Well I can’t. There is no reason you should die your hair unnatural colors. Its harmful for a persons and company credibility and has no place in the work place
If you believe that there was any conversation like this at all, and it isn’t just some production line that places coupons at the same place on every box.
The community is “malicious compliance”. It would only be a perfect fit for here if it were actually malicious compliance and not just a funny coincidence.
Whether real or not, it is a joke about malicious compliance creating this funny placement. It could very well be real malicious compliance. That’s a very fitting place for this meme
If only they had purchased a smart employee that could count (like you) to do this job instead of a “stupid cow that can’t count”, this could have all been avoided. /s
This reminded me of something. If you ordered diapers from Amazon between 2019-2021 and you lived in the Boston area South of the Charles down to Scituate and the sort labels were placed directly over the baby’s face… That was me. I was amusing myself.
all this could have been avoided if he had simply had the patience to explain “don’t cover textual brand signage, people need to be able to identify what they’re buying. maybe aim for cosmetic stuff like product pictures; those are usually bullshit anyway…”
That is awesome. I don’t get why people don’t want to serve on juries anyway? It’s a civic duty and it will probably be only once in your life. It’s an interesting experience!
Because people can’t afford to. Most employers won’t pay you during that time. The court pays you like $15 a day which probably doesn’t cover your parking and lunch.
Depending how long you have to serve you can lose out on hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Most of America is living paycheck to paycheck. So being summoned is basically a death sentence for a lot of people.
The structure of USA’s society is that everyone travels to cities to work (where the office and/or restaurants / hangout spots are), but then travels to suburbia to sleep / pay taxes.
This means that the cityfolk are constantly doing jury duty for all the suburbanite visitors. Someone who lives in an urban area is pretty much going to get selected for jury duty as often as legally allowed.
Comes with the territory, like complaining about how expensive urban areas are. No one is forcing most people to live in or near a big city. You weren’t forced to take a job that requires it.
I hate the suburbs too, they can’t subsidize themselves though taxes for example, but this seems more like a matter of choice.
I live in the suburbs, because I recognize that I get all the benefits of cities with almost none of the downsides. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. As long as I can afford the suburbia and as long as it leads to a better life, I’ll take advantage of it.
But in the vast majority of cases, its the cities that provide the value (IE: job creation, center of commerce and innovation, location of efficiency with public transit / steamworks / useful infrastructure)… while suburbs are basically trying to live as close to the city as possible without taking on the responsibilities (IE: taxes go to the suburb schools / suburb cops without paying into the city that makes the suburb livable)
Jury Duty is just one more thing that proves the pattern. People mostly don’t commit crimes in suburbia, because no one is doing commerce in suburbia (its more efficient to centralize commerce into the city). So when crimes are committed, they’re usually in the city (white-collar, suing, traffic crimes, etc. etc.). So the overworked city-justice system (already at a disadvantage due to higher crime due to being the center of commerce) is then overworked some more as they usually can’t recruit jurors.
Doubly-so for cities like New York City who are supporting the suburbs in New Jersey. New York City cannot cross state lines and grab jurors from New Jersey, even though we all damn well know that New Jersey residents constitute a huge portion of the traffic, commerce, crime, and other problems in NYC.
Less so for cities closer to the center of a state… especially if the State can better distribute jurors / taxes and have a more fair system.
I’ve been on a jury a couple of times myself. The first time was boring and was a frustrating case. The second time was disturbing but very interesting and definitely a satisfying experience.
I understand that not everyone wants to serve if their employer doesn’t pay them; it can be a burden. Luckily mine does so I always look forward to summons in the hopes I get on a jury now.
I was called to jury duty in Arkansas back in '17. I actually WANTED to participate, but sadly, my spouse wanted to move out of state. When doing the initial court appearance, it was explained that if we received a ticket for parking within x blocks, bring the ticket to the court, and they would solve it. Sure enough, I had a ticket. I took it to the court, and I never heard anything more about it. When I moved, I still had 5 months of eligibility. I called they court, explained my move, and that was it.
We live in this country and gain all the benefits, so we should expect (and WANT) to perform our civic duty.
You often don't get paid or don't get paid nearly enough. Too many people like paycheque to paycheque to be able to do that.
And in extreme cases, you can get sequestered, where you're expected to basically put your life on hold for the duration of the trial, which complete bullshit and feels as if you're being punished.
Sequestering is absolutely not bullshit. It's done for very important reasons and judges are very careful about not ordering it unless it's truly necessary.
It is interesting, but it’s also frustrating, and forced, effectively uncompensated work. I say ‘effectively’ uncompensated because they pay you a token amount that may have been adequate 100 years ago but now is not. Indeed, many people wind up making negative money when taking in the cost of travel and food, to say nothing of actual missed pay from their normal job.
That said it is actually kind of easy to get out of it if you really want to most of the time. When I served, the judge accepted any reasonable excuse from those who needed to leave. The most annoying part though was that it felt like the attorneys liked wasting time on irrelevant bullshit.
Additionally, when the judge asks if there’s any reason you can’t serve you can state you will never vote against your conscience regardless of the law, and that if you don’t believe a person should be punished you will not vote them guilty no matter what the law says. They do not want and will not take someone who votes their conscience above all else.
I’ll forever be annoyed at myself for a reply that got me out of jury duty.
I do understand the importance of the concept and I am willing to serve. My only objection so far is how wasteful it can be. I got called up several years in a row …. To miss work and sit in a dingy basement all day until being excused as “not needed”. I even understand the point that the court has to be ready, but there’s got to be a way to make it less inconvenient to “stand by”.
So the one time my jury duty might have turned into doing something useful for society in return for my inconvenience , I get called to the bench and was asked a few questions. Unfortunately I got hit with anxiety and babbled something that I recognized afterwards as the exact opposite as intended, and was immediately excused.
Edit: fine, I’ll say it. The people who would use it to get out of jury duty probably wouldn’t take their responsibility seriously anyway. I attempted to say something like “I hold the police to a higher standard as a witness since that is their job”, and it came out as “yes, I always believe the police”. Wtf?
Well he won’t be doing anything regardless, since he’s currently suspended. Texas law dictates that anyone impeached by the state House (such as Paxton) is suspended from office while they await trial in the Senate.
Elia Bonci, who also spoke to la Repubblica, said: “I took courage, used my deadname and signed up for Miss Italy because fighting transphobia is intersectional and even though I’m not a trans woman, I’ve decided to fight for their rights.”
I went to high school with a Ruth. She decided to change her name to Elizabeth when she went to college. She still goes by Elizabeth. Is she mentally ill because she doesn’t want anyone to call her Ruth?
So like, according to the organizers, if they were born with a penis, it doesn’t matter if they transitioned, they are considered men.
This trans man (a person born with a vagina who transitioned ) is entering the contest, because if trans women are considered men, trans men are considered women.
So this dude is entering a “female” beauty contest to show how dumb the rules are. He is allowed to do so because said dumb rules make him a woman in the eyes of the organization.
“Transphobia” idk I just think they don’t want certain ideologies in their shows. Makes sense to me but you guys will probably start spamming slurs at me if I keep speaking so…
Edit: I agree the rules are dumb and contradictory but calling it transphobia is just hilarious to me
Most uses of the misnomer “transphobia” are actually incorrect, because the people involved aren’t actually suffering from an irrational medical or psychological fear of transgender people.
What they actually are doing is more accurately called “transmisia”, because they are transmisic. This means they are heavily prejudiced against transgender women and believe that they shouldn’t be involved in the competitions.
Their reason for this are not because the transgender women don’t meet the beauty standards, or aren’t passing the judging categories, but because they just don’t want them there purely due to their trans-mysogynistic preconceptions.
In the vein of words like homophobia, these words’ definitions are not strictly in line with their etymology. Per every dictionary (but quoting Webster), transphobia is defined as:
irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against transgender people
And this might create some linguistic ambiguity, but I cannot seem to find actual documentation on a medical or psychological fear of transgender people at all. It seems this behavior is entirely (or almost entirely) a learned bigotry.
The other word, “transmisia”, has not really been officially adopted in any circle I can find. The only place I could find it with any prominance is a site called the “Trans Language Primer”, and I know nothing about it (except that it looks like geocities) so I won’t be linking it directly. Suffice to say, they speak negatively of the term (despite defending it as having a good intention) and favor “transphobia” for reasons of clarity.
This led me to watch the Eggless Omelette skit on youtube, and then came across this case of almost malicious compliance in the comments:
@jacoL8 6 months ago an excerpt from a Reddit comment:
This reminds me of a day when I was working as a kitchen manager. I had a server ring in one of our chicken dishes with a note: “cooked medium rare”.
I called the server over, and showed them the ticket. They asked “can we not do that?” And I said “We can. If they want to wind up in the hospital.” And I sent her back to explain.
The server went to the table, and told them chicken can’t be served undercooked, and the guest sent her back to tell us, “isn’t the customer always right?”
Hearing the conversation, the head chef exasperatedly took the ticket from my hand, walked over to the table and explained that chicken is not cooked like steak, and we are not legally allowed to serve undercooked chicken to them and they would wind up with it coming out of both ends. The guest agreed that would be a bad idea, and asked the chef to “prepare it how you usually would then.”
While leaving, the guest came up to apologize, and admitted that they didn’t cook at home and had no clue about the chicken, and that they were just trying to impress their date who had ordered a steak.
I’ll never understand why people get huffy when ordering food. If there was ever a time for clear communication, it’s when you want something specific to eat. If the server asks you a clarifying question, you should be happy that they care enough to get it right, not annoyed that they are wasting precious time by not reading your mind.
If the server asks you a clarifying question, you should be happy that they care enough to get it right
I’m delighted when my server asks questions. It means they’re engaging their brains. I’ve got an unusual food allergy that’s usually pretty easy to work around in the kitchen. If it’s at a restaurant I’m not a regular at (the unusual allergy makes me pretty memorable so I get to be a regular pretty fast), if they ask me something before I inquire about their process I know I’m somewhere that’ll keep me safe. It’s one of those indicators.
maliciouscompliance
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.