A guilt and redemption system focuses almost exclusively on the transgressions of the accused for the well being of society. An ethical system takes into account the well-being of everybody including the accused.
Also, please reconsider your decision to feature Google and Facebook as prominently as "featured employers". If it's for security, maintenance, and janitorial work, it's more practical to list the agencies that they hire temps from. Otherwise, look no further than nearby East Palo Alto and one will find that neither company particularly cares about rehabilitating ex-offenders or people from at-risk communities for any type of technical employment.
The general rule with Silicon Valley and San Francisco companies is to take everything they say in public or through their carefully worded P.R. with a grain of salt, and actually find out first hand if they practice what they preach hiring outliers with respect to diversity, records/credit/etc, non-Ivy League degrees, etc.
It's not only in cities. In the USA, public facilities outside of exclusive areas are usually associated with those considered poor and personal failures.
Combined with the resentment that most people have towards subsidizing public facilities and services used by/built for those who need them (even though in the USA, it's a fraction of what's used towards foreign interventions), there's little if any incentive in maintaining, let alone building more public/publicly used places, especially ones that will end up being used exclusively by the people they want nothing do with (who often internalize this open resentment and further contribute to the problem of poor quality public facilities).
I highly doubt the causation goes in this direction. I think it's just a matter of culture. People in the US litter way more than people do in Japan, for example. I agree with the other poster that it's really just a small minority, maybe even less than 1%, of Americans that just ruin public facilities for everyone. But this minority does exist.
You could argue that we are just using coded language for homeless people, which often is more of a combination of mental illness or substance abuse problems and abject poverty. But I think there are plenty of people that ruin public services aside from the homeless. Even as a lifeguard of private pools, I've had to deal with large amounts of litter, abandoned trash, and feces/urine on regular bases.
there are just a lot of people who things the world owes them something and they have no respect for their surroundings / community.
I was waiting for the subway, and this guy leaning against a trash can throws his trash on the ground. If I didnt see things like this nearly every day I would write it off as a one time occurrence.
Certainly while there are cultural aspects at play, it's impossible to ignore the reality of certain areas in America being cleaner and less littered, and better serviced than other areas, and a large part of that has to do with the money available for people who inhabit and regularly use those spaces/facilities, and the ability to keep away certain demographics in order for the money to continue to be available.
Do you have any data that would suggest that funding limitations are the problem? Because when it comes to other sorts of public services (schools, transit) we spend more than other countries. To get worse results. I ran the numbers the other day, and for example the NYC MTA spends about twice as much per ride as the London Tube.
> Now, the government is too afraid to publicly speak about Liu
As it should be. Speaking up would only draw more attention to Norway's unscrupulous actions in conflicted and autocratic regions, especially considering its public image of neutrality, diplomacy, non-interference, and promoting progressive values. Denmark and Sweden are also in this as well - they say they promote human rights while exporting billions of euros in military technology and services to regions with known human rights abuses.
Also problematic for numeric code in Ocaml is the lack of native interoperability with C data types and native arrays and instead having to use time-consuming abstractions such as BigArray or marshalling via FFI. Unfortunately, solutions like as CTypes only seem to compound the problem by not addressing a particular issue with a runtime, but finding clever ways around the limitation.
>> I'm glad her experiences are such that she hasn't encountered these barriers,
According to whom? Just because one doesn't address or mention the obstacles faced in their personal life doesn't necessarily mean that none were faced.
>> I've never seen men, as a group, encounter the obstacles I've seen many female peers discuss.
The solution is not to ignore the individual instances of these problems occurring within a group or across other groups that aren't necessarily by gender.
In light of the "All Eyez on Me" movie recently released, there is an interesting, indirect relationship between Michael K Williams and Tupac Shakur.
Shakur was filming with Mickey Rourke for 1996 release Bullet (actually filmed in 1994), and Williams was specifically chosen for a role by Shakur because of his facial scar. William's manager at the time was James Rosemond who is currently incarcerated with several life terms. Rosemond was a childhood friend of Michael Williams, and grew up in the same area of East Flatbush, Brooklyn, near the Vandeveer housing projects (now called Flatbush Gardens), and became heavily involved in street crimes as a teenager, allegedly robbing drug dealers like in the Wire.
Fast forwarding to the early 90's, a number executives in the urban music industry had indirect/direct ties with street crime and gang culture, and Rosemond, who became Michael K William's manager, was believed to be one of them (he also managed several popular urban music groups at the time). It's widely believed by industry insiders that Rosemond wanted to become Shakur's manager as well, but Shakur wasn't interested. Also, much of Shakur's problems (the 1994 shooting and imprisonment) are believed by many to be of the doing of either Rosemond or his acquaintances.
It would be interesting to know how much Omar's character was influenced by his friendship with Rosemond and people from the neighborhood they both knew.
A lot of the show was inspired by real events and real people, including the experiences and true character of some of the actors.
One of the most interesting to me was Melvin Williams who played The Deacon, and in real life was a big-time heroin kingpin who was renowned for his intelligence. There's a decent documentary about him floating around and a (short) Wikipedia page [0].
Another is Felicia Pearson who played Snoop. Listen to an interview with her and hear her backstory, and you know she's the real deal. Stephen King called her character "perhaps the most terrifying female villain to ever appear in a television series". [1]
I've seen projects for extending train lines and bus routes literally coming to complete halt because residents were defensive and paranoid about the demographics of people that would be potentially visiting their area. There's a general consensus in much of America, even among the working class, that walking and using public transportation is a sign of personal failure.
If you haven't seen it, this reading of Dr Frankel''s letter by a Marin supervisor criticizing public transit is a pretty raw and uncensored expression of the disgust and hatred felt toward thr lower classes who depend on public transit in America: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sfO8CCMmHjA
It's not necessarily about power imbalances - subordinates might express interest in a superior, or a colleague might interest in another colleague, and both situations can be just as problematic as a superior expressing interest in a subordinate.
The problem is simply one person deciding to single out another person for any deviation of expected treatment especially when it has no relation to the social context or work performance/duties.
Hitting on a coworker is potentially as problematic as inviting a coworker to church. Being extra friendly to a coworker or customer of a different gender is just as problematic as being nasty and disrespectful to a coworker or client of a different ethnicity. Every scenario mentioned is grounds for making the person or possibly even those next to the person uncomfortable, leading to harassment claims. Furthermore, the idea of only behaving a certain way if the other party consents is a lack of principle. It potentially jeopardizes the protections a workplace is supposed to provide to all workers and customers. Just because a door is left open does not mean one should enter.
I don't think dating coworkers is wrong. I think making somebody uncomfortable with clumsy/forceful/persistent advances can be bad though.
But let's say you like somebody at work, so you talk to them, and you both enjoy the conversation. Then you eat lunch together at work a few times. Then you invite them to get drinks after work as a group. Then you continue to hang out when the rest of the group has gone home. Then you ask if this person would be interested in getting drinks in the future. If anybody has a problem with that I don't see why.
So again key differences:
- Power imbalance
- Advances on the first time you meet somebody (no evidence of reciprocity)
- Advances during the job
- How aggressive the advance is (a compliment? touching? inviting to a date? lewd comment?)
Actually a breakup can turn into any one of those situations. One person can begin spreading rumors and propagating lies about the other person, or begin leaving harassing messages. Workplace morale can be severely affected. Co-workers lives can literally be in danger because of how one person in a workplace romance interprets behaviors.
You really have to understand the perspective of a company to know why any form of singling out an employee for any type of reason, including dating or romance, is a potential legal landmine.
You personally may think dating coworkers is fine under some circumstances, and so may the other person potentially involved, but others not involved and observing may find it unacceptable under any circumstance. One goal of the workplace is to ensure equal treatment and equal protection to all of its workers under any and all circumstances.
The lengths that companies will go to protect themselves from lawsuits is silly, but at the same time necessary given the potentially problematic behaviors and motivations of certain employees.
It's rude to assume someone else wants to go to your church, is into your sect of your religion, is into your religion or is religious at all. It's dangerous when you combine that with power structures from a work or other environment.
>it's rude to assume that someone else wants to go to your church
You're not assuming anything, you're asking them if they want to come. They can always just say no. Not everything has to be the end of the world. Of course you could make up tons of situations where this could be inappropriate (I heard you had a drinking problem, would you like to try church instead?) but I think in general it's a safe question.
The askers' perception may be that it's a safe question, but there are too many situations where the question is dangerous. Do you really want to have to identify as muslim or non-chrich goer when working and living in the Redstates? Do you really want to have to identify as non-religious when everyone around you is? Will your religion - or lack of - transmit your political leanings, which are opposite to the others around you?
The invitation to a (particular) church can come across as part of a package of high pressure to conform to the rest of the team. I've received these invitations while living in the US, and yes, it was very uncomfortable.
If the invitation is from someone in power over the receiver then it may be received/perceived as an order.
This may be a cultural thing, but inviting someone to go to church would be at least astonishing in France (and the rest of Europe). This is just not the place you go for a date.
There could be some circumstances where this is possible ("hey, my church has its annual fiesta, plenty of people dressed up in a traditional way - you know, the famous one! Wanna come see that?", or a marriage/baptem/other family / friends gathering) but this is not the first place which come to mind when thinking about dates.
In some countries that still plays very badly and it could change your relationship forever.
In the USA, which is an extraordinarily religious country versus other Western countries, the response is likely to be more nuanced, but there are sill the many matters of which religion, sect and so on to consider. Going to a (particular type) of church risks being seen as a political statement as well. Best to avoid.
Ah I see. I guess location context is important. It seems odd to me as I live in NZ a very secular country, with little to no political implications of church attendance.
If anything I'd expect to get ridiculed for believing in something science couldn't prove.
I live here in NZ too, and yes we have to be careful the other way - not to ridicule someone else's belief. There are a lot of religious people here, but religion is not something that people take to work.
I had a high school German teacher who said politics and religion were two taboos for polite American conversation, but Europeans can have more civilized discussion about these topics.
Politics yes, and I would not say that it is very civilized, so people avoid it not because of political correctness (so to speak) but rather because these discussions tend to get heated.
