Dilemma… or is it?

[RJVB]

I retired three years ago after 44 years in Catholic high schools, the last 32 as a principal.

Way back when (early 60s?) my mom encouraged my dad to give up his job and go back to uni to become what he really wanted to be, getting him to accept that she'd be the earner. The moved to Utrecht where she found a job at a catholic elementary school (and where I'd be born, eventually). I'm pretty certain the only background check made was the ring on her finger and maybe a phone call to the nun's school where she had been trained. There was however 1 important question: what she thought would happen when she got pregnant. Her answer was that that wouldn't happen, and no, it was none of their business how she'd ensure that

And while we're discussing this there are (probably) still cultures where kids become worth protecting only when they reach the age where they can help earn money. In the sense that before that, they're replaceable.

[Marinero]

"But in my experience, children are used as a justification for all kinds of liberty diminutions. I have heard "but we must protect the children" used as a mantra to justify censorship many times. When it comes to diminishing the freedom of adults just in case the children are exposed to something, count me out. Using children as an excuse for censorship is weak." Stringswinger

Hi, SS,
As the Herd becomes more accustomed to the loss of civil liberties through, largely, ignorance and ambivalence, they walk slowly like somnambulates to their destiny of Big Government control over every aspect of their lives. Most people in the world live by the dictate of the "Path of Least Resistance." It's easy, convenient and they don't have to think. Remember, as Civilization declines . . . the Shaman becomes king.
Marinero

[Stringswinger]

"But in my experience, children are used as a justification for all kinds of liberty diminutions. I have heard "but we must protect the children" used as a mantra to justify censorship many times. When it comes to diminishing the freedom of adults just in case the children are exposed to something, count me out. Using children as an excuse for censorship is weak." Stringswinger

Hi, SS,
As the Herd becomes more accustomed to the loss of civil liberties through, largely, ignorance and ambivalence, they walk slowly like somnambulates to their destiny of Big Government control over every aspect of their lives. Most people in the world live by the dictate of the "Path of Least Resistance." It's easy, convenient and they don't have to think. Remember, as Civilization declines . . . the Shaman becomes king.
Marinero

The fact that our SCOTUS is about to overturn Roe V. Wade informs me that to some extent, here in the USA, the Shaman has become King.

[Stevebol]

That's slightly different. It's not about security, which is probably necessary, but about money. Incidentally, the security stuff has nothing to do with presumption of guilt, that's silly. They have to know who they're letting in the door.

Years ago I had a full time job then they cut the hours, which left me free in the afternoons. So I signed up with an agency and they sent me to lots of places. I had to pay for my own transport and, initially, for my own security clearance checks. But overall, of course, I gained. I could live just fine. Not rich but perfectly happy. It's the way it's done.

It's an individual decision. For me, having to pay for prints or security checks yourself would be a no-go.
I can't read music for shit anyway.

[Marinero]

The fact that our SCOTUS is about to overturn Roe V. Wade informs me that to some extent, here in the USA, the Shaman has become King.

Hi, SS,
And then . . . we morph to a discussion of the 10th Amendment and States Rights as we have seen with the legalization of Marijuana and gun control throughout certain states in the US. However, I don't think the OP thought we'd drift this far . . . better to be discussed with a nice cigar and a single malt Scotch somewhere near the ocean.
Marinero

[Stevebol]

Hi, SS,
And then . . . we morph to a discussion of the 10th Amendment and States Rights as we have seen with the legalization of Marijuana and gun control throughout certain states in the US. However, I don't think the OP thought we'd drift this far . . . better to be discussed with a nice cigar and a single malt Scotch somewhere near the ocean.
Marinero

The sky didn't fall in CA, NV and AZ when they legalized weed. Don't drive when you're high and don't try to get a job in construction.

I have weed at home. I don't think I've touched it in a year and a half. I might smoke a bit after I move to AZ in a couple weeks.
It tends to make me paranoid. I might try skunk.
The ocean. Yep. San Diego is only 2 and 1/2 hours from Yuma.

The pacific salt air is driving Americans insane. Careful with it. It's intoxicating.

[ragman1]

It's an individual decision. For me, having to pay for prints or security checks yourself would be a no-go.
I can't read music for shit anyway.

I don't know about the music world. It would only apply to places where you'd have direct contact with certain people, including children. And if it's a choice between doing a check or forget the work then it makes every sense to just do it. Why not? It's not prohibitively expensive anyway.

Frankly, I find all this talk of eroding freedom silly. Sounds very good but it's nonsense really. Places like schools must always check on who comes in there. Freedom has nothing to do with irresponsibility. If it was your child and the school let outsiders come in without ID and something happened you'd be suing the ass off them!

Besides, I'd like to know what freedoms people mean. What do they want to do that they can't already? Or, in a lot of cases, that they're not already doing!

(I'm talking about the West, of course, not repressive, totalitarian states).

[RJVB]

If it was your child and the school let outsiders come in without ID and something happened you'd be suing the ass off them!

Nope. Possibly file a complaint through the proper channels, but if legal action is required that'd be handled through the academy. Then again I don't have kids (whew).

Besides, I'd like to know what freedoms people mean. What do they want to do that they can't already? Or, in a lot of cases, that they're not already doing!

Do you remember the time before 911, Patriot Act, Plan Viripirate and however different countries call their anti-terrorism provisions? We've lost a lot of freedom since then. Mostly in the form of loss of privacy but that's a form of freedom too.

[ragman1]

You haven't answered my question. What do you want to do that you can't do now? Never mind other people we don't know about, tell me about yourself.

[Peter C]

Problem is, our definition of deviance (or non-desirable behaviours in general) seems to be getting ever more strict too - and I don't think that is just me?

What isn't just you? Elaboration is needed here, I feel, given the context of this thread.

[jameslovestal]

We've lost a lot of freedom since then. Mostly in the form of loss of privacy but that's a form of freedom too.

I'm curious what 'freedoms' you feel you have lost? (other than those associated with the pandemic which I believe is a unique and special circumstance).

Note that I had a friend that was complaining, generally, about the same thing.

He has been a pot smoker for over 45 years. I got out some bud and told him that here in CA I have gained freedoms in the last few years.

In addition the main freedom (IMO) that Americans are losing is the right to control one's own body; i.e. get an abortion.

Is that something your concerned about? (because in most cases I have found that those complaining about loss freedom, are for laws outlawing abortion).

[Jonathan0996]

Afterward, Part Deux

So it turns out the powers that be decided to waive the fingerprinting requirement just for lil’ old me!

They must be really hard up for a guitar player. Maybe I should hold out for top billing on the marquee?

[ragman1]

You alone or all the musicians?

[Jonathan0996]

You alone or all the musicians?

Good question. The email wasn’t entirely clear, but I gather it will be for all the musicians. They’re definitely making an exception, but the justification seems to be that we won’t be working directly with the students.

[AlsoRan]

Quite a thread, Jonathan! My takeaways: 1) Government never misses a chance to make money off us, even for a good reason, 2) That ol' not giving them an inch adage has stopped many initiatives that could have been helpful, and 3) My coworkers wife works on child protective services - many of you have no idea how many people only get turned on by children and use school activities to position themselves. 4) I am surprised they let you in without some sort of background check if there was any chance of you coming in contact with students.

[Jonathan0996]

1195956[/URL]]Quite a thread, Jonathan! My takeaways: 1) Government never misses a chance to make money off us, even for a good reason, 2) That ol' not giving them an inch adage has stopped many initiatives that could have been helpful, and 3) My coworkers wife works on child protective services - many of you have no idea how many people only get turned on by children and use school activities to position themselves. 4) I am surprised they let you in without some sort of background check if there was any chance of you coming in contact with students.

You may be right. I have no idea how many people out there would do harm to children if given the chance, and I’m glad to remain ignorant about that.

As for government making money, I suspect it’s just a matter of a severely underfunded school system trying to budget for security. For a contractor that stands to make a couple hundred grand renovating restrooms, maybe having them pay for their own background check makes sense. At the level of musicians for a high school musical, maybe not. One size doesn’t always fit all, but bureaucracies may not be cognizant of those distinctions. One more reason I’m happy to not be on a school board.

[ragman1]

Good question. The email wasn’t entirely clear, but I gather it will be for all the musicians. They’re definitely making an exception, but the justification seems to be that we won’t be working directly with the students.

Ah, that wasn't clear. Different kettle of fish, then.

[RJVB]

What isn't just you?

Having the impression that our definition of deviance (or non-desirable behaviours in general) seems to be getting ever more strict too.

I'm not in the mood to dress up a list of "all the freedoms I think I've lost" (and even less for getting into the mood that the undoubtedly required explaining will get me into), but I've already pointed out that it's mostly in terms of privacy. Or living without constant fear of the sky maybe falling down - I'm pretty certain that the more drastic covid-related lock-up measures wouldn't have been gobbled up so readily by the population without the preceding years of government fearmongering about terrorism. It's long been a hobby horse those bearded masterminds have been very clever in getting our own governments to do the work for them; spread some rumours about attacks being prepared and western governments are happy to oblige to terrify their populations a bit more, and erode those inacceptable freedoms.

[RJVB]

They’re definitely making an exception, but the justification seems to be that we won’t be working directly with the students.

/methinks they could have thought about that earlier. Or maybe they managed to move around some resources and assign a vetted watchdog to each of you potentially dangerous deviants. (Potentially dangerous ... it's clear that professional musicians are inevitably deviants, right? )

[ragman1]

I'm not in the mood to dress up a list of "all the freedoms I think I've lost".

No, not a whole long list of complaints, just one that unfairly impinges on your right to do it. Now, today, at the moment.

[RJVB]

Very funny... There's a reason I've preferred to go live almost off the grid where as far as I know the few video surveillance cameras hopefully do not yet run face-recognition software. So at this very moment there's nothing I'd like to do but can't - and you're not getting me to admit that I might have things to admit that I shouldn't be admitting online

[ragman1]

Well, there you go. Personally, I don't care about CCTV at all but there you are. I never think about it. They're not interested in ordinary people doing ordinary things. They're mostly used after an incident to get evidence. It's not an intrusion into our rights, blah, blah, it's security because there are baddies around.

[Marinero]

You haven't answered my question. What do you want to do that you can't do now? Never mind other people we don't know about, tell me about yourself.

I'll answer that question:
In the workplace:
1. cannot compliment a woman on what she's wearing
2. cannot touch a woman ever-- even inoffensively
3. cannot tell jokes that ANYONE could consider offensive
4. cannot yell at co-workers in anger
5. refer to a person by their race ie.) the Black girl that works in "Editing."
6. asking a woman if she's pregnant
7. yelling at an employee in front of other workers
8. joking or making reference to someone's age, height, weight, hair color, etc.
9. standing too close to a person
10. casually asking someone about their personal life
11. negatively challenging every remark a person makes
12. talk/argue about politics
13. express hatred/dislike for a boss or fellow employee to another person etc, etc.
These are just a few things one cannot do now in the workplace vs. 50 years ago. And, whether right or wrong, they not only change the nature of human communication in the workplace (and social life) but, also, potentially, are a basis for legal action against both the employer and the "offending" employee. And, the incentives are high as multi-million dollar settlements are frequently granted and,in some cases, can threaten the continuing existence of a business based on the amount of insurance they have to protect against these actions. One would have to go through life with blinders not to see the liberties challenged on a daily basis in our new, politically-correct, Big Brother world. Its origin is 50 years of PC/Marxist mantra that seeks to destroy the individual for the safety of the amorphous blob of the Herd. Power to the people, comrade!
Marinero

[RJVB]

CCTV: they claim it's only for security, but that's a vague and ever-sliding concept. And it's not like all the acquired information is guaranteed to be perfectly sealed against and protected from unsanctioned abuse.

5. refer to a person by their race ie.) the Black girl that works in "Editing."

Many of these points are not limited to the workplace. And IMHO #5 isn't about race (that's the US equivalent of India's castes...), it's about an external identifying feature (I'm pretty sure you can't call her the "black-skinned girl" either, while talking about the "black-haired girl" is probably perfectly acceptable ... if "girl" is, that is ).

But yeah, I've seen second-hand what can happen if a guy develops a perfectly honourable interest in a female colleague and more or less subconsciously (and rather naively) adjusts his lunch break to hers. The opposite is rarely a problem...

Here's something a little more directly related to the context. Back when I was that, very few people would have raised an eyebrow when a teenage boy had a steady girlfriend of 3-4 years younger (a rather common age difference in a couples, I'd say). Not even the day the boy turned 18. I have no idea how such relationships are seen nowadays when both kids are under 18, but the boy could probably be registered as a dangerous child molestor even if the 2 turned their relationship into something perfectly platonic on the eve of his birthday. This doesn't affect me, of course, but it does make me a lot more uneasy around kids and young girls in particular than I used to be.

[ragman1]

I'll answer that question:
In the workplace:
1. cannot compliment a woman on what she's wearing
2. cannot touch a woman ever-- even inoffensively
3. cannot tell jokes that ANYONE could consider offensive
4. cannot yell at co-workers in anger
5. refer to a person by their race ie.) the Black girl that works in "Editing."
6. asking a woman if she's pregnant
7. yelling at an employee in front of other workers
8. joking or making reference to someone's age, height, weight, hair color, etc.
9. standing too close to a person
10. casually asking someone about their personal life
11. negatively challenging every remark a person makes
12. talk/argue about politics
13. express hatred/dislike for a boss or fellow employee to another person etc, etc.

You want to do all those things at work? I don't. And I certainly don't consider it 'my right' to do them if I want! Except maybe the odd risqué joke or telling someone I know well that I like their dress or something. Why not? Depends how you say it.

Having said that, I've seen most of those things done by others frequently...

These are just a few things one cannot do now in the workplace vs. 50 years ago. And, whether right or wrong, they not only change the nature of human communication in the workplace (and social life) but, also, potentially, are a basis for legal action against both the employer and the "offending" employee. And, the incentives are high as multi-million dollar settlements are frequently granted and,in some cases, can threaten the continuing existence of a business based on the amount of insurance they have to protect against these actions. One would have to go through life with blinders not to see the liberties challenged on a daily basis in our new, politically-correct, Big Brother world. Its origin is 50 years of PC/Marxist mantra that seeks to destroy the individual for the safety of the amorphous blob of the Herd. Power to the people, comrade!
Marinero

If they want to live in that kind of environment, good luck to them. They create it, they can suffer it. Mind you, a lot of those things on your list are fairly obnoxious. And those who consider it their 'right' to do them if they want are definitely skewed.