RL Anger

[Ganymede]

@Paris said in RL Anger:

While she was abusing the policy, the law is clear that he can't ask her that, because of repeated violations of the ADA by private and public property owners. You can't decide whether it's a service dog.

I do not believe this is an accurate statement of the law. Federal regulations and DOJ publications have convinced courts generally that the ADA prohibits public accommodations from requiring proof that an animal is a service animal, but I have found nothing in the ADA or related federal regulations (e.g., 28 CFR s. 36.104 and 36.302(c)) that says that a public accommodation cannot inquire as to whether an animal companion is a service animal.

You are correct to point out that "stress dogs" can qualify as service animals, provided they have some specialized training. (E.g., Rose v. Springfield-Greene County Health Dep't, 668 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (W.D. Mo. 2009)).

Frankly, the only time I'd see a dog as being an issue in a public accommodation is a restaurant, hospital, or any other establishment that may be dinged for health code violations.

[Arkandel]

Although today isn't my last day at my job (that's next Wednesday) it is when my departure was publicly announced. It's nice to feel appreciated and have people walk over to my desk to ask questions and wish me good luck. I'll miss (okay, some) of them, and it's sad knowing I probably won't ever see them again or if I do it'll be extremely sporadically.

C'est la vie.

[Auspice]

Not personal RL anger, but more on behalf of this poor guy:
https://www.quora.com/Im-not-allowed-to-comment-my-code-so-what-are-other-ways-to-make-my-code-descriptive-but-not-annoying-to-write-out

[Faceless]

Less anger and more...a mixture of feels.

I'm thankful. My brother in law(the one I like more than the other) was involved in a traffic accident today. He had the right of way and was making a turn on a local highway at about 50-60mph. He was hit. Per one of the officers that acted as a first responder, he was "lucky to be alive". He was given a flight to the hospital for eval. He has a girlfriend and a son about the same age as our own - which is his nephew.

I'm sad. The other driver did not live. Upon running the red light he encountered a utility truck that didn't want to budge enough. He was pronounced dead on the scene. I'm sad because this person more than likely left behind people who cared about them. Which ties into why I'm also angry. This individual, because they more than likely wanted to be in a rush to get wherever, died because they couldn't take 45 seconds to just...chill. I'm angry because I know my brother in law...who does not know that the other driver didn't make it. In truth he didn't even know what happened. He "just woke up in the hospital" per his explanation. So I'm angry because I know him, I know how he'll react. Knowing that, despite it being no fault of his own, he'll take the other driver's loss of life and carry it on his shoulders pisses me off.

I've encountered tense moments in real life, actual danger that could have resulted in severe bodily harm or death. Whether environmental or human. I'm generally resistant to feelings of sadness, paralyzing fear, or really too much concern beyond the task at hand. Prison riots and the like, having someone try to shank you with a sharpened rock, things of that nature...they tend to sort of turn off that switch in you. The one for empathy as well, sometimes.

It's coming as a peculiar feeling to me though when I think about if I had been in my brother in law's shoes. Or worse yet, the other driver's. If he had just slowed down and taken his time, he'd still be here. BiL wouldn't be in the hospital and would probably be at home. Moral of the story to you, dear reader(s): slow down. Carelessness is rarely forgiving. Very few matters in modern living demand you can't give yourself 45 seconds to stop and look around. Unless you're driving a bus that can't drop below 50mph without blowing up.

I just needed to get this off my chest. My SO's fretting a lot. Her brother's in the hospital. Most people would fret. She doesn't need my irritation with people to be added to her burdens. So, thanks for giving me a place to vent.

[WTFE]

So, today I exploded on some people I otherwise generally like. At issue: M-103 and C-16.

The first of these is a parliamentary motion. It has ZERO legal teeth. It is a statement of parliamentary opinion and nothing more. Motion M-103 and five bucks will get you a small Starbucks coffee. (Or has that risen to ten bucks these days?) This hasn't stopped people from exploding all over the fucking social media scene with "ZOMG! SHARIA LAW! BLASPHEMY AGAINST ISLAM IS ILLEGAL IN CANADA!" bullshit.

It's not a fucking law. It's a motion. It's political grandstanding and pandering at its worst. It has NO LEGAL WEIGHT (and little moral weight, given, you know, politicians!) of any kind. Anybody who calls it a law is either stupidly ignorant or a dishonest shithead with a political agenda to push.

This is in contrast to the latter, which is definitely a law. Bill C-16 is either sitting in, or has passed, third reading and is about to become law of the land. And people are losing their collective shit over this one like nothing I've seen this side of "ZOMG CULTURAL APPROPRIATION OF SANDWICHES!" or "WAR ON CHRISTMAS!" bullshit. If you were to take seriously people like Jordan Peterson (who is in the vanguard of the screeching hysteria over C-16) you'd think that it was the beginnings of the Freedom Holocaust.

But you know, I've read C-16. You can too. I linked to it. It's a remarkably short document. It basically adds four words of significance to the 40 year old Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977 and four words of significance to the matching portions of the Criminal Code. These additional words add one more protected group to the eleven pre-existing protected groups: the transgendered.

Now, I'd understand it if the objection was to the entirety of the CHRA. I might even have some sympathy for it. The notion of a hate crime is very ... troubling to me. There are powerful arguments both in support of and in condemnation of setting up classes of people who get special protection under the law. I don't know enough to know which side is right or wrong and I lack the time or wherewithal to go in and make that determination.

What I do know, however, is that C-16 changes nothing of substance. If you were fine with the CHRA (and its paired criminal code clauses) and suddenly oppose C-16, you're doing something that's either very bizarre or you're doing something that clearly brands you an asshole. For 40 years we lived with the CHRA and have not had the Freedom Holocaust happen. For 40 years most of the current screeching gibbons have been dead silent on the CHRA, but suddenly have lost their shit over C-16. And this makes me want to plank them. By which I don't mean that idiotic YouTube thing. I mean I want to hit them in the head with a quickly-moving plank.

[Pandora]

@Paris I have no dog in the 'defining microaggressions' fight but this post has made my morning bleak and my coffee bitter. Sorry that some people suck.

[Paris]

@Pandora said in RL Anger:

@Paris I have no dog in the 'defining microaggressions' fight but this post has made my morning bleak and my coffee bitter. Sorry that some people suck.

Don't let it. For all that these things happen regularly and I let some of my anger slip in that post, I am also shown a lot of kindness by random strangers that I didn't used to get so much back when I was able-bodied, too.

I think it just pushes some people to either extreme. For me, I just sit around a lot. Normal people sit down, too, but sitting all the time weirds people out on some visceral level. And so they act out.

[Cupcake]

ABC's new version of Dirty Dancing was a complete piece of unnecessary eat my shit pie, but I'm also doubly irritated that they white-washed the Housemans and the Kellermans into painfully WASP-y versions of themselves.

[Ganymede]

@WTFE said in RL Anger:

What I do know, however, is that C-16 changes nothing of substance. If you were fine with the CHRA (and its paired criminal code clauses) and suddenly oppose C-16, you're doing something that's either very bizarre or you're doing something that clearly brands you an asshole.

The same vitriol has arisen down here when people proposed adding "sexual orientation" to workplace-discrimination laws. The transgender community has a long way to go down here.

[Ghost]

For example, I prefer to be referred to as a:

FrenchWelshGermanItalianWhiteNorthNebraskan-Turned-ArizonanFormerlyCatholicNowVaguelyFightClubInspiredQuasiZenGamerITProfessional American

We're out there and deserve recognition, yo.

[Ghost]

@Cupcake said in RL Anger:

ABC's new version of Dirty Dancing was a complete piece of unnecessary eat my shit pie, but I'm also doubly irritated that they white-washed the Housemans and the Kellermans into painfully WASP-y versions of themselves.

Wait.

Is replacing white actors with white actors whitewashing now?

[SG]

@Ghost said in RL Anger:

Is replacing white actors with white actors whitewashing now?

Whitescrubbing?

[Ghost]

Replacing a white actress with a more attractive white actress should be called Whitestripping

Because like tooth whitening, you're taking something already white and making it into a more attractive white.

[Three-Eyed Crow]

@Ghost said in RL Anger:

@Cupcake said in RL Anger:

ABC's new version of Dirty Dancing was a complete piece of unnecessary eat my shit pie, but I'm also doubly irritated that they white-washed the Housemans and the Kellermans into painfully WASP-y versions of themselves.

Wait.

Is replacing white actors with white actors whitewashing now?

The movie paid a decent amount of service to the characters actually being Jewish, which...I am super unclear if they are on the show (and it is bad so I won't continue to watch it). I don't know if the term for that is white-washing or not, but I did notice it.

[Misadventure]

Blandwashed.

[Arkandel]

The idea of Hollywood recasting for 'prettier people' in general is hilarious given the baseline attractiveness bar is set so high to begin with, unless someone's specifically supposed to be ugly (in which case they are hideous).

[Ghost]

@Three-Eyed-Crow oh so it's not about whitewashing, its about...gentilewashing?

I read just now Abigail Breslin is 1/2 Jewish but I'd imagine downplaying the Jewish was probably more related to the current trend of American network television sanitizing the non-Christian out of everything.

ABC pimps out well-dressed scumbag Joel Osteen and deems itself a family friendly network, owned by Disney, and formerly purchased from Pat Robertson. I tend to not watch ABC because their push of "family values" (airquotes) is way too overt for my liking.

[Cupcake]

@Ghost Whitewashed, Blandwashed, Christianwashed, I don't care what you call it. Abigail Bresling is "half-Jewish", and Debra Messing is Jewish, but the characters weren't played with any obvious indication of it, including removing lines that Kellerman says when he talks about his zayde. The reason for it is frankly irrelevant, I just think it sucks.

There are plenty of shows that do informed Judaism quite well, it was disappointing that they felt it necessary to remove it from this remake. But then, the remake is TERRIBLE, so maybe not so much.

[Ghost]

Hey, Jew-washing has been a thing since the Council of Nicea. I, for one, think it's cool it's still being fought against in 2017.

seeWhatIDidThere?

[TNP]

@Cupcake said in RL Anger:

The reason for it is frankly irrelevant, I just think it sucks.

Agreed. It's also stupid. There's a reason the Catskills were known as the 'borscht belt'.

But then, the remake is TERRIBLE, so maybe not so much.

I had to stop watching after the first half hour or so.