#overtime management policy | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

pathologicalreid · 3 months ago

Text

central nervous system | s.r.

in which you are drugged on what should've been a routine case

margovember

who? spencer reid x fem!reader category: angst; hurt/comfort content warnings: being drugged, threatened sexual assault, season 10, blood, broken glass, in a bar but reader doesn't drink, jareau!reader. word count: 1.7k a/n: oh dear. this week was so eternally long. work was crazy busy i worked overtime and almost ended up in the hospital which all led up to me taking the lsat today. crazy shit, but margovember will prevail. also! i'm hoping to get masterlists updated tomorrow if that's something you've been waiting on.

“I don’t think I’ve seen you around here before,” an unfamiliar voice intrudes on your private thoughts, looking around the bar that you had been planted in to see if you could catch your UnSub before he had the chance to attack someone else.

He sets a glass in front of you, and you drop some cash on the wooden surface, you shrug, “I’m in town on business.”

The bartender laughs heartily at your response before shaking his head, “Sorry. I’m sorry. It’s just—that’s a line I hear a lot.”

Your face warms at the recognition that the bartender was flirting with you, but this is a man who gets paid to be nice. You take his words at face value and sip at your drink, “Well, I have no reason to lie to you,” you squint at his name tag, “Jackson.”

He wipes down a spill, hooking the rag over the sink, and smiling at you, “Well, it’s nice to meet an honest woman.”

Following him with your eyes as he walks away, that last comment rubs you the wrong way, but Jackson Gleason was the bar manager, and Garcia had already cleared him from the suspect list.

You find yourself wishing Hotch had sent you into the bar with an earbud to communicate with the team, but instead, you were handed a phone, preprogrammed to alert the team if you hit the power button. There was a plainclothes officer somewhere in a corner to keep an eye on you, and the rest of the team was at the precinct or in an unmarked van outside.

Kate had coached you to the best of her abilities, but this wasn’t your first time going undercover. Catching serial rapists was more her speed, but she was pregnant, which immediately took her out of the running. Sipping from the thin straw in your glass, you let your eyes wander around the bar, antique posters and advertisements are littered across the walls, and someone just started playing Radiohead on the jukebox.

Eyeing the phone in your purse, you sigh, stirring the ice in your cup listlessly.

“Can I get you another? Maybe something stronger?” The manager offers, returning from the employees-only door with a new package of straws to restock the bar.

You shake your head, holding your empty glass out of him to take, “The same thing is fine.” Ignoring the fact that you don’t drink—you couldn’t drink on the job; all you’d been given was a coke.

He raises his eyebrows at that, “Suit yourself,” he says, ignoring the fact that you were trying to hand off your already dirtied glass to him and filling a clean cup with ice and coke.

Brushing it off as company policy, you thank him for the drink, placing another few dollars on the bar and smiling at him. Over your shoulder, you glance at the plainclothes officer, engaging in an animated conversation with another patron over whatever sports game is playing on the TV. You suspect he’s a little too good at pretending to be off the clock.

You make a face at the straw in your glass, and the bartender notices, “Sorry, just ran out of plastic.”

Taken aback, you use the paper straw anyway, sipping at your drink while you still can—knowing the straw will inevitably disintegrate.

It doesn’t take long for you to notice something wrong, a dull ache in your chest exacerbated by a slight rise in your body temperature. Your fingertips feel hot like they would after coming inside from the cold. You look down to find the emergency phone in your purse, but your head droops with your eyes, every controlled movement before a struggle.

“Hey,” Gleason says, jutting his chin in your direction, “You don’t look so great.”

A different version of yourself would’ve given him snark in return, but that different version of yourself would’ve been able to feel her extremities. “Woah,” You breathe, trying to swing your legs off of the stool only to find that you’re much higher from the ground than you initially thought.

When you lift your head again, whipping it back so hard you’re afraid it might fly off, he’s standing directly in front of you, “Why don’t I take you out back? You can get some fresh air,” the offer is innocent enough, but it rubs you the wrong way. His hand is on your waist, at the very least you know that’s wrong—you have a boyfriend, and it’s not this guy.

No, your boyfriend is outside of the bar in a van, waiting for your signal because you’re… oh. “No,” you whisper, trying to get your breathing under control. “I’m— Where’s my phone?” You’re digging through your purse as he stands you up and guides you to the back of the bar, closer to a large exit sign.

Sirens are going off in your head, but even they sound separated from your situation. “I can call a cab for you,” he assures you, leading you by your arm and closer to the back door.

“No,” you say again, “I really need my phone…” his grip tightens on your wrist, practically dragging you out of the bar while you use your free hand to find your phone, pushing the power button before it slips out of your hand, clattering to the ground. “That really hurts,” you tell him, now able to give more of your focus to evading the man who was most decidedly not Jackson Gleason.

Pulling your arm back, you manage to break free from him, the momentum from your struggle sends your hand flying into a picture frame, shattering the glass and causing the UnSub to spin on his heel. “Look at what you did,” he seethes, gripping your hair at the back of your head and forcing you to look at the shattered glass.

Your mouth gapes at the sensation of your hair being pulled until there’s a rush of cold air and he pushes you forward, into the waiting arms of someone else, “Woah, hey, I’ve got you,” Spencer says, keeping you off of the floor and, with the help of someone else, carrying your dead weight over to one of the booths.

Spencer clambers into the booth seat first, seating you in front of him so that your back is pressing against his chest. You let out a low groan when he wraps an arm around your waist, keeping your body from flopping onto the sticky hardwood.

“Do you know what you took?” He asks, pressing his face into your hair so that the two of you can keep your voices down.

Vaguely aware of the way his fingers are pressing into the pulse point on your wrist, you shake your head, “I didn’t take anything.”

He hums in response, “You were drugged. I— I’m so sorry we didn’t realize who it was sooner. By the time we realized there was a discrepancy in Jackson Gleason’s file, you had already pushed the alert button,” he tells you, being careful not to move around too much. “Can you lift your head for me? It’ll help your breathing.”

With tremendous effort—and some help from Spencer—you lift your head, letting it rest on him. Now, you can see that the majority of the bar has cleared out, Rossi watches you nervously from the bar, telling Spencer something about paramedics. You huff, “Where’s JJ?”

“She’ll meet us at the hospital, love,” he answers you, pressing a gentle kiss to the side of your head.

Trying to adjust yourself, you shake your head indeterminably, “No, it’s… I need my sister. I need my sister.” Somewhere—a past version of yourself, perhaps—you knew that JJ was at the hospital, speaking with one of the survivors.

Spencer speaks with someone that you can’t see, they’re standing in your periphery, a mangled blur of a person. Moments later, something cold is pressed to your face, and the sensation makes you jump, “Ow,” you whine, though it doesn’t hurt.

“Ducky?” Your sister’s voice rings through the phone, and you’re surprised to hear her using your nickname. Although, your status as JJ’s little sister tends to come through when you’re hurt.

You hum into the receiver, “Hi, J,” you greet wearily.

A sigh of relief is her next response, “Hey, Derek said you’re waiting for the paramedics to take you to the hospital, and I’ll be here to greet you when you arrive. Does that sound alright?”

“It’s cold in here,” you mumble, wondering if Derek is the blurry shape remaining in your periphery.

There’s a pause on her end before she speaks up again, “I’m sorry, Ducky.” There it was again. “You’ll be okay though; you just have to wait it out.”

You nod as a jacket is laid out on your lap; Spencer must’ve heard you mention being cold to your sister. Your boyfriend whispers something to you, “Spencer says the paramedics are here and I can’t talk to you anymore.”

JJ laughs slightly on the phone, “I’ll see you when you get here, okay?”

“Yeah, J,” you whisper, letting someone take the phone from you. You frown at Spencer, “I don’t feel quite right.”

Helping you get on the gurney, Spencer holds your hand while an EMT wraps a blood pressure cuff around your arm, “He likely gave you a central nervous system inhibitor.”

You nod slowly, wrinkling your nose when the other paramedic shines a light in your eyes, “I am nervous,” you answer. Trying to listen to the medical personnel as they explain what’s going on, but it all goes in one ear and out the other. One of them crudely wraps a cut on your hand to staunch the bleeding, but you couldn’t even remember when it started to bleed.

Anxiously, you pull your bottom lip between your teeth. “Don’t bite down on your lip,” Spencer instructs, “You could bite right through it and not even realize.”

Releasing your lip, your eyes widen at him while he pulls a blanket over your shoulders. “That’s scary,” you whisper.

“I agree,” he says, leaning forward and pressing a soft kiss to your forehead, “It is scary.”

#criminal minds #spencer reid #spencer reid x reader #criminal minds fanfic #spencer reid fanfic #spencer reid angst #criminal minds fanfiction #spencer reid hurt/comfort #spencer reid x you #spencer reid fanfiction #spencer reid fic #criminal minds fic #criminal minds angst #spencer reid x fem!reader #written by margot #margovember

1K notes · View notes

sarkos · 11 days ago

Quote

As Musk brings his staff to the Office of Personnel Management, senior officials' access to data systems is being revoked. "We have no visibility into what they are doing with the computer and data systems," one of the officials said. "That is creating great concern. There is no oversight. It creates real cybersecurity and hacking implications." One key database, the officials cited, is Enterprise Human Resources Integration, which has "all of the birthdates, Social Security numbers, appraisals, home addresses, pay grades and lengths of service of government workers." Reuters spoke with University of Michigan Professor Don Moynihan, at the Ford School of Public Policy, who warned th at there doesn't seem to be any congressional oversight over Trump and Musk. "This makes it much harder for anyone outside Musk's inner circle at OPM to know what's going on," Moynihan said. The officials said they still have the power to log on and access their emails but there's no access to the massive datasets they managed. Musk demands that his team work overnight and 80-hour weeks to find all of the necessary cuts, violating federal labor laws unless a worker is paid overtime. However, it's unclear whether Musk or American taxpayers are paying those workers. Musk had sofa beds brought into the OPM office on Jan. 20, the day Trump took office, to ensure his personal team could work non-stop. The area can only be accessed with a special security badge or a security escort, an OPM employee said.

'Great concern': Musk aides reportedly lock career civil servants out of computer systems - Raw Story

165 notes · View notes

alexandraisyes · 5 months ago

Text

Online Harassment

Online harassment has become an increasingly pervasive issue, affecting individuals across all platforms. From subtle microaggressions to outright threats, harassment takes many forms, each with its own set of consequences. In this post, we'll break down the different types of online harassment, their impact, and what can be done to address them.

Important vocabulary: Misinformation is false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong. Disinformation is false information that deliberately intends to mislead—intentionally misstating the facts.

Let's start with what does not count as harassment:

What Doesn't Count as Harassment

Constructive Criticism: Offering feedback aimed at improving someone's work or behavior. For example, a manager providing an employee with feedback on how to improve their performance.

Disagreement or Debate: Engaging in a civil disagreement or discussion on a topic. For example, two colleagues having a heated but respectful debate about a work-related issue.

Enforcing Rules or Policies: Applying rules or policies in a consistent and fair manner. For example, a teacher enforcing classroom rules or a supervisor addressing attendance issues according to company policy.

Isolated Incidents: A single, non-repetitive instance of a comment or action that might be offensive but is not part of a pattern of behavior. For example, a colleague making an offhand remark that could be seen as rude but immediately apologizes.

Perceived Slights or Misunderstandings: Situations where an action or comment is misinterpreted or taken out of context. For example, someone feeling slighted because of a misunderstood joke that wasn’t meant to offend.

Friendly Banter or Jokes (If Mutual): Light-hearted exchanges that both parties understand and accept as non-offensive. For example, friends or close colleagues teasing each other in a way that both find funny and acceptable.

Normal Management Actions: Legitimate management actions taken in the course of business, like performance reviews, promotions, or disciplinary actions. For example, a supervisor assigning tasks based on job performance and business needs.

Cultural Differences: Actions or behaviors rooted in cultural norms that may be misunderstood but are not intended to be offensive. For example, a greeting or gesture that is customary in one culture but may seem strange or awkward in another.

Refusal of Unreasonable Requests: Declining a request that is not reasonable or within someone’s rights to refuse. For example, an employee refusing to work overtime that was not agreed upon in their contract.

Addressing Harassment: Communicating to someone that their behavior is harassing you, when it is true. This can help make the individual aware of the impact of their behavior, seek resolution, validate your experience, set boundaries, and follow legal or organizational procedures. For example, telling a coworker that their repeated comments about your appearance are making you uncomfortable and asking them to stop.

Now let's break down what does count as harassment:

Disinformation and Defamation of Character

Definition:

Disinformation: This refers to false information that is deliberately created and spread to deceive or mislead others. It’s often used to manipulate public opinion, discredit individuals, or cause confusion.

Slander: This involves making false spoken statements that damage someone’s reputation.

Libel: Libel is similar to slander but involves false statements made in a fixed medium, typically written or published online.

Defamation of Character: This is a broader term encompassing both slander and libel, referring to any false statement, whether spoken or written, that harms a person's reputation.

As Harassment:

Disinformation becomes harassment when it is used maliciously to harm an individual's reputation or cause them distress. This might involve spreading false rumors about someone’s actions or beliefs, or fabricating stories to discredit them.

Slander/Libel/Defamation become harassment when false statements are made with the intent to damage someone's character or standing in the community, leading to social, professional, or personal harm. This is particularly damaging when spread online, where false information can quickly reach a wide audience.

Examples:

Disinformation: A group creates and spreads a false narrative that a well-known activist has engaged in illegal activities, with the aim of discrediting their work and damaging their public image. The false information is shared widely across social media platforms, leading others to believe the activist is untrustworthy.

Slander: During a live podcast, a speaker falsely accuses a colleague of being involved in unethical business practices. Even though the accusation is baseless, listeners begin to question the colleague's integrity.

Libel: An online blog publishes an article falsely claiming that a local politician has been accepting bribes. The article spreads rapidly, causing the politician to face public scrutiny and potentially affecting their career.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Distress: The victim may experience anxiety, stress, and a sense of powerlessness as their reputation is attacked. This can lead to mental health issues such as depression or anxiety disorders.

Social Isolation: As the false information spreads, the victim may find themselves ostracized by their community, friends, or professional network. They may be unfairly judged or treated differently by others who believe the falsehoods.

Professional Consequences: Defamation can result in job loss, damage to professional relationships, or loss of business opportunities, especially if the victim’s reputation is central to their work.

Financial Damage: The victim might incur legal costs in attempting to clear their name or experience a loss of income due to damaged reputation.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: In many jurisdictions, victims of defamation of character can pursue legal action against the perpetrator. They may sue for damages to compensate for the harm done to their reputation. However, these cases can be complex, requiring proof that the statements were false, made with malicious intent, and caused harm.

Platform Policies: Many social media platforms have guidelines against spreading false information and may take action by removing content or banning users who engage in such activities. However, enforcement can be inconsistent.

Ethical Implications: Even if legal action isn’t taken, spreading false information or engaging in defamation is ethically wrong and can have serious consequences for both the victim and society as a whole. It undermines trust in information sources and can contribute to a culture of misinformation and cynicism.

Disinformation and slander/libel can be deeply damaging, both personally and professionally, and are forms of harassment that are taken seriously both legally and ethically.

Amplifying Disinformation and Slander

Definition:

Amplifying Disinformation: This refers to the act of spreading or sharing deliberately false or misleading information created by someone else. It involves reblogging, retweeting, sharing posts, or forwarding messages that contain disinformation, even if the person amplifying it isn’t the original creator.

Amplifying Slander: This involves spreading spoken false statements about someone that are damaging to their reputation. It often occurs in social interactions, such as sharing gossip or rumors.

Amplifying Libel: This is similar to amplifying slander but involves sharing written or published false information that harms someone’s reputation. It typically occurs on social media, blogs, or other written formats.

As Harassment:

Amplifying Disinformation becomes harassment when it is done with malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth. By spreading false information, individuals contribute to the harm caused to the victim, including damage to their reputation, emotional distress, and social or professional consequences.

Amplifying Slander/Libel becomes harassment when the person sharing the information knows it is false or harmful but continues to spread it, thereby further damaging the victim’s reputation and standing. Even if the person amplifying the content isn't the original source, they are still participating in and perpetuating the harm.

Examples:

Amplifying Disinformation: After seeing a tweet that deliberately spreads a false narrative about a political figure being involved in a criminal activity, a user retweets it with a comment that suggests they believe it, spreading the disinformation to their followers. The false claim quickly gains traction, causing the political figure significant public backlash.

Amplifying Slander: During a group chat, one person repeats a false rumor they heard about a coworker being unfaithful. Even though the rumor is baseless and was created with malicious intent, it quickly spreads through the workplace, damaging the coworker’s reputation and personal relationships.

Amplifying Libel: A person shares an article on their Facebook page that falsely accuses a local business owner of engaging in fraudulent activities. Although they didn’t write the article, their act of sharing it contributes to the spread of the disinformation, leading to a decline in the business owner’s customer base.

Impact on the Victim:

Increased Harm: The more widely disinformation or slander is shared, the more damage it can cause. As the false information reaches a larger audience, the victim may face increased social ostracization, professional setbacks, or emotional distress.

Difficulty in Correcting the Record: Once disinformation or slander is amplified, it can be challenging for the victim to correct the falsehoods. The spread of false information can take on a life of its own, making it hard for the truth to prevail.

Reputational Damage: The victim may suffer long-term harm to their personal and professional reputation, which can affect their relationships, career, and social standing.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Amplifying disinformation, slander, or libel can expose the person spreading the false information to legal liability, particularly if they knowingly shared it with the intent to cause harm. In some cases, they may be sued for defamation or held responsible for damages caused by the spread of false information.

Ethical Responsibility: Even if there is no legal liability, those who amplify false information have an ethical responsibility to verify the accuracy of what they share. Spreading disinformation or slander without regard for the truth is unethical and can contribute to a culture of harassment and mistrust.

Platform Policies: Social media platforms often have policies against the spread of disinformation and may take action against users who repeatedly amplify harmful content. This could include warnings, suspensions, or permanent bans.

Amplifying disinformation and slander is a serious issue that can cause significant harm to individuals and communities. Those who engage in this behavior, even if they aren’t the original creators of the content, play a crucial role in perpetuating the damage and may face legal and ethical consequences.

Cyberbullying

Definition:

Cyberbullying involves the use of digital platforms, such as social media, messaging apps, or online forums, to repeatedly target, intimidate, or belittle an individual. It is a form of bullying that occurs online and can include various forms of aggressive behavior.

As Harassment:

Cyberbullying becomes harassment when the behavior is intentional, repeated, and causes significant emotional distress or harm to the victim. It can involve sending threatening or abusive messages, spreading rumors, or using online platforms to isolate or degrade someone.

Examples:

Personal Attacks: A student repeatedly sends mean-spirited and threatening messages to a classmate through a messaging app. These messages include insults, threats of violence, and derogatory comments about the victim’s appearance and personal life.

Public Shaming: A group of people creates a social media page specifically to post embarrassing photos and make derogatory comments about an individual. The posts are shared widely, leading to public humiliation.

Spreading Rumors: An individual creates fake profiles to spread false and harmful rumors about someone, such as accusing them of dishonest or immoral behavior. This false information is shared across multiple platforms, damaging the victim’s reputation.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Distress: Victims of cyberbullying may experience feelings of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. The constant online attacks can lead to severe emotional distress and a sense of helplessness.

Social Isolation: The victim may withdraw from online and offline social interactions due to fear of further harassment. This isolation can lead to a decline in social support and relationships.

Academic and Professional Impact: For students, cyberbullying can lead to decreased academic performance and school avoidance. For adults, it can affect job performance and professional relationships.

Physical Effects: The stress and anxiety caused by cyberbullying can result in physical symptoms such as headaches, sleep disturbances, and a weakened immune system.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws specifically targeting cyberbullying. Legal actions can include restraining orders, criminal charges for harassment or threats, and civil lawsuits for damages. Laws vary by location, so the availability and extent of legal recourse depend on local regulations.

Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services often have policies against cyberbullying. Users who engage in such behavior may face account suspension, bans, or content removal. Reporting mechanisms are available for victims to report abusive behavior.

Ethical Implications: Cyberbullying is ethically unacceptable as it inflicts unnecessary harm and distress on individuals. It contributes to a toxic online environment and can have severe consequences for victims. Promoting respectful and positive online interactions is crucial for fostering a supportive digital community.

Cyberbullying is a serious issue with far-reaching effects on individuals’ mental health and well-being. Addressing it requires both legal action and ethical responsibility, with efforts focused on prevention, support for victims, and creating a safer online environment.

Doxxing

Definition:

Doxxing (or "doxing") is the act of publicly revealing or publishing private, sensitive, or personal information about an individual without their consent. This information might include details like home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and workplace locations. The term "doxx" originates from the word "documents," reflecting the sharing of documents or personal details.

As Harassment:

Doxxing becomes harassment when the intention is to harm, intimidate, or distress the individual whose information is being exposed. It can be used to provoke harassment from others, incite physical threats, or damage the victim's privacy and security.

Examples:

Public Exposure: An individual’s personal details, such as their home address and phone number, are posted on a public forum or social media site after a heated online argument. This leads to unwanted contact and harassment from strangers.

Threatening Behavior: An online user publishes sensitive information about a journalist who has been critical of certain groups. The journalist starts receiving threatening messages and is forced to take security precautions.

Intimidation Tactics: After a disagreement in a gaming community, a player’s real-life address and contact information are shared with the community, leading to in-person threats and harassment.

Impact on the Victim:

Safety and Security Risks: The victim may face threats of physical harm or stalking due to the exposure of their personal information. This can lead to a heightened sense of vulnerability and fear.

Emotional Distress: Victims often experience significant emotional stress, including anxiety, fear, and a sense of invasion of privacy. The knowledge that their personal information is publicly accessible can be deeply unsettling.

Social and Professional Consequences: The victim’s reputation can be damaged, leading to unwanted attention and negative interactions in their personal and professional life. They might experience social ostracism or job-related issues as a result of the doxxing.

Financial Impact: In extreme cases, victims may incur costs related to increased security measures, legal fees, or changes in their contact information.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions consider doxxing a criminal offense, particularly if it involves threats, harassment, or incitement to violence. Laws related to privacy, harassment, and cybercrime can be applied to address doxxing. Victims can often seek legal protection or file complaints with law enforcement.

Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services typically have policies against doxxing. They may take action such as removing the offending content, suspending accounts, or providing support to affected users. However, enforcement can vary.

Ethical Implications: Doxxing is ethically problematic as it involves a deliberate invasion of privacy and can lead to severe consequences for the victim. It violates principles of respect and confidentiality and contributes to a hostile online environment.

Doxxing represents a serious breach of privacy and security, with the potential for significant harm to individuals. Addressing doxxing requires both legal measures and a strong ethical commitment to protecting personal information and respecting others’ privacy.

Stalking

Definition:

Stalking involves persistent and unwanted attention or surveillance of an individual that causes them to feel fear or distress. It can occur through various means, including physical following, digital monitoring, or repeated harassment through communication channels. The intent is often to intimidate or control the victim.

As Harassment:

Stalking becomes harassment when it is done with the intent to cause emotional or psychological harm, invade the victim’s privacy, or exert control over their actions. The behavior is characterized by its repetitive nature and the fear it instills in the victim.

Examples:

Physical Stalking: An individual repeatedly shows up at the victim’s home or workplace, waits for them outside, or follows them in public places despite being asked to stop.

Digital Stalking: A person continually monitors the victim’s online activities, sends frequent and unwanted messages or emails, tracks their location through social media check-ins, and creates fake profiles to gain more access.

Harassing Communication: The stalker sends numerous threatening or intrusive messages, calls, or letters, making the victim feel unsafe and overwhelmed. This can include persistent contact despite clear requests to cease communication.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Distress: Victims often experience high levels of anxiety, fear, and paranoia. The constant sense of being watched or followed can lead to severe emotional trauma and mental health issues, such as depression or panic attacks.

Social Isolation: Victims may withdraw from social activities or change their routines to avoid the stalker. They might also feel compelled to move or alter their personal lives significantly to ensure their safety.

Professional Disruption: Stalking can interfere with the victim’s work life, leading to decreased productivity, job dissatisfaction, or even job loss if the stalking occurs at their workplace or affects their professional reputation.

Physical Safety: In severe cases, stalking can lead to physical threats or attacks, putting the victim's safety and well-being at risk. This may necessitate physical security measures or legal protections.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have specific laws against stalking, which can include criminal charges and restraining orders. These laws address both physical and digital stalking behaviors, providing legal avenues for victims to seek protection and hold perpetrators accountable.

Platform Policies: Social media platforms and online services often have policies against stalking and harassment. Victims can report stalking behavior to these platforms, which may take action such as banning the perpetrator or removing harmful content.

Ethical Implications: Stalking is ethically unacceptable as it infringes on an individual’s right to privacy and security. It represents a severe violation of personal boundaries and can cause lasting harm. Ethical behavior involves respecting others' personal space and ensuring that interactions remain consensual and respectful.

Stalking is a grave form of harassment that involves a persistent invasion of privacy and control over the victim’s life. Addressing it requires both legal intervention and ethical commitment to safeguarding individuals' personal safety and well-being.

Hate Speech

Definition:

Hate speech refers to any communication—whether verbal, written, or visual—that disparages or incites violence or hostility against an individual or group based on attributes such as race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. It involves expressions that promote hatred or violence towards people based on these characteristics.

As Harassment:

Hate speech becomes harassment when it is used to target individuals or groups with the intent to demean, intimidate, or incite violence against them. It often creates a hostile environment and contributes to systemic discrimination and exclusion. The impact of hate speech can extend beyond the immediate target to affect entire communities.

Examples:

Social Media Posts: A user posts derogatory comments and slurs about a specific racial or religious group, encouraging others to join in and spread similar messages. These posts can lead to a climate of hostility and exclusion for members of the targeted group.

Online Forums: On a discussion board, members share and amplify content that advocates violence against LGBTQ+ individuals, including graphic threats and dehumanizing rhetoric. This can make LGBTQ+ users feel unsafe and unwelcome on the platform.

Hate Groups: Organized hate groups use websites and social media to recruit and spread propaganda that targets specific ethnic or religious groups. Their messages include misinformation, inflammatory statements, and calls for discriminatory actions.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Harm: Victims of hate speech often experience emotional and psychological distress, including feelings of fear, anxiety, and depression. They may feel dehumanized or marginalized.

Social Exclusion: Hate speech can lead to social ostracization and reduced participation in community or public activities. Victims may withdraw from online communities or public spaces to avoid hostility.

Physical Safety: In severe cases, hate speech can incite real-world violence or harassment against individuals or groups, leading to physical harm or threats. It can also contribute to a climate of fear and insecurity.

Community Impact: Hate speech can contribute to broader societal divisions and tensions, fostering environments where prejudice and discrimination are normalized.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: The legality of hate speech varies by jurisdiction. Some countries have specific laws that criminalize hate speech, while others protect freedom of speech more broadly, making legal action challenging. In regions with laws against hate speech, victims may have the option to report incidents to law enforcement or seek legal remedies.

Platform Policies: Many social media platforms have policies prohibiting hate speech and may take action by removing content, suspending accounts, or banning users who engage in such behavior. However, enforcement can be inconsistent, and some platforms may struggle to balance moderation with free speech considerations.

Ethical Implications: Hate speech is widely regarded as unethical because it promotes discrimination and intolerance. It undermines the principles of respect and equality, contributing to societal harm. Addressing hate speech requires a commitment to fostering inclusive and respectful communities, both online and offline.

Hate speech is a serious form of harassment with far-reaching effects on individuals and communities. Recognizing its impact and taking action to prevent and address it is crucial for promoting a more respectful and inclusive digital environment.

Trolling

Definition:

Trolling is the act of making deliberately provocative, offensive, or off-topic comments with the intention of eliciting strong emotional responses from others. It often involves disrupting conversations, creating conflicts, or stirring up controversy for amusement or to upset others.

As Harassment:

Trolling becomes harassment when the intent is to target specific individuals or groups with the purpose of causing emotional distress, confusion, or frustration. This involves consistently targeting someone with offensive or inflammatory comments, aiming to disrupt their online experience or provoke a reaction.

Examples:

Social Media Comments: A user repeatedly posts inflammatory or offensive comments on posts related to sensitive topics like mental health or personal identity. Their goal is to provoke arguments, upset the original poster, and attract attention to their own posts.

Forum Disruption: On an online forum focused on a specific hobby or interest, a troll deliberately posts off-topic or derogatory comments to derail discussions, causing frustration and confusion among regular members.

Live Stream Interference: During a live stream, a troll bombards the chat with spam, offensive messages, and provocative statements to distract the streamer and viewers, disrupting the content and conversation.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Distress: Victims may experience frustration, anger, and stress as a result of trolling. The constant need to address or ignore disruptive comments can be mentally exhausting.

Disruption of Conversations: Trolling can derail meaningful discussions and create a hostile environment, making it difficult for others to engage in productive or enjoyable conversations.

Reduced Participation: The presence of trolls can lead to decreased participation in online communities, as users may avoid engaging with platforms or topics where they have previously been targeted.

Psychological Impact: Persistent trolling can contribute to anxiety, depression, or feelings of helplessness, particularly if the troll’s comments are deeply personal or offensive.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: The legal response to trolling varies by jurisdiction and the nature of the trolling. While many forms of trolling do not constitute a criminal offense, behaviors that involve threats, harassment, or incitement to violence may be actionable under cybercrime or harassment laws.

Platform Policies: Most social media and online platforms have community guidelines that address trolling. They may take action such as removing offending content, suspending accounts, or banning users who engage in trolling behavior. Enforcement can vary, and some platforms struggle to effectively manage trolling.

Ethical Implications: Trolling is generally considered unethical because it aims to disrupt, harm, or manipulate others for personal amusement. It undermines respectful and constructive communication and can contribute to a negative online culture. Addressing trolling involves fostering a more respectful online environment and encouraging positive interactions.

Trolling is a form of online harassment that can have significant emotional and social impacts on individuals and communities. Recognizing and addressing trolling behavior is important for maintaining healthy and respectful online interactions.

Impersonation

Definition:

Impersonation involves creating or using a fake identity to deceive others into believing that you are someone else. This can include pretending to be a public figure, a private individual, or a professional entity. The goal is often to mislead or manipulate others for various purposes, including personal gain, harassment, or deception.

As Harassment:

Impersonation becomes harassment when it is used to target individuals with the intention of causing harm, spreading false information, or engaging in malicious activities. This might involve creating fake profiles or accounts to misrepresent someone or to exploit their identity for harmful purposes.

Examples:

Social Media Accounts: A user creates a fake social media profile pretending to be a well-known celebrity or public figure, using it to post misleading or harmful content that could damage the real person’s reputation.

Email Scams: An individual sends emails from an address that looks like it belongs to a trusted authority or organization (e.g., a company executive or a government official) to deceive recipients into providing sensitive information or making financial transactions.

Online Fraud: Someone impersonates a person in an online dating profile, using fake photos and personal details to manipulate or exploit other users emotionally or financially.

Impact on the Victim:

Reputation Damage: The victim may suffer from reputational harm if false or misleading information is spread using their identity, leading to confusion, mistrust, or negative perceptions among their audience or associates.

Emotional Distress: Being impersonated can lead to significant emotional distress, including anxiety, embarrassment, and frustration. The victim may feel violated and powerless, particularly if the impersonation is done in a malicious or humiliating way.

Professional Consequences: For public figures, professionals, or businesses, impersonation can lead to professional repercussions, including loss of business opportunities, legal issues, or damage to professional relationships.

Financial Impact: If impersonation involves fraud, the victim may suffer financial losses or be involved in lengthy and costly legal battles to address the situation.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws against impersonation, including identity theft, fraud, and misrepresentation. Victims may have legal avenues to pursue, such as filing complaints with law enforcement or taking civil action to seek damages. The specifics of legal recourse vary depending on local laws and the nature of the impersonation.

Platform Policies: Social media and online platforms often have policies against impersonation. They may take actions such as verifying identities, removing fake accounts, or suspending users who engage in impersonation. Effective enforcement of these policies can be challenging, especially given the scale of online interactions.

Ethical Implications: Impersonation is generally considered unethical because it involves deception and manipulation. It undermines trust and can have serious consequences for individuals and organizations. Ethical behavior online includes respecting others' identities and avoiding deceptive practices.

Impersonation can be a serious form of online harassment with far-reaching effects on both individuals and organizations. Addressing and preventing impersonation involves understanding its impacts, pursuing legal remedies when necessary, and fostering ethical online behavior.

Spamming

Definition:

Spamming refers to the repeated, unsolicited sending of messages or content, often with the intent to overwhelm, disrupt communication, or promote something, usually in a commercial context. It can occur through email, social media, messaging platforms, or other digital channels.

As Harassment:

Spamming becomes harassment when it is used to intentionally annoy, intimidate, or overwhelm an individual or organization. This might involve flooding someone's inbox with unwanted messages, bombarding a social media profile with repetitive or abusive comments, or inundating forums with irrelevant or harmful content. The goal is often to disrupt normal communication or to cause distress.

Examples:

Email Spamming: A user receives hundreds of unsolicited promotional emails, some of which contain malicious links or phishing attempts. The volume of spam clutters their inbox and makes it difficult to manage legitimate communications.

Social Media Spamming: An individual’s social media account is flooded with repetitive comments or messages from the same user or group. These comments might be abusive, irrelevant, or aimed at disrupting the user’s ability to engage with others on the platform.

Forum Spamming: A user continuously posts irrelevant or disruptive messages in online forums or discussion boards, often to derail conversations, promote products, or harass other users.

Impact on the Victim:

Overwhelm and Stress: The victim may feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of messages or content, leading to stress and frustration. Managing or filtering through spam can be time-consuming and mentally taxing.

Disruption of Communication: Spam can disrupt normal communication, making it difficult for the victim to focus on important messages or tasks. It can also crowd out legitimate content or conversations, reducing the effectiveness of communication platforms.

Privacy and Security Risks: Some spam messages may contain malicious links or attachments that can compromise the victim’s privacy or security, leading to potential data breaches or identity theft.

Financial Impact: For businesses, spamming can lead to loss of productivity, increased costs related to managing or mitigating spam, and potential damage to their reputation if customers are affected.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws against spamming, especially when it involves malicious intent or financial fraud. For instance, the CAN-SPAM Act in the U.S. regulates commercial email and provides guidelines for managing spam. Victims of spam may also seek legal remedies for damages or file complaints with relevant authorities.

Platform Policies: Most digital platforms and services have policies against spamming. Violations can result in penalties such as account suspension, banning, or removal of the offending content.

Ethical Implications: Spamming is considered unethical as it disregards the recipient’s consent and aims to exploit or harass individuals. It disrupts normal communication practices and can contribute to a negative online experience for users.

Spamming, when used maliciously, can have significant negative impacts on individuals and organizations, and is addressed by legal frameworks and platform policies to protect users and maintain the integrity of digital communication.

Making Threats

Definition:

Threats to Harm Others: These are statements or actions that express an intention to cause physical harm or violence to another person. These threats can be explicit (directly stating the intention to harm) or implicit (suggesting harm or intimidation).

Threats to Harm Oneself: These are statements or actions that express a desire or intention to self-harm or commit suicide. Such threats may be made in distressing contexts and can indicate serious emotional or psychological issues.

As Harassment:

Threats to Harm Others: When threats are made to harm others, they can be a form of harassment if the intent is to intimidate, control, or manipulate the target. This can involve direct threats or veiled warnings intended to cause fear or distress. The impact can be significant, causing emotional and psychological trauma, and creating a sense of insecurity or danger for the victim.

Threats to Harm Oneself: Threats of self-harm can also be a form of harassment if they are used manipulatively or to provoke a response from others. In some cases, individuals may use threats of self-harm to exert control or to gain attention, which can create distress and concern among those who are aware of the threats.

Examples:

Threats to Harm Others:

Direct Threat: A user posts a message on social media stating, "I will come to your house and hurt you if you don’t stop talking about me." This explicit threat aims to intimidate the recipient.

Implicit Threat: An individual leaves a comment on a public forum suggesting, "People like you should be careful about what they say," followed by a vague reference to "consequences." This implies potential harm without explicit details.

Threats to Harm Oneself:

Direct Threat: A user posts on a social media platform saying, "I’m going to end my life tonight. I don’t see any way out." This expresses a clear intention to self-harm.

Implicit Threat: An individual frequently posts messages or updates about feeling hopeless and discusses self-destructive thoughts without explicitly stating their intent to self-harm, but hinting at severe distress.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional and Psychological Trauma: For threats to harm others, victims may experience fear, anxiety, and a sense of vulnerability. The threat of violence can lead to psychological stress and trauma.

Behavioral Changes: Victims of threats may change their behavior to avoid potential harm, such as avoiding certain places or people, or taking additional precautions for their safety.

Distress and Concern: For threats of self-harm, friends, family, and others may experience significant emotional distress and concern, feeling helpless or anxious about the individual’s well-being.

Intervention and Support: Threats of self-harm often prompt intervention from mental health professionals or emergency services, which can be disruptive and may lead to involuntary treatment or hospitalization for the individual making the threats.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse:

Threats to Harm Others: Making threats of violence can be illegal in many jurisdictions. Victims can report these threats to law enforcement, who may investigate and take legal action if necessary. Criminal charges can be brought against individuals making credible threats of harm.

Threats to Harm Oneself: While threats of self-harm are not typically illegal, they often prompt intervention by mental health professionals and emergency services to ensure the individual’s safety. In some cases, these threats may lead to involuntary hospitalization or treatment if the person is deemed a danger to themselves.

Platform Policies: Many online platforms have policies against threats of violence and self-harm. Content that violates these policies may be removed, and users making such threats may be banned or suspended. Platforms often have mechanisms for reporting and addressing these issues.

Ethical Implications: Both types of threats raise serious ethical concerns. Making threats to harm others is fundamentally unethical and can have legal consequences. Threats of self-harm require sensitive handling, as they indicate significant distress and necessitate a compassionate response to address the underlying issues and provide appropriate support.

Threats, whether directed towards others or oneself, are serious and can have profound impacts on all involved. They are addressed through legal channels, platform policies, and ethical guidelines to protect individuals and provide necessary support.

Sexual Harassment

Definition:

Sexual Harassment: This is unwanted and unwelcome behavior of a sexual nature that creates a hostile or intimidating environment. It can occur in various forms, including physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct. Sexual harassment is often characterized by a power imbalance and can occur in both professional and personal contexts.

As Harassment:

Sexual Harassment becomes harassment when it involves making someone feel uncomfortable, threatened, or demeaned through sexual advances, comments, or behavior. This includes behavior that interferes with the victim’s ability to participate in work or social environments and can create an atmosphere of intimidation or hostility.

Examples:

Verbal Harassment: Making inappropriate or suggestive comments, jokes, or propositions about someone's body or sexual activities. For instance, repeatedly commenting on a colleague’s appearance or making unwelcome advances.

Physical Harassment: Unwanted physical contact, such as touching, groping, or brushing up against someone in a manner that makes them uncomfortable. This can also include gestures or displays of sexually explicit material.

Non-Verbal Harassment: Sending sexually suggestive messages, images, or using body language that implies sexual interest or intent. This includes persistent staring or creating an atmosphere with sexually explicit material.

Online Harassment: Sending unsolicited explicit messages or images through social media, email, or messaging platforms. This can also involve tagging someone in inappropriate content or making unwanted advances through digital communication.

Impact on the Victim:

Emotional Distress: Victims may experience a range of emotional responses, including anxiety, depression, and fear. The harassment can lead to a diminished sense of safety and self-worth.

Professional Consequences: In a workplace setting, sexual harassment can affect job performance, career progression, and workplace relationships. Victims may face challenges in their professional environment, such as being passed over for promotions or experiencing isolation from colleagues.

Social and Personal Impact: Harassment can lead to a loss of confidence, social withdrawal, and strained personal relationships. Victims might avoid certain places or situations to escape harassment or its reminders.

Physical Health: The stress and emotional impact of harassment can manifest physically, leading to issues such as sleep disturbances, headaches, or other stress-related health problems.

Legal and Ethical Considerations:

Legal Recourse: Many jurisdictions have laws and regulations against sexual harassment. Victims may have legal avenues to pursue claims, such as filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the U.S. or similar bodies in other countries. Legal action can result in compensation for damages, changes in workplace policies, or other remedies.

Platform Policies: Online platforms and workplaces typically have policies prohibiting sexual harassment. Violations can lead to account suspension, removal of content, or disciplinary actions against offenders. Reporting mechanisms are often available to address harassment claims.

Ethical Implications: Sexual harassment is a severe violation of ethical standards and personal boundaries. It undermines the dignity and rights of individuals and perpetuates a culture of inequality and fear. Ethical responses involve creating safe and respectful environments, actively addressing and preventing harassment, and supporting victims.

Sexual harassment is a serious issue with significant legal, ethical, and personal implications. Addressing it effectively requires a combination of legal action, supportive policies, and a commitment to creating respectful and safe environments for all individuals.

Understanding and addressing online harassment is crucial for fostering a safer and more respectful digital environment. From the deliberate spread of disinformation and defamation to the invasive impact of spamming and threats, each form of harassment has its own set of consequences that can deeply affect individuals and communities. Sexual harassment, in particular, represents a severe violation of personal dignity and can lead to significant emotional and professional harm.

By recognizing the different manifestations of harassment, from slander and libel to online threats and unwanted sexual advances, we can better equip ourselves to combat these issues effectively. Legal frameworks, platform policies, and ethical practices all play essential roles in addressing and mitigating harassment.

It is our collective responsibility to create and maintain environments—both online and offline—where individuals feel safe, respected, and heard. By staying informed, supporting victims, and holding perpetrators accountable, we can contribute to a more just and compassionate society. Everyone deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and it is up to all of us to uphold these values in every interaction.

146 notes · View notes

yourlocalmeta1head · 3 months ago

Text

I hate seeing these fucking videos of people who voted for Donald Trump regretting voting for him. If they had just done more research and didn't vote for him just because then the can "afford gas and groceries" they would've learned that if you are the average American your taxes will be higher and you will have larger bills. Donald Trump's tax plan does include a few cuts for the middle class but 83% of tax cuts that are included in Donald Trumps tax plan go to the people that are making over half a million dollars a year. Kamala Harris's tax plan would've been better because 100% of the tax cuts in her plan would go to members of the middle and low class.

Donald Trump has also reported "not being associated with project 2025" and "having nothing to do with project 2025" which is obviously false seeing that many people who are involved in project 2025 have served Donald Trump in one way or another. For example; Paul Dans, who is a former chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personal Management under Trump is leading the project. In addition, Trumps campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt has appeared in Project 2025 promotion videos.

Here are ways project 2025 could affect you and your personal life. Project 2025 would stop people from earning overtime pay. He wants to undo recent policy that made over 4 million people newly eligible for overtime. Project 2025 also wants to weaken child labor protections. In quote "The young people should be able to work inherently dangerous jobs" and work in rolls that are not allowed thanks to protections from the department of labor.

Project 2025 also says that they will quote "Secure the border, finish building the wall, and deport illegal aliens" Donald Trump is planing on doing mass deportations. He declared that once he takes office that he will use military to do mass deportations of undocumented immigrants.

They want to make it harder for women to get abortions by removing it from laws and taking away approval for abortion pills. They want to stop some services that give out birth control and instead suggest less reliable methods. That might take away funding from clinics that provide abortions which could also affect other services those clinics offer. They want to promote traditional roles for men and women. They will take away protections and programs that help gay people, thus making it harder for them to be treated fairly and get the support they need. They might cut back on programs that help poor people get healthcare and other support meaning it could be harder for poor families to get the help they need.

These are some of the ways project 2025 will affect the climate. Project 2025 would rewrite the most legal tool we have for protecting wildlife in ways that would harm imperilled species. For example, it specifically calls for removing protections from gray wolves and Yellowstone grizzlies. They also propose to repeal the Antiquities Act, which would strip the president of the ability to protect the public land and waters of national monuments. Project 2025 would have agencies that manage the federal lands and waters to maximise corporate oil and gas extraction. Speaking of oil, the agenda directly aims to expand the Willow Project which the largest proposed oil and gas undertaking on the U.S. public land. This also calls for drilling into Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and mining into Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness.

If you go to a public school congratulations. You are now required to take the military entrance exam. Page 134/ 135, "Improve military recruiters’ access to secondary schools and require completion of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery—the military entrance examination—by all students in schools that receive federal funding." "Increase the number of Junior ROTC programs in secondary schools"

If you voted for Trump I promise you will regret it in the next 4 years.

Edit from after the election: Donald Trump is not lowering gas prices and adding tariffs to companys that import goods and to make up for that he will be increasing the price of these goods.

Trump has aslo started mass deportations and ICE has been spoted waiting at schools, breaking down doors, and there have even been reports of ICE deporting people who are AMERICAN CITIZENS. People should not be scared to do basic things in fear of being deported by ICE.

#anti gun #anti capitalism #antifascist #anti trans #donald trump #trump #fuck trump #trump 2024 #kamala harris #vote harris #kamala 2024 #vote kamala #kamala for president #project 2025 #fuck project 2025 #ice #mass deportations #deny defend depose

62 notes · View notes

postnutperfection · 3 months ago

Text

I love love love this! I’m sorry in advance if this doesn’t really make sense, I have a hard time explaining things sometimes. Also I’m making a separate post just because there’s a comment text limit BUTTT

The short oversimplified answer is Tiktok is what Tumblr used to be

The long answer is complicated. One reason (which I suspect is the biggest reason) is that TikTok is now one of (if not THE) biggest platform for fandom content of any kind. No matter how niche the interest is, guarantee there is at least two other people on that app that enjoy the same thing you do if not as much or more than you. TikTok overtime (at least in my opinion) has become almost a mutation hybrid of Tumblr and Vine.

TikTok is essentially the perfect breeding ground for fandom culture. You can make a video anywhere from 15 seconds to 10 minutes long on any topic you want, or post a combination of photos, or write a wall of fan fiction or really any text and the algorithm 9/10 times will push that shit directly to the right audience. The algorithm is designed to show you what you want and to keep you on the app for as long as possible, so naturally it makes building a fandom or community incredibly easy. Not to mention how human everything feels. One of the main reasons there are so many influencers and celebrities on TikTok is because of how easy it is to be “relatable” to the masses. Soooo many agencies and managers and companies push their clients/employees to be on TikTok because of how easy it is to connect with people on a somewhat deeper level as compared to other platforms. Not to mention, TikTok’s restrictions and content policies are 8/10 times VERY lenient really adding fuel to the OG Tumblr comparison (porn gifs included of course).

With all that being said, the “Ethel Cain Fandom” on TikTok isn’t necessarily bad, a lot of the people in that community are super nice and seem to have a genuine appreciation for Hayden and her artwork. The issue is when it bleeds out into other communities and individuals who then get a VERY select and minimal taste of Hayden’s work who become lukewarm fans of her work. Which, again, there’s nothing wrong with that scenario in of itself but when you combine that with stan culture it creates the whole Perverts “controversy”. So a major reason why they dont all just pack up and leave to Tumblr is because its not the actual fandom itself. It’s like a city, Ethel Cain USA isn’t the issue, it’s the suburb people surrounding who rarely traverse into the city unless its for work.

Another reason is that a LOT of the fandom on TikTok is young (early 20s and younger). That’s not to say that there aren’t young people on Tumblr, but a majority of them on TikTok would never even think to get on Tumblr, as they just missed prime Tumblr. To them, TikTok is what Tumblr was at it’s height. Also, with so many of them being young they might have parents who oversee and monitor their online presence (as they should) and might not allow them to get Tumblr because unfortunately it does have a reputation of being the freaky ass porn site 💔

@community-bloodbag

#sorry this is long im using my college class knowledge #shoutout to my teacher #ethel cain #mothercain #preachers daughter #punish #hayden anhedönia #ethel cain perverts

19 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 7 months ago

Text

John Knefel at MMFA:

Project 2025, a sprawling right-wing plan to provide policy and staffing to a future Republican president, proposes an extreme anti-worker agenda that would severely curtail unions’ ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their members and reverse gains organized labor has made in recent years. It would also weaken overtime regulations, give corporations wider latitude in misclassifying workers as independent contractors, and dismantle safety regulations that prohibit young people from working dangerous jobs.

The initiative’s policy book, Mandate for Leadership, is an attempt to roll back New Deal-era, working class victories by allowing state-level exemptions from the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act, and by creating nonunion “employee involvement organizations” to undermine unions’ negotiating power. It additionally calls for sharp reductions in the budgets of the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor and a freeze on new hires. Project 2025 is organized by The Heritage Foundation and includes more than 100 conservative groups on its advisory board, which have collectively received more than $55 million from groups tied to conservative megadonors Leonard Leo and Charles Koch. Leo has been pushing the Supreme Court to further erode the power of organized labor, and the Koch family has waged a war on unions for more than 60 years.

[...]

Project 2025: Eviscerate overtime and dismantle pro-worker regulations

One central proposal in Mandate that illuminates Project 2025’s extreme anti-work posture is the suggestion that employers should be allowed to eviscerate overtime regulations and potentially withhold pay. The attacks on overtime take several forms, including a proposal to allow workers to accrue vacation instead of time-and-a-half compensation — but at least 40 percent of lower- and middle-income workers already don’t use their allotted paid time off. Under this policy employers could coerce workers into “voluntarily” selecting vacation that they’re either formally or informally prohibited from taking, thereby denying them overtime compensation. Project 2025 further recommends that workers and bosses agree to extend the overtime threshold to a period of two weeks or one month. The policy would empower management to overload busy weeks with extra-long shifts and take advantage of slow periods through under-scheduling — effectively eliminating overtime altogether.

[...]

A return to company unionism

Project 2025 seeks to roll back New Deal-era labor victories by proposing that Congress “pass legislation allowing waivers from federal labor laws” — like the National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act — “under certain conditions.” Allowing state-level exemptions to the NLRA and FLSA would almost certainly trigger a race-to-the-bottom dynamic, where firms relocate to states with the weakest (or nonexistent) labor protections at the expense of workers. That’s what happened in states that passed so-called “right-to-work” laws — which starve unions of resources by preventing them from collecting fees from all employees they represent, thereby creating a free-rider problem — where employers were able to depress wages and union membership. Unions have made��significant gains under the Biden administration’s National Labor Relations Board, which enforces labor law and investigates anti-union practices. That progress is largely thanks to NLRB general counsel Jennifer Abruzzo, who has taken an aggressive, pro-worker enforcement posture. Project 2025 promises to fire her on “Day One.” It also calls for reductions in the budgets of the NLRB and the Department of Labor to the “low end of the historical average,” as well as implementing a “hiring freeze for career officials.”

[...] Project 2025 would further undermine unions by eliminating “card check” — where a majority of workers who have signed union authorization forms can ask their employer for voluntary recognition — and mandating “the secret ballot exclusively.” Although the idea of a secret ballot has the veneer of democracy, in practice it’s a power grab for management. By forcing organizers to go through the byzantine NLRB election process, an employer can buy itself time to wage an anti-union campaign and bog down the process, often through illegal means. A 2019 study found that employers violated labor laws in 41.5% of NLRB-supervised union elections in 2016 and 2017 and intimidated or coerced workers in nearly a third of all elections.

The radical right-wing Project 2025 spearheaded by The Heritage Foundation in association with over 100 organizations has an agenda attacking labor and unions.

#Workers' Rights #Project 2025 #Overtime Pay #Unions #Donald Trump #The Heritage Foundation #Leonard Leo #Charles Koch #Fair Labor Standards Act #National Labor Relations Act #US Department of Labor #NLRB #Labor #Jonathan Berry #Mandate For Leadership #Card Check #Employee Involvement Organizations

22 notes · View notes

meli-writes · 3 months ago

Text

'we will not wait around for someone else to build the future for us'

hey so yesterday my union launched our manifesto and voted to reveal our membership numbers (1500+ and across the entire uk games industry)!

i just do discord admin (make it bearable to use lol) and data entry, but everyone else has put in incredible work making this. seeing this union build up strength over the last 5 years has been awesome, and i'm excited for how the next 5 are gonna go.

some extracts if you don't wanna click on the link:

The manifesto, which can be viewed here, outlines the IWGB Game Workers' mission, core values, and planned campaigns. Its five core values are stated as democracy, solidarity and care, taking action, education, and equality and justice. And its campaigns are listed as follows:

- Union recognition: Have all members recognized by their employers - Working hours and overtime: End reliance on overtime and crunch culture, obtain either a 4-day work week or 6-hour workdays without salary reductions, end "presenteeism", and guaranteed mental health days - Compensation: Mandate annual pay increases, improve baseline pay, obtain studio profit sharing, end the gender pay gap, equal parental leave, residuals or royalties, and improved pension - Accountability and transparency: Holding C-suite executives accountable for mergers, acquisitions, and redundancies, salary transparency, open book accounting, and publicly available diversity and representation statistics - Job security: Better protections against firing and redundancy, better communication in the event of redundancy, better redundancy pay packages, AI regulations, one-month minimum notice periods, end abuse of fixed-term contracts, and forcing entry-level jobs to have entry-level job requirements. - Equity and inclusion: Accessible working options, improved support for disability, neurodiversity, LGBTQ+, and mental health, enforcement of policies for handling misconduct, guidelines for inclusive language, removing barriers for workers coming from lower income brackets, more inclusive hiring process, compulsory DEI best practice training - Training and education: Improved professional development support, and mandatory sexual misconduct and antitrust training for C-suite and management - Contractual terms: Removing unreasonable non-compete and non-disparagement clauses, guaranteed ownership of personal side projects, guaranteed credits

the complete manifesto has gotten even more going on tho, with our mission and core values. so if you're a game worker, or you wanna know what the people who make the games you love need, then check it out <3

im not gonna make like direct refs to what i do IRL that often but like ye, this is my union and where i put my political energy ✨

#unions #union strong #labor unions #labour unions #game workers #game development #iwgb #iwgb game workers #melinoë.etc

18 notes · View notes

viperwhispered · 10 months ago

Note

Ngl I'm a sucker for postive characters development. So here's technically a bonus hcs for this ask: Jamil picks up skills that make it impossible for him to overwork.

During his 3rd year, he became the housewarden and FINALLY learned to delegate tasks. Because he's a paranoid king he still prefers do things himself, but now he can identify capable people and put them to work in accordance to their skills. He'll die before admitting, but its something he picked up from Azul.

With Vil he learned how to keep up appearences without letting his boundaries get stomped all over. No, he won't let show how much he despises someone but at least now he can at least properly maintain his own demands without officially offending anyone.

With Riddle he learned the noble art of letting someone know exactly what you think of them with just a look and certain way of sipping tea.

During his travels post-grad and post-freedem, he stops by Briar Valley. Malleus, always happy for the chance to play host, invites him to stay at the castle. While in Malleus' court, he learns how to properly organize all responsibilities within a reasonable time frame of 9 to 6 with a 1 hour lunch break. Any overtime is reserved strictly for emergencies (based on this).

At the end of his travels, Jamil gets convinced to join Leona on his campaign to reform the slums. Because Leona is still one lazy son of a bitch he somehow manages to develop a work/organization system that is so effective that all Leona has to do is occasionally wake up for paperwork and meetings. Said system also includes enough personnel for every type of situation, benefits + good pay for everybody, a 24-hour work schedule with constant rotations to prevent exhaustion, etc. Jamil is in the background taking notes on every little detail of this system.

Skip ahead, Jamil is now working as Kalim's vizier after grueling negotiations of his work contract so that he isn't treated like corporate slave (Kalim is fine with it, its the rest of the nobles who need shutting up).

Jamil proceeds to reorganize the staff according to a modified version of Leona's system and productivity goes up. Helps that he modified their employment contracts so that the staff are treated like staff and not slaves. He also bans child labor and any poison testers are experienced in identification, treatment, and have practiced mithridism. Jamil's absolute refusal to do overtime unless absolutely necessary along with being the only one to bluntly keep Kalim from doing whatever he wants pisses off a lot of higher ups but they can't argue because he's by far the best vizier they could ask for.

Cut to Kalim, who the nobles believe will punish Jamil for daring to "act above his station". Instead Kalim adopts the 9 to 6 schedule himself and orders a mass reorganization of work policies. Why? Because Kalim loves his bestie, wants to help people, and also likes having time to spend with his family. Previous Asim heads would just pass on their extra work to advisors and viziers which caused them to be constantly stressed andoverworked. Kalim is determined to break this cycle.

Ironically, this causes an unintentional employment rights movement all over the country. Staff are demanding contract modifications, better employment benefits, legal reforms to protect their workers rights & their children, etc. Workers unions are popping up all over and the nobles are getting their asses kicked. There are so many protests that the government has no choice but to accept in order to prevent a full-on revolution. Again this was all unintentional, but that doesn't stop Kalim from jumping in as a major supporter with a fondly exhasperated Jamil following behind.

A quibble at first: now I'm far from a Leona expert, but I'm inclined to believe the folks who talk about his supposed laziness as being more of a defense mechanism or a depression symptom. Because why put in the effort it doesn't pay off, anyway?

On the other hand, I love it how I pretty much knew which post you were gonna link for Malleus before even clicking it.

This makes me wonder tho. Jamil is indeed the sort to pay attention to others and what they do. I do wonder if we’ve seen any in-game examples of him picking up “tips” or habits from others in a manner similar to this. 🤔 Can’t think of anything off the top of my head, at least, but it doesn't seem like it would be out of the question.

“He'll die before admitting, but it's something he picked up from Azul.” Yeah definitely. What, the shady man who ruined his plans in book 4 might actually have the right idea for once, to the extent that Jamil would adopt it? Yeah definitely not something he’s gonna broadcast, at the very least.

I mean Azul and Jamil can be such a well-oiled machine when they want to be, and Jamil’s practical enough to recognize that when their plans align (as we’ve seen in events I believe), but… yeah.

Considering this rant of mine, tho… Yes, I'm all in for the workers’ revolution.

(Tho now I'm also thinking of Jamil going all “chaos is a ladder” about it. Definitely not as a public face or anything, but attempting to capitalize on the situation nonetheless.)

#twisted wonderland #jamil viper #kalim al-asim #azul ashengrotto #vil schoenheit #malleus draconia #leona kingscholar #riddle rosehearts #ner talks #chatting with folks #lex752

44 notes · View notes

addictedtostorytelling · 3 months ago

Note

Hi! I’ve got a CSI question. Have you ever written about how, exactly, Sara & Grissom managed to keep their relationship secret for *two entire years*?

I mean, on one hand, neither seem to socialise with the team out-of-hours that much - so Grissom being weird and secretive is just Grissom, Sara spending a lot of time ‘alone’ is just Sara.

But I keep coming back to all the little things that the rest of the team of actual trained investigators should’ve noticed! Because IME you definitely notice when two people are sleeping together - little things like smelling like the same soap, or mentioning having watched the same movies, showing up to work at the same time, or both being suspiciously ‘busy’ at the same time. Two entire years, and not Catherine, Warrick, Nick, or Greg picked up on this?

(Also, they must’ve really had to go to an effort to cover it up, which brings up all sorts of questions about them feeling guilty about ‘lying’ to the team - though I’m personally of the view that, until Sara’s kidnapping, they hadn’t really spoken about what they ‘were going to do’ about their relationship re: lab policy and team dynamics, and were just kind of basking in the honeymoon phase, but your take on that might be different.)

But again - I’m more fascinated by the actual day-to-day nature of keeping it secret. I mean, it’s not like they can go away for a relaxing weekend - due to the nature of their jobs they’re nearly always on call, so it would’ve been very hard to not somehow get ‘caught out’. Just something I ponder, and was wondering what your perspective might be.

hi, anon!

so i have actually written a multichapter fic about the logistics of the gsr "secret dating" era (explored within the context of an s7 double-homicide investigation), which you can read here, if you're interested.

otherwise, in response to your question:

in theory, there should be a thousand-and-one different potential tells for team graveyard grissom and sara are a couple over the course of the two-plus odd years they are secretly together.

in theory, grissom and sara should in time start to smell the same, because they use the same laundry detergent and eat the same foods and sleep in the same bed.

in theory, they should always use the same sort of brought-from-home brands on the job, to the degree their doing so is potentially noticeable—the same water bottles and sunscreen in the field and the same silverware and tupperware containers for their lunches.

in theory, they should both have the same short, roan and white dog hairs covering their clothes.

in theory, grissom should sometimes have long, brown sara hairs covering his clothes, too.

in theory, sara should screw up at some point and call grissom gil or gilbert within earshot of a team member.

grissom does screw up and call sara "my dear" in front of super dave and a couple of uniform cops in episode 07x24 "living doll."

in theory, grissom should once or twice arrive for a callout with lipstick in sara's shade smeared on his shirt collar.

in theory, catherine should someday turn up at grissom's condo uninvited, looking to get his signature on some overtime approvals he neglected before the month runs out, only to recognize sara's car in grissom's lot—but not in the visitors' section.

in theory, sara should at least once, unbeknownst to grissom, during her off-hours, take a work-related call from nick or warrick or greg, only to have grissom walk into the room, already in the process of talking to her ("darlin', i was gonna run to the store. did you want me to pick up—?"), and the person on the other end of the line should recognize his voice.

in theory, one or the other of them should perhaps accidentally answer the other person's cell as they're both fumbling around in the dark, in the blear of sleep, hurrying to catch an emergency call.

in theory, they should use each other's mannerisms and turns of phrase too often to blame on coincidence.

in theory, they should at least once, by the law of probability, because vegas is not actually such a very big city, accidentally run into a teammate someplace during their off-hours—in circumstances where it's clear they are on a date or else doing household errands together.

in theory, someone should realize for as rarely as either one of them takes pto, whenever one of them does do so, it always happens to coincide with the other person's scheduled days off.

in theory, since the department provides their cell phones, someone in the accounting office should look over their records and notice they call and text each other five times as often as they do any of their other teammates—and at odd, non-working hours.

in theory, warrick should raise an eyebrow at grissom bringing sara lunch in episode 07x01 "built to kill" pt. i.

in theory, any one of their teammates should question why sara knows where in his office grissom keeps his secret keys in episode 07x13 "redrum."

in theory, since grissom seems to be in the habit of having his personal post sent to the lab, at some point, junk mail jointly addressed to him and sara should be delivered to his desk, and someone should see it.

in theory, one or the other of them should inadvertently leave some personal item in the other person's car, only for another teammate to discover it there on a ride-along ("hey sara, how come grissom's checkbook is on your dashboard?").

in theory, there is no way, even for as clever and motivated as they both are, grissom and sara should be able to keep up their ruse for as long as they do without anybody being the wiser—and especially not considering they eventually do live together.

in theory, someone should at some point clock them.

—but there's "theory" and then there's "practice."

and for however unrealistic it may be, "in practice," the show suggests grissom and sara do a fairly good job of keeping their secret for the two+ years they're together prior to when natalie davis abducts sara.

so our question then becomes, "how?"

—and i think the answer to that question is twofold: i.e., "very carefully" and "because they get lucky."

more discussion after the "keep reading," if you're interested.

so i, like you, tend to believe grissom and sara don't really have an "extraction plan" when it comes to their secret relationship—meaning i don't think they have ever set a hard deadline for when they might come clean to the team or how they might manage to do so without imploding their whole lifestyle.

to my mind, they never directly discuss those eventualities because a) as you posit, to do so would make them feel guilty about the depth and scope of their deception; and b) to do so would require them to discuss their probable future together, which is a subject they're both scared to broach, given they aren't 100% certain the other person is as "in it to win it" as they are themselves.

that said, i do nevertheless think they have "rules of engagement" regarding how they conduct their secret relationship itself.

in fact, i think they would have to, just given the very intricate nature of the thing they're attempting to do.

preventing a team of trained observers from noticing the fact two amongst their number are engaged in a long-term illicit intimate relationship is not the kind of deception one can just successfully maintain on the fly—and especially not when the two people in question eventually move in together and start blending their private lives.

there would have to be some game-planning involved. some strategy. some active maintenance of the moving parts of the whole delicate machine.

as i discuss in the post linked above, i think their rules more or less boil down to three main things.

firstly, i think they are both opposed to actively lying about being together. though they will lie by omission (i.e., by simply failing to disclose the fact of their relationship to anyone and by allowing others to draw incorrect inferences about their love lives that they then themselves fail to correct), they’re not going to look anyone in the eyes and say “i’m single right now” or “i’m dating [fill in the name of some imaginary person]” or “god, i could never date grissom” or “i can’t stand sara.” they’re just going to keep quiet about being together rather than loudly protesting they’re not or pretending to be in relationships with other people.

secondly, i believe they are of a mind not to drastically alter their behavior in each other’s presence for the purpose of “throwing others off of their trail.” while they’re not going to hold hands, kiss, or embrace each other in public, they’re also not going to avoid each other or completely refrain from touching, standing close to, and/or showing affection to each other, either. hence why, for instance, grissom will bring sara lunch, never mind that warrick is right there (see episode 07x01 “built to kill” pt. i)—because his mo is to always treat her like his romantic partner, even if he’s not explicitly acknowledging she is. if these overt displays of affection lead to someone realizing they’re together, then so be it; they’re not about to pretend they’re not in love with each other, though. thankfully, by the time they actually start officially dating, they’ve already been acting like a couple for long enough otherwise, their coworkers just expect them to be “like that,” meaning nobody really raises an eyebrow when grissom calls sara “dear” or sara knows where grissom keeps things hidden in his office. by that point, it’s just kind of par for the course with them as far as the rest of the team is concerned, you know? it’s just how they’ve always been.

finally, i think they have a kind of understanding between them if anyone ever figures out their secret, they’re going to come clean, not just to whomever it is who finds them out but to everyone; at that point, the jig is up, and they’re not going to pretend anymore.

of course, they also undoubtedly have an even more practical set of rules related to how they conduct themselves (and safeguard their relationship) on a daily basis.