Try making a Civilization pun!
I Assur you it's going to be great!
Required disclaimer that I will not rely on anyone's opinion here and seek professional help in due time.
My Muslim partner and I intend to get married. As a male, I will have to convert on paper to marry her so that we can get married in accordance with her religion.
Now I'm happy to do that but want to understand the legal consequences: does it interfere with common law in any way? (divorce, inheritance of our future kids, etc.). I'm keen to make sure our affairs remain civil (pun unintended) and don't want my conversion nor our marriage to make a judge think that it's fair for us to follow sharia law?
I come from a European country where it's crystal clear that the civil law prevails, but less familiar with the Australian system where it seems like you can get a civil and religious wedding, or civil only or religious only (maybe it's just from a 'ceremony perspective' and not legal one)
edit: I should note that I'm aware the 'community' might push me to follow sharia law etc. just interested in the legal bit, whether it's me, my partner or one of our children wanting to enforce civil law)
As congress and Pence debate if they should object and refuse to tally certain electorate votes, there is a consideration that we are approaching a scenario that could reflect that of the Civil War and Lincoln presidency.
If this should happen, the focal point for succession was historically claimed as “states rights”. Yet in this scenario we face today, it seems to be more urban vs rural. It is not as if some blanket law is to be passed that imposes restriction on any specific state rights (that Im aware of).
So then, what, if any, basis would there be for a succession? Would it fall into that of a succession against an alleged national conspiracy? Does that hold enough weight? Or is there another separation of powers discussion to be had as we see just how unorthodox executive leadership can be used to circumvent processes, such as reallocating funds which is normally assigned to congress.
I’m curious to get a pulse on this discussion and see both sides of the coin to understand what outcomes may happen.
Edit: Thanks for lively discussion. I love when people are open to talking about contentious things in a civil manner (ha. Civil pun). But it seems a large majority of you are answering the question “will there be a civil war” and that’s not really my question. My question is, “what, if any, would be a basis of succession states would claim considering the circumstances”.
A post (Archive) in /r/IdiotsInCars shows someone repeatedly entering an intersection and backing up, triggering a red light camera multiple times. Reactions are varied: confusion, derision, intrigue even. But one redditor objects to how red light cameras work (Archive):
> Yeah that’s my guess as well. It looks like the camera is set to go off the second the car goes a little over the stop bar (which is absolutely ridiculous) and this guy likely got a ticket in the past for it. Those cameras should only go off if the car enters the intersection during a red light… ACAB
Now you would think the "ACAB" would be the cause of the ensuing drama. No, my friends, today's popcorn snack is nothing so mundane. An actual conversation ensues about the redditor's opinion:
> I'm curious why you think that's ridiculous? The law is that you have to stop before the bar, and it exists for a very good reason. If you pass the stop bar on red, you have run the red light, so a red light camera that cites you for that seems like the right thing.
Things hold together briefly in the next few responses, but quickly go off the rails and degrade into one of the most delicious flavors of subreddit drama: pages-long incivil screeds on topics that neither redditor has any particular expertise or stake in. I won't steal my own thunder by summarizing the entire exchange - it's brief enough you can read it comfortably yourselves, I'm sure - but here are a few highlights:
> See your fist problem is ignoring two facts here
> unlike you I live in the real world and understand extremes, which you clearly do not.
> You are literally just making shit up now and proving you don’t live in reality.
> Oh look, more anecdotes! Like you’re here speaking with authority on the matter with your personal small world experience as the base for your arguments. Un-fucking-real.
> Do some fucking reading and educate yourself for once in your life
> See unlike you I actually use research and statistics that are available on the subject as the basis for my argument. You on th other hand use your little bubble of existence as all the proof requires, which to be clear is the hallmark trait of a fucking moron
... keep reading on reddit ➡Okay so I think I may be addicted to this game... When I first started playing about 7 months ago, my husband had only logged 64 hrs... Now we are at like 1600 and he hasn't played a game by his self since (I have though😆).
We play on huge maps on emperor with the superciv mod but for the life of me I can't beat him. I need your strategies!
Haaalp!
Also I request your favourite Civil pun/joke. Mine is in the title ,😍😁.
Some time ago, I put up a post asking our users if they had any suggestions for tempering the harsh and caustic tone which is unfortunately common around here.
My overall thoughts on the matter are the same as before: it's not a problem that can be solved, not without cracking down to a degree that would unduly stifle debate- and frankly, involve ten times as much work to accomplish. It's human nature for people to fight like cats in a bag about tribal subjects on the Internet, and martial arts has always been a somewhat tribal thing.
Just because it can't be solved, however, doesn't mean the situation can't be improved. I've combed the thread and a few other places, and amongst all the slap fights and dick-measuring contests, there was the seed of some genuinely good ideas. My thanks to all those who... 'participated' would probably be too generous, given the slap fights and dick-measuring contests. My thanks to all who contributed.
I'm looking for comment on the following proposed rule changes:
A new thread tag, possibly designated [Aesthetic] or [Fun]. In these threads, feedback about whether the material therein is useful for fighting, self-defense or MMA would be forbidden. Far and away the most frequent and reasonable criticism of this board's culture, something I've observed time and again, is the tendency to make that criticism even in the absence of anything in the original post suggesting it's useful for fighting.
Note that this is not a [No Criticism Allowed] tag. If someone posts a video of a contemporary wushu routine, critique the form on the butterfly twist, critique the outfits, critique the music or the editing or the video quality or the Chinese Communist Party. Just don't bust out the tired old chestnut that you can't win a UFC title with a 540 crescent kick.
Also note that the tag isn't allowed to be used as a shield to make claims of martial applicability without fear of contradiction. If something in the post itself makes a claim of direct martial relevance, it will be ineligible for the tag, removed, and the OP warned against misusing it.
A thread tag, possibly [+], that is an explicit and enforced positivity-only, no-criticism-allowed tag. Maybe overkill, but it helps address the issue of some poor kid starting a thread to celebrate their promotion
... keep reading on reddit ➡
I recently posted a question and mistakenly interchanged “DWAC” with “Trump Media”. I was immediately called a “shill” and another user basically told me if I was too stupid to know the answer I shouldn’t own the stock.
There’s a ton of people like me that have bought lots of DWAC, not because we are trading pros that can speak all the lingo, but because we hate big tech censorship and believe in Truth Social.
So yes, some people may post questions that are obvious to others, but can we agree to either ignore them if you have nothing good to say or respond respectfully? Why name call or tell people they are stupid that are on the same team?
As this group grows, and it will, can we all agree to be respectful to each other ? And People that aren’t civil should be called out. We don’t need them ruining what has been a great discussion group.
In the posts I've viewed, as well as the posts I've made and exchanges I've had, I've been really impressed by the kindness and civility, which seems greater than that of some of other Buddhist subs on Reddit. I like to learn about other Buddhist traditions, and have a deep respect for the Theravada tradition, so I appreciate everyone who has been helping me understand it more.
There have been many reports like this Time regarding people forgetting how to act civilly post lockdown. As a retail pharmacist of a decade and a half I can say poor customer behavior is at an all-time high. Pharmacy technicians nation wide are leaving the profession in droves as even raising pay isn’t worth dealing with these hooligans. Is there any thing either government or large social organizations can do to try to push for a return to civility? How do we get society to take steps toward respecting each other again and treating customer facing employees with respect again?
Edit: A lot of people seem to be focused on political civility. Everyone knows that is bad and has been for some time. I’m more specifically talking about normal day to day in person interactions and the very recent breakdown in civility of those interactions.
So, the Ape Challenge is to figure out how Apes dispose of All these criminals without becoming them?
How do apes rid our government and our financial institutions of these corrupt POS without physical violence?
I can't actually believe it.Seeing that other shows like the 100,or Person of Interest have such an audience,this one seems almost like a mystery in real life.Even True Detective,which is quite a gem compared to mainstream shows,has a large audience.I mean,there has been substantial promo for Fortitude and still it looks like it's in a faraway place,away from most civilization (pun intended)
A post on anti work involving a (probably fake) story of a person cussing out his manager got me thinking. Many of the comments were criticizing them for being unprofessional. Obviously you shouldn’t be verbally abusive to your co-workers but it did get me thinking. Specifically about how companies place such a massive emphasis on being positive/professional/respectable while ignoring the reality of people having emotions. Not to mention the fact that people frequently use someone being emotional as an excuse to ignore what they’re saying
First of all, Gamecock fan here. I just wanted to say thank you to this community for some of the support and civility I have probably seen from over 50 Clemson fans on Reddit the past few days. It has mostly been on r/CFB talking about the Barham recruiting non-story. I have actually read about 50 comments talking about this in a positive light and giving credit to Beamer and his character. One thing I have been jealous of for years about Clemson is that Dabo* actually seems like a man with strong character who cares about his players and winning at the same time. That being said I am always willing to hate each other on Saturdays but am perfectly willing to give credit where it’s due to the Clemson program as a whole.
-edit for autocorrect fix
If you want to censor people to promote civility, you're still censoring.
This is an extremely censored space.
I'm 39 years old. I have been a licensed veterinary technician for 20 years. I am typically described as calm, down to earth, polite, professional and honest. I have noticed recently, in the last 5 to 7 years, that the new people we hire, the inexperienced ones, they do not want to take any constructive criticism, listen to any suggestions or even be open to the very relevant information that is crucial for them to know. These individuals have all been 15 to 20 years younger than I am and it's not limited to technicians. It is doctors, receptionists and kennel staff, as well. I did not act the way they are acting when I was younger. I accepted and analyzed the feedback I was given because I truly care about the animals. I do not want to do any harm to them or their owners. I am usually described as a good communicator and I am struggling to comprehend what these younger people are trying to convey. I truly think it is because they do not know how to articulate it. I am not the only one in the office that feels this way. I have observed clients and other coworkers struggling to understand them as well. It has been a topic of discussion at meetings and we are trying to come up with a way to facilitate clear communication. We are willing to support staff where they need it.
Any ideas on how to bridge communication gaps in the workplace?
https://www.facebook.com/recalljamieallard/
The moderators claim that this "subreddit is for members of the university community," but they also declare that new accounts or accounts discussing only crime will be banned, in other words, excluded from the community.
If the moderators were truly concerned with preserving a space solely for university community members, as they say, then they should apply the underlying principle consistently and ban "without further notice" any account commenting exclusively on topics that could conceivably be relevant to the local non-university community because such topically limited accounts may belong to individuals who do not really belong to the community. And in fact, they don't, as these posts by someone who admits to not even attending this school remain up.
Instead, the moderators are making an exception for crime-related posts, and by doing so, they are assuming the worst of individuals who, like most other human beings, are deeply moved by matters of safety and security and of life and death, as if anyone interested in discussing crime will necessarily hurl racial slurs or harass other members. Crime, like any other topic, can be discussed civilly or uncivilly, but the moderation of civil discourse should be handled by dealing with individual account behavior, not by privileging the topic of crime in a bad faith effort to control the sphere of discourse by restricting who can and cannot participate like some capricious nightclub bouncer.
And, as u/iercurenc rightly pointed out in a separate post before it was strangely removed by moderation (a screenshot of the post can be found here), some new users discussing crime may be community members who don't care to comment about the best pizza place in Hyde Park or about their favorite breakfast order at Plein Air but who do care a lot about whether they're going to get shot walking a block off of campus at high noon and who only now are making their voice heard. To purge new accounts or accounts who happen to discuss only crime, which is supremely relevant to those community members who remain among the l
... keep reading on reddit ➡More than once, I’ve seen people get banned or in trouble on Reddit for breaking rules on “civility” But, in actuality, there were multiple users piling on them, calling them disrespectful things, and picking them apart. And then finally, the user snapped and called someone a piece of shit or something and then they get banned. Oftentimes, things like this would even lead to being banned from the site permanently.
Like I said, I’ve seen this happen more than once. And more often than not, the people who instigated it in the first place are not even touched.
And I’m sure people will notice a theme with this post and the last thing I posted. And I think it comes down to this: Reddit needs to take a serious look at its rules and structure. It feels like aside from extreme censorship, the administrators of Reddit have not made any modifications to the very flawed rules of this site.
Then again, maybe that on purpose. Maybe, the creators of reddit are well aware that 1/4th of the population is on this site, and that Reddit has the ability to influence society. And maybe they are taking advantage of that.
Anybody else notice customers are getting more out of hand much more often? Seems they are getting very aggressive, very fast anymore.
For example, are you carefully recording how many antifeminists you use your civility superpower on and how many feminists you do the same to?
Do you audit to ensure that incivility by feminists is always punished as harshly as by antifeminists, or do you not check the numbers and just assume it's all fair.
Do you check to ensure that the mild innocuous statements that you banned me for most recently are also enforced for the posters who remain in ideological lockstep with you?
I like many of you have seen a rise in in civility and internet-like trolling attitudes in my classes since COVID. Does anyone have advice or lessons on teaching civility to students? I teach bio engineering in a rural setting and I feel that I have to integrate civil behaviour into my classes now.
Anyone else feeling uneasy about Galway of late? The number of incidents I'm hearing about is so disheartening. Frankly I don't see an improvement coming in the short term, makes me dread the festive period and what lay ahead
I'm in a group (maybe a proto-committee) of faculty members intending to deal with two or three issues:
- Faculty members who stop doing work but suffer no consequences. You know, the tenured faculty member who hasn't published peer-reviewed work, hasn't developed a new course, and hasn't done any service except one committee, in the last ten years--but still receives "good" or "excellent" evals and maybe gets promoted.
- Faculty members who communicate rudely, aggressively, or insultingly with colleagues.
- Faculty members who lie in evaluation-related letters (e.g. letters to a tenure-and-promotion committee) or at least make false statements with reckless disregard for truth.
I'd be grateful to know, at least in broad strokes, what your institution's policies are on those issues. So, e.g.:
- Do you have post-tenure review? What are the requirements and what are they based on? What are the consequences for not doing your job? Is there anyone who double checks the evaluations--like does your chair evaluate your department members, and then (e.g.) an associate provost examine both the evals and the department member's faculty activities report? Or is there no oversight?
- Do you have an explicit policy about politeness, civility, collegiality, professionalism, and so on? What does it say? Our own hope would be to have a policy that's explicit and specific enough that faculty members can't be punished for just not seeming nice, but can be punished for certain obvious infractions.
- Are there any consequences for making false statements about tenure cases? If you're going up for tenure and I lie and say that you committed academic misconduct, or committed a crime, or something, does anything happen to me?
As I said, I'd be really grateful to know anything about how your institution handles these (and indeed, whether it handles them at all). Thank you!
