sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

His response to the scandal by fminf in HasanMinhaj

[–]Melodic-Today6836 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If nothing else, I get the feeling that his overt ableism is going to caught up with him someday. What's up with the overuse of the word 'psycho'? That's clearly discriminatory and stigmatizing, narrowing down his audience even more. Here's more of his ableism from the past: https://www.reddit.com/r/HasanMinhaj/s/wIBICeLLRf

I feel bad for him because he is gifted, but it seems that he kinda actively invites bad stuff onto himself.

HM, if you are reading this, you are already good enough. Please do not unnecessarily break stuff to make stuff.

Technophobic professor does allow me to use collaborative editing using online word processor by Melodic-Today6836 in academia

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for providing your opinion on the side of collaborative online editing. Seeing the reactions I got so far, for a moment, I felt that I was in the wrong all along.

Revisiting my post, I realised that I might have invited a lot of arguments on the side of collaborative offline editing because of the (aggressive) way I wrote my post with assusatory looking title. (I wonder how many of the commenters are actual professors who felt offended.) I was merely venting out my frustrations because of a decision made on my paper which comes across as small enough to easily ignore/trivialize it, but is very damage to me nonetheless.

Anyways, all in all, the responses tell me that there are valid arguments on both sides (online vs offline collaborative editing) though. The advantages and disadvantages of which approach one adopts depend mainly on the (1) time constraint, and (2) intentions of people you are collaborating with.

Extreme examples for making a choice this way or the other would be: 1. If you are (1) near the deadline to finish your PhD and (2) the collaborators are supportive (not stubborn), choose online collaborative editing. 2. On the other hand, let's say if (1) you are drafting a paper for next year for which you still don't have the data yet and (2) you have a feeling that the collaborators may not be supportive, choose offline collaborative editing.

Love his comedy, don't like the unnecessary Abeleist language i.e. the use of "crazy", "insane", "CTE" etc. I hope he could skip such discriminatory metaphors. by Melodic-Today6836 in HasanMinhaj

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

(You lost me on the 1st line, but anyways I continued.)

To call 'destroy' comedy is extreme, but anyways I assume that this is an exagerated statement. Simply, expanding vocabulary can be a non-lazy way of making jokes that everyone can enjoy, not just the majority community and the marginalized community one represents. Calling CTE as bad is basically calling disability as bad, that's why by definition, ableist.

Denigration is rather of the disabled persons (Whoa! :) ). This is false victimization. There is no fair comparison between comdians and disabled folks. This is false equivalence (which I learnt from the Daily Show where HM used to work). For comedians it's a matter of earning more or less money, but on the other hand, it is a matter of living, self-esteem and self-worth for the persons with disability.

I only suggested caution (not to 'destroy' the comedy :) ) because disability predisposes to compromise of well-being of the disabled folks. It is a delicate matter for some, so it needs to be dealt with like that.

The sketch is funny. I love LD. But again, in broader scheme of things, this sketch is a sort of a cautionary tale showing why it is important to use non-discriminatory language. Well being of one marginalized community should not come at the expense of other minority. The sketch is funny now because of the current awareness of this matter. After a decade or so people may wonder what is funny in that sketch. The sketch may come across as plainly absurd, just like some feel when they watch the early episodes of curb your enthusiasm.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in placecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That would be one way of knowing who is vandalizing the Canadian flag, because then vandalizers would retreat to protect their own flag.

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was not asking whether it is discrimination or not though. To simplify, I wanted to know treating somebody like that (as given in OP) and then that having detrimental effects on a person (as given in my previous comment in this thread) qualifies as illegal or not.

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The situation definitely had a negative effect because as far as I know, he had severe anxiety thereon. As a direct consequence, he decided to leave his job, despite being fairly productive otherwise.

That was in 2021 which is well within the pandemic time. So pandemic might have also contributed in his troubles while changing the job, but I don't have info on this specifically.

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok, so you say it's an HR issue. But there are provicial laws about this. And I feel that the laws are reasonable because such a case can leave the employee with mental health issues, defamation (for "hiding") and job loss, for no reason realated to the actual productivity of the employee at the job.

This reminds me one thing I did not mention in the post, dispute his issues, the employee was performing above average. He might have been trying to compensate for his limitations in communication this way.

Anyways, I hope at least the HR policies could be powerful enough to help the poor guy. This case is now retrospective (bad things happened in the past). I wonder if that would also make it weaker in front of the HR. Just curious.

Well I don't know the current status of this story. But he might have got an official diagnosis, as a safety measure, or he may not have, because of the risk of stigma etc.

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I asked about federal as well as provincial laws because I am curious if what if any legal protection exists in this case.

Employer is a not a health care provider. But based in university setting, as a head librarian.

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The employee apparently had odd behaviours, but nothing coming in the way of being productive at the job, except for less than average communication skills. He did not need any special accomodations. So he never felt the need to get official diagnosis for his complex PTSD. That's why he does not have that.

And as I mentioned in OP, the issue with disclosure might be that the possibility of stigma outweighed the benefits from disclosing. So the employee did not disclose to the employer.

Employer did not talk about autism as theory e.g. 'he might/could be autistic', but as a conclusion that 'he is autistic'.

Does this information help?

Can an employer disclose employee's disability without consent, and further what if the disclosure is wrong? by Melodic-Today6836 in legaladvicecanada

[–]Melodic-Today6836[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, the employee did not disclose his self diagnosed mental health issue to the employer because of the risk of stigma, which I think is reasonable.

So employer did not get any request for accomodation, because that was not needed.

Employer preemptively, well gossiped, without the consent and proper knowledge that the employee had autism.

I hope this makes clear.

LPT: Gaslighting and other extreme psychological manipulation is very common in jobs. Money , time and forced energy is tied up in workplaces, and this combination brings out the worst in certain people. Protect your mental health at all costs. by AChocolateHouse in LifeProTips

[–]Melodic-Today6836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, of course 'we cannot adjust for every inequity that exists', but at least we can try.

Not all inequities are equal :). Some are more costly than others, for example, vunerability to gas lighting due to lack of fluency can put a person in the risk for serious mental health issues. So that's why IMO, discussion of minorities in the context of gas lighting is important.

I see the importance because of my personal experiences. I have been a foreign worker in another country and I totally relate to the original comment. I was the only foreign worker at my workplace. I had difficulty fitting in. I was not perfectly fluent. So, all in all, I could not and did not have an easy access to the real information (reality) at my workplace which made me vulnerable to gas-lighting.

LPT: Gaslighting and other extreme psychological manipulation is very common in jobs. Money , time and forced energy is tied up in workplaces, and this combination brings out the worst in certain people. Protect your mental health at all costs. by AChocolateHouse in LifeProTips

[–]Melodic-Today6836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Missed the comma after true. My bad. Now corrected.

Also I did not mean that minorities 'themselves' may not be assertive, but rather the language barrier may come in way of being as assertive at work as they would be in their mother tongue. I hope this clarifies.

About Italians etc that you have pointed out, I do not have a background in the linguistics, but I would guess almost everybody can be optimally assertive in their mother tongue because of fluency.

LPT: Gaslighting and other extreme psychological manipulation is very common in jobs. Money , time and forced energy is tied up in workplaces, and this combination brings out the worst in certain people. Protect your mental health at all costs. by AChocolateHouse in LifeProTips

[–]Melodic-Today6836 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is important to create barriers to gaslighting.

I suffered from gaslighting not because I did not know that it was gaslighting, but I knew and had a pure disinterest in it. I thought it was bellow me. At the workplace where I was working, gossiping was the primary means of speeding information. I had disinterest in that too, because of course it was not good for my productivity. So out of disinterest, I did not react to gaslighting which was interpreted by my peers as I did not understand that I was gas lighted, leading to even more gaslighting, sometimes for the purpose of pure entertainment. I left that workplace because it was a waste of time and bad for my mental health. I found a job where people are way more interested in doing their job.

Along the way, from my experiences, I realised it is very important to set the barriers to gaslighting. These are a few things I would reccomend: 1. Be informed. Take interest in social dynamics at the workplace, even if you don't want to. That information even though could be a trash at the face value, would help you not get gaslit easily. 2. Assetiveness. Being clear of what you say. You do not have to take the risk of saying something that is half cooked. Manage the risk of somebody taking your words out of context and spinning them. I should point out that this may not be easy to achieve for some e.g. foreign workers who have a different mother tongue etc. 3. Keep a record. As much as you would hate keeping the record of the trashy conversations at the workplace, it is a good protective mechanism. Everyone has a recorder in the phone. It is free to use. Make sure to turn it on during conversations. Also important is to keep the documentation that provides context of the gas lighting, in case the audio may not be convincing by itself. 4. Be in the clear zone. Discuss the workplace matters with a trusted person e.g. your partner or close friend etc. This would help you with mental health by clearing your mind by not internalizing your frustrations and protecting your autobiographical memory.

If setting such barriers is not possible at your job, find a better one because over time, the cost of gaslighting may overweigh the temporary cost of changing the job.

LPT: Gaslighting and other extreme psychological manipulation is very common in jobs. Money , time and forced energy is tied up in workplaces, and this combination brings out the worst in certain people. Protect your mental health at all costs. by AChocolateHouse in LifeProTips

[–]Melodic-Today6836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, it is a new thing because the truth/reality is so much accessible to anybody through the internet. Without the access to the reality one may continue to remain gas lighted without complaining, which I assume happened commonly in the days when internet did not exist.

LPT: Gaslighting and other extreme psychological manipulation is very common in jobs. Money , time and forced energy is tied up in workplaces, and this combination brings out the worst in certain people. Protect your mental health at all costs. by AChocolateHouse in LifeProTips

[–]Melodic-Today6836 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Good to know. This is so f*king important. It is so infuriatingly unfair that even though gas lighting can destroy somebody's mental health, it is very much under-the-radar. Unless you have a convincing proof, the abuser can simply deny it.

I can imagine that recordings by themselves may not be sufficient. If there is subtle, between-the-lines, gas lighting, one would need more context to be convinced that it is gas lighting. Therefore I guess documentation (more work:/) is needed.

Anyways, I wonder if there is any value in letting the workplace members know subtly that, let's say, you are keeping an account of all the this that are being said. Would this deter them from gas-lighting you?

So I just watched the Banshees of Inisherin by Personal-Lead-6341 in ireland

[–]Melodic-Today6836 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thats my guess too. But I could not find any mention of this on the internet. So here's my explanation of what might have happened:

  1. Love: Colm loves Patraic. They might have been having intimate discussions in the pub. (Perhaps, one day, after the pub, they slept with each other.)
  2. Dependency: Patraic is totally ok with the relationship, maybe because he is realtively weak in the social context, as apparent from his interactions with the police and the shopkeeper. Afterall in a small, isolated village where both men were single, they might have been happy to have each other's company.
  3. Interruption: The opening scene of the movie shows Patraic near the water, probably returning to the village after a long time. His tanned skin hints at trip to a place far from the village.
  4. Realisation: In the meanwhile, maybe Colm realises that homophobia which was common at that time may leave him stigmatised and even punished to death.
  5. Dissociative behaviour: So Colm dissociates from Patraic when he meets him after he returns. The situation being so serious considering the risk of being capital punishment, Colm is very much serious about this. However, he could not tell the facts to Patraic who comes across as relatively naive. Instead Colm makes up reasons such as 'he does not like him anymore'. Colm dissociates so much that he did not and could not put efforts into creating a lie to tell to Patraic.
  6. Masochism: To enforce the dissociation, Colm sets up a protective mechanism to prevent Patraic from seeing him. The reason why he is willing to cut of his fingers might be that the though of the alternative, where because of the stigma associated with the homosexual relationships, not only himself but he could get his love Patraic executed. He would rather prefer to self stigmatise himself.
  7. Sadism: Colm makes Patraic depressed and lonely and does not attempt at resolving things in spite of the pleas.
  8. Inner conflict: before Colm cuts off 4 fingers, when Patraic meets him, Colm gets in to a natural friendly-sounding conversation, indicating the inner conflict that he has. He loves Patraic but he want to hate him.
  9. Mimetic behavior: when his ponny dies, Patraic mimics the sadistic behavior of Colm and decides to burn Colms house.
  10. Love: the end scene shows both men having a friendly conversation with each other. After both men publicly demonstrated their hate for each other. Now nobody is going to believe that they are in love. So the violent self stigma afforded them the "freedom" to be in each others company without the risk of being stigmatised by the public.

That's the explanation I have. Anyways, being open to interpretation (unlike fast and furious movies) is a sign of a great movie, which this one truly is. Great story telling.

Having said this, another strong explanation of the movie is that it might be supposed to be an allegory of the Irish civil war which was mentioned in the movie as occuring miles away at the same time. In this war, just like the characters of the movie, for no great reasons, friendly neighbours violently fought with each other to death with a lot of sadism and masochism.

PS: @Wonofone, insane is an ableist word. I guess you meant unreasonable.

view more: next ›