The Second Life Mission Discussion

[Ayashe Ninetails]

21 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

Ya, The thing I had going for me was, they were losing people left and right so they really didn't have the leverage on their side..

I forget how many so called promotions and how many raises.. like 7 or something like that raises, just last summer.. lol

I used to keep track but don't even care anymore.. Since the new company has taken over all that has been a constant on my mind is ,where do I want to go.. Even before the bumps and raises..

They fired like 600 employees during the covid shut down through email.. that was my straw to the camels back.

Many needed to go, but so many didn't ..it was like they used a sickle and just cut heads.. I knew we were in trouble then.

Even before they started to bump me up or give me more money, I was already ready to get out of there..

Should have quit while I was ahead..

 

 

That's wild. I've always had the worst luck that way where places would bleed employees for all kinds of reasons but refused to do a proper rehire or promote or pay remaining employees well and distribute work evenly, so it really did become a revolving door situation. I actually preferred temping more than anything since I could stay somewhat distant from that madness and would never feel compelled to go far beyond my title, though I still always managed to get roped into it. 🤣

And these weren't always tiny little rinky dink companies - lots of big corporate offices run this way. Silliness.

[Ceka Cianci]

26 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Finally! You laughed!

I was coming back to edit in something about you were just going along for the ride, but I think you got it! By George! 😁

@Ceka Cianci

I just got back from another M.R.I. today.. as we were heading north they had a terrible accident on the interstate that had to have fatalities..

they had one side  of the interstate blocked off for over an hour or more and gapers block on our side was over an hour and a half.. by the time we got up there, the last vehicle removed  was a pickup truck that had to go end over end..

The cab was smashed and the front  and back bent up so bad that  the truck looked like a the letter Z on the flatbed  they were towing it away one..

That wide guardrail that they used on road construction to stop vehicles from hitting the concrete dividers they put up.. it smashed the whole guardrail and still hit the concrete enough to go end over end like ti did..

That messed me up for the day, then having the M.R.I. after that..

When I got home, I grabbed a bottle of wine..

I never drink, but always keep a bolt around just in case..

It's been such a scattered rambled day..

Any time I seen things like that, I just think, in that one moment, what ever that moment  was, someone had changed many people lives for good..

I feel for all their families involved..

 

Sorry, it may be the wine in me enhancing things.. I don't mean to ramble..

It was funny and did make me laugh and really needed it, So thank you

 

 

[Ceka Cianci]

My wine sure took the steam right out of the flow of this thread didn't it..

Sorry guys! \o/

[Mollymews]

8 hours ago, Kiera Clutterbuck said:

I like this team approach. Is it used much in the US do you know?

i am not from the USA, so don't know much about work practices over there

as a general discovery rule tho, take a town which has a number of large employers. Look at the staff churn rates for each

the employers that have low staff churn will pretty much always have formal work practice recognition processes and remuneration schedules that bring out-of-scope practices in to scope

[Mollymews]

3 hours ago, Ceka Cianci said:

THIS!!!!

 

Bleh, this sounds so much like my job, let alone how they do things at my work.

you end up with getting bumped as they call it , but really it's just more workload..

You end up with 4 or five job titles never leaving any of them and having to do 4 or 5 different jobs while earning one salary which never ads up to the amount you end up having to do..

Meanwhile just as qualified people stand around watching you do the extra work load..

This is one of the big reasons I'm looking for another job on top of many other reasons.. Let alone, not counting how they have handled my work injury, but i was already beyond the point of return before that happened.. I would have been long gone if I didn't get hurt.. There isn't a number they could coem up with unless it was one year lifetime payment of never having to work again amount of money..

I swear this job just won't let me go. it actually keeps pulling me back in!

 

ETA: We need a, THIS!!!! button , because liking a post sometimes just isn't enough..

I had to come back in and add the , THIS!!! because  your post reminded me so much of my job that it distracted me from doing a, THIS!!!

 hehehehe

 

 

i feel for you

if you can try and get a job elsewhere. Nobody needs to work in a place where the extra work piled onto them is neither recognised nor remunerated

if you can't leave then try to advocate for a formally recognised preceptor and coaching roles within the organisation. Preceptors and coaches who are not the formal trainers. Those who lead formal training sessions tend not to work on the floor. Their role is to educate employees on how to work safely, how to operate/maintain a machine, how to write up work notes, etc

coaches and preceptors work on the line. Preceptors work with new employees on the line after they have been thru orientation and basic training. Preceptors get the new employees up to speed, by showing them how to work efficiently, so that the line doesn't falter. Coaches take older employees and teach them how to be preceptors while also working on the line, and keeping the line running at production speed

is the same in construction. There is a supervisor who runs the work schedule. Then there is a leading hand(s) who does the work alongside the crew memebrs in their team, teaching/coaching as the work proceeds .  Same in a hospital. Charge nurses, senior nurses, junior nurses. Each supporting the layer below them, and getting paid to do this while also doing the work. And just as importantly (often more so) being formally recognised by the employer thru job titles, descriptions, authorities and remuneration 

[cunomar]

I only read the first and last page of this thread but it seems all about forced equality and this sprung to mind

My first love as a powerhouse lean and mean teen was my boss ,10 years older than me everybody loved her but nobody would back answer her - except me 😁 .  I was gutted when she bought the lease of my local pub which i visited almost daily "so thats me banned then" no she said its a business to run and there will be no favouritism or special treatment . Nods "so you will ban me to prove that exact point to everyone else"

I digress .

The way i see it one's gender or skin colour has little or nothing to do with opportunity or lack thereof .

Its a difficult thing to explain because people generally go straight for the jugular citing ancient history which is no longer relevant , but the fact is privilege was purchased before we were born .

If your grandparents owned property then it is much more likely that you will as well . It may be a dump but its a solid base , a foundation to build upon . It offers a security those whose parents never owned property might never achieve despite a lifetime of work .

To promote one over another more suitable simply to tick an ethical box is a race to the bottom . What is the snubbed to do other than downgrade performance ? perhaps if he starts wearing a tutu and tiara to work they might promote him ?

 

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, cunomar said:

I only read the first and last page of this thread but it seems all about forced equality

How has "unforced" equality worked out so far, World History-wise?

[cunomar]

In my life time , twins born opposite sex have no advantage over each other but they both have an advantage over the kid next door who was born the same week because his/her parent is single and paying rent whereas the twins parents own the house in which they live .

The twins will look forward to the birthday they get driving lessons or a car while the other will look forward to the birthday that allows them to earn a proper wage and help with the rent .

I do wonder at the slaves who are still healthy enough to carry banners and protest when they are at least a few hundred years old though , i could do with some of them vitamins .

[Scylla Rhiadra]

"Forced equality" . . .

As opposed to all of those instances in history where the privileged just willingly gave up their advantages.

Because they were "nice," of course.

[PheebyKatz]

*cough*guillotines*cough*

[Persephone Emerald]

44 minutes ago, PheebyKatz said:

*cough*guillotines*cough*

The French Revolution inspired the Haitian Revolution, so poison and machetes work too.

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

On 6/30/2022 at 3:45 AM, cunomar said:

I only read the first and last page of this thread but it seems all about forced equality and this sprung to mind

The nice thing about SL is that quite a few of the disadvantages women have are minimized so I don't think we'll need to worry about equality being "forced" in SL since our genders are hidden for the most part.

But I don't understand your perspective on "forced equality". Why is forced inequality fine yet forcing equality is not? Because this is how we arrived at the state we are in today; those who were more powerful forced others (through laws, social pressure, and sometimes war), to accept their inequality and bend to the will of the more powerful.

By "forced equality" do you mean changing laws to allow for more equality? What would be wrong with this? Like I said, those with less equality were forced into their plight by the more powerful, and often in ways far more appalling than simply changing laws to reflect more equality.

I do take your point with the Johnny Cash song about love being a better answer than force (or I would say any type of control), but unfortunately many choose power over love in ways that cause grave harm to those they rule over. So preventing suffering, through creating more just laws as much as possible, is also love.
Likely you've heard the saying that "power does not give up power willingly", and I believe that's true. People tend to justify what's best for them and hold on to their advantages, and lack empathy for those whose needs they cannot fathom.

Anyway, I think I'll change this Beatles song "All You Need Is Love" to "All You Need Is Love And The Law".

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

The mission statement for LL is a good one.

But lots of corporations have "mission statements" that are laudable and yet more "honored in the breach" than otherwise. The proof is in the implementation.

And, let's not forget, that they can be rewritten at any time at the whim of the board. Remember Google's "Don't be evil"?

Cynical old b*st*rd now returns you to your regularly scheduled programming...

[cunomar]

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

 

[cunomar]

Patricia overcame prejudice in spectacular fashion as have many others throughout the centuries though its unlikely to be taught in schools .

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

29 minutes ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

 

So the motivation of a criminal should have no impact on how harshly they are judged for their crime? That way lies dystopia.

By rejecting harsher judgements for motivations considered less acceptable you are also rejecting leniency in the face of less malicious motives. If one is morally ok, so is the other. If one is not, nor is the other.

This is not "outlawing prejudice" - a person is free to be as prejudiced as they wish, but if they commit a crime motivated by that prejudice then they can expect to be treated with the opprobrium appropriate to that prejudice. It's a logical extension of "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" - Let the modern-day Archie Bunker stew in his prejudices all he wants but when it comes to interacting with others, he'd better leave them in his back pocket.

[Innula Zenovka]

4 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

 

In the UK, certain offences are aggravated when the prosecution can make the jury sure they were motivated by hostility to certain  characteristics (actual or presumed) of the victim -- race, religion, sexual orientation, trans status and so on.

Certainly this can cause difficulties in particular cases -- racial slurs and insults being used in the run-up to a fight that's clearly about something else, like the other guy's driving or an unpaid debt -- but that's ultimately a question for the prosecution and the jury, depending on the evidence.

It seems to me difficult to argue, though, in principle against motivation being a potentially aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing -- to my mind, the law should defend people's right to go about their lawful business in peace, which means it should take particular care to discourage others from harassing or threatening them because they're perceived as being members of a particular group, or because they're perceived as being particularly vulnerable (another seriously aggravating factor in particular types of case).

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Innula Zenovka

[Coffee Pancake]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

Serious "But MOOOM I wanna say the N word" vibes.

[Madelaine McMasters]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

It is possible for an impulsive assault to be triggered or exacerbated by premeditated animosity towards whatever difference is presented. Are you suggesting that the analysis of impulsive crime must ignore contributing factors?

[Love Zhaoying]

12 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

Serious "But MOOOM I wanna say the N word" vibes.

Funny that, tell someone they can't do something and they instantly want to do it!

[Scylla Rhiadra]

5 hours ago, cunomar said:

Patricia overcame prejudice in spectacular fashion as have many others throughout the centuries though its unlikely to be taught in schools

A song about a stripper is the best example you can come up with of someone "overcoming" prejudice?

Seriously?

[Ayashe Ninetails]

5 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Serious "But MOOOM I wanna say the N word" vibes.

I always think "someone got caught singing Biggie out loud again" whenever I see that argument on social media.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

A song about a stripper is the best example you can come up with of someone "overcoming" prejudice?

Seriously?

Best song about strippers: "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" by Groucho Marx! 

#FightMeOrBiteMe

[Kiera Clutterbuck]

6 hours ago, cunomar said:

Its difficult to explain coherently but i feel outlawing prejudice is in itself prejudice .

"he called me a four eyed git and punched me" ....  so he is charged with assault and duly sentenced .

Versus "he called me gay/black/insert whatever and punched me" .... so he is charged with a racially homophobic incited assault and unduly sentenced .

Theres no extra charge for calling someone white before you punch them or gingernut , and failing though it may be we all say things we shouldn't when angered - the whole point is to be insulting .

OK a premeditated assault on someone aimed specifically because of whatever difference they present is entirely different ,  however the law already deals more severely with the premeditated ,  so why differentiate , it simply entrenches prejudice .

 

One would not be charged with a hate crime if they issued racial slurs to someone they angrily assaulted for other obvious reasons (for example, cutting them off in traffic or trying to take their seat in a bar). To charge anyone with a racial hate crime there must be hatred of the individual due to their race as the motivating factor.

As Da5id pointed out, in all crimes there are mitigating circumstances where lesser punishment is received and greater infractions where punishment is more severe.  "Hatred" as a motivating factor should surely be in the equation. I take your point, that we can't actually legislate against hate and prejudice, but we can legislate against committing crimes because of that hate.
Laws against hate can lessen the effects of that hate to a degree as well, as some use existing laws as justification to harm others; if the country says certain people are bad and not deserving of rights and respect then they imagine it must be okay to harm them. In their mind it's okay to punish bad people.

"The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, enacted in 28 U.S.C. § 994 note Sec. 280003, requires the United States Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties for hate crimes committed on the basis of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or gender of any person".

The fact that you bring up the unfairness of whites not being victims of hate crimes makes me think you don't understand that some groups are more vulnerable than others and this is why we offer greater protection for them under the law via hate crime statutes. In predominately white countries the greater number of whites gives them an unfair advantage as they tend to skew situations to their advantage. Think of what happened during 9-11 in America when Arabian people flew planes into the Twin Towers; suddenly there was deep suspicion toward Arabs, and some were treated unfairly and even murdered. Likewise in WW2 when Japanese-Americans were treated unfairly, rounded up and placed in camps. And in more recent times, Chinese-Americans have been targets of hate because of the Coronavirus origin. Blacks have been targeted again in recent years as they gained more rights.

More vulnerable groups, those who are the "out group" due to being less in number and easily identifiable because of darker skin,  are easily stereotyped as being "all bad" due to the way we psychologically process the characteristics of "out groups". They are then punched down on; scapegoating is a prominent way some deal with anger. This is why we need to offer protection to those who are not part of the "in group". White people, as part of the "in group" don't need this protection in predominately white countries.

And strangely, though women are the majority they have always been the "out group"; men have been the default.

Edited July 3, 2022 by Kiera Clutterbuck

[Love Zhaoying]

14 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

It is possible for an impulsive assault to be triggered or exacerbated by premeditated animosity towards whatever difference is presented. Are you suggesting that the analysis of impulsive crime must ignore contributing factors?

Somebody done paid their five-dollar word tax already this week!