scheduling people’s days off for testing at my branch.

I know this situation is nuts, but I don’t know what to do. I know I could just go for the testing and then be declined, but I don’t think I should have to do that. I’ve had enough with hospitals. Other coworkers who don’t have medical conditions are afraid they won’t be declined because they will be a match. I’m looking for another job but in the meantime I don’t know what to do and I and many of my coworkers are really stressed out.

Halloween Jack posted:

22 Eargesplitten posted:

I feel like that's more than "other duties as required" and at-will probably wouldn't cover that even in corporate-owned hellworld.

Shame Boy posted:

With at-will employment you can get fired for no stated reason and good luck proving this dumb liver thing was the "real" reason behind you getting fired and not "they don't like your face" or "you came in a minute late once"

Halloween Jack posted:

The Snoo posted:

jesus loving christ

quote:

I’m an administrator for a private recovery and mental health center, not a clinical or medical staff member, so I’m not at risk for emotional burn-out. We were notified last year that we now have a mandatory group therapy session as a staff first thing in the morning (8 am) and before we leave (5:30 pm) and that all staff must participate. I’m a salaried employee and I don’t get overtime. I come in at 7 am and leave at 3:30. We’re expected now to stay until the 5:30 session, but I can’t alter the time I come in. I’m essentially working for an extra two hours for free daily. But that’s not all, this new policy is so screwed up for the following reasons:

1. We’re expected to fully “therapize” in the session — it’s not just checking with everyone on how their day was or like a morning meeting. We had to fill out paperwork about our childhood and life trauma that asked if we were sexually abused. I was horrified at the personal things our manager is expecting us to divulge to him.

2. Being forced to go to therapy at work, twice a day, performed by my own boss and in front of my coworkers feels invasive and kind of abusive. In short, it feels batshit. I have no idea where my boss got this idea – it’s not a state or executive board requirement.

3. It impacts my schedule in unfixable ways: each session is an hour so my day is a mad scramble of trying to fit in my important tasks around what I’ve started to call “my daily brow-beatings.” It makes me start my days on edge, and it makes work feel unsafe and weird.

22 Eargesplitten posted:

Civil cases are preponderance of evidence, meaning more likely than not rather than beyond reasonable doubt. If multiple people are getting fired after refusing to get tested (or refusing to donate) after a mandated medical test like that (already questionable legally since liver compatibility has nothing to do with work) the evidence is pretty heavily on their side.

It's just like how they could fire every black person supposedly for being late one minute, but as soon as it goes in front of a judge it's going to be pretty obvious what actually happened.

quote:

This employer is violating the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The ADA’s purpose is broader than just protecting individuals with disabilities from unlawful discrimination and requiring employers to offer individuals with disabilities reasonable accommodations to perform the essential functions of their jobs. The ADA also prohibits employers from requiring employees to submit to medical examinations and medical inquiries, unless those medical examinations and medical inquiries are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

In this case, the employer’s requirement to undergo a medical examination (and presumably to undergo further medical procedures if the employee is a good match) has nothing to do with the business. It has nothing to do with the operations of the company and the employees’ ability to perform their jobs. Therefore, the employer is violating the federal ADA (and probably other state and local laws) by requiring employees to undergo this testing (which is not job-related and not consistent with business necessity) and by terminating the employment of those who refuse.

Halloween Jack posted:

There are a million of these, and her usual response to even the most insane stuff is "Well, that's legal, but it's really crappy, and no decent company would ever do this, and you should push back on it!"

Halloween Jack posted:

necroid posted:

this might be a really stupid question but what are you supposed to do after you've donated your liver to someone else? can you live without one?

also what the gently caress?

Negrostrike posted:

Then you have to get a liver from your co-worker

necroid posted:

this might be a really stupid question but what are you supposed to do after you've donated your liver to someone else? can you live without one?

also what the gently caress?

necroid posted:

this might be a really stupid question but what are you supposed to do after you've donated your liver to someone else? can you live without one?

also what the gently caress?

Zoran posted:

livers are pretty neat because you can cut off a chunk of a healthy one, and then both parts grow back to nearly full size in a few months

terrified of my bathroom posted:

generally you donate half of it and then it grows back to a similar size. still an insanely hosed up situation though

also who wants to guess that the boss wouldn't pay for the medical expenses and time off required if one of their employees did actually donate lmao

Zoran posted:

livers are pretty neat because you can cut off a chunk of a healthy one, and then both parts grow back to nearly full size in a few months

22 Eargesplitten posted:

It's just like how they could fire every black person supposedly for being late one minute, but as soon as it goes in front of a judge it's going to be pretty obvious what actually happened.

Captain Billy Pissboy posted:

Wasn't there a case where an employee donated an organ to their boss and then got fired because they required medical leave?

Shame Boy posted:

Obviously what happened was "those blacks are lazy therefore it makes perfect sense that they'd happen to be fired more often for being late, case dismissed" depending on what part of the country you're in and which president appointed the judge.

necroid posted:

this might be a really stupid question but what are you supposed to do after you've donated your liver to someone else? can you live without one?

also what the gently caress?

StashAugustine posted:

Why donate yourself when a serf can do it for you?

Serf posted:

you keep your hands off my organs