The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence.
Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state.
Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
"The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence"
I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.
If the TOS is based on the law, i.e. inciting violence etc. (which it likely is) then read the rest of my comment.
The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.
It is illegal to attempt to make foreign policy as a private citizen.
---
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
I honestly don't think my or your opinion matters with regards to that.
If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
How to virtually guarantee funding: Create a research project that attempts to better understand a cause or a potential effect of some aspect of Climate Change.
How to be ostracized from the University zeitgeist and receive little/no funding: Create a research project that attempts to disprove any major assumptions or pillars of modern Climate Change science.
I guess the new line is that we can't trust the scientists, because they're all corrupt.
Which I guess is pretty similar to the old line. But at least back then the know-nothingism had the pretense of caring about the science with screams of "1998!" and "sunspots!"
>> Step 1: immediately introduce straw men to knock down.
> "Micro aggressions", rape, lives being "destroyed", "emoji-induced tears", and violence
> Tragically comedic hyperbole.
>> Step 2: blame the victim of sexual harassment for being there and not finding a way to not be harassed.
> The next time someone offends you, call them on it. Stand up for yourself
>> Step 3: Right after telling them to stand up for themselves, immediately shame them for talking about the experience. It might give them resources to actually follow the advice you patronizingly tossed out in step 2.
> We need more people talking and less "retreat and blog"
There are no straw men here. Only classic deflect-and-gaslight tactics older than either of us. But hey, you go on misusing the phrase "straw man", champ. Credit to your gender, etc.
Stop defending sexism. If your behavior is indistinguishable from sexism save for intent, it is sexism. Period.
Step 2: The parent absolutely did not blame the victim for simply being there.
Step 3: You're assuming the victim would necessarily feel shame by trying to help them deal with assholes, and you're also assuming that shame was the intended outcome of telling them to stand up/call out idiots in the midst of their idiocy.
Your first paragraph: the victim was blamed for not acting differently to a circumstance that they should NOT have had to deal with. Characterize this as you will, it doesn't change that fact. No accordance was offered for this. The response was deemed sub-optimal and later shamed.
I cannot parse your second paragraph. Victim helps "them"?
Also: I repeat. If your actions are indistinguishable from sexism they're sexism. Your intent doesn't matter. Your defense here is that you're reading the gp charitably.
By standing up for one's self it's possible to both respect yourself and form respect between two or more people who were once quarreling. By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism. They'll hate her and she'll fear them, forever.
Someone strong enough of character would be able to withstand the initial stupidity and confront the perpetrators and convince them to stop. Should she have to do that? No, but maybe her actions could lead them to be more mature and they'd all respect each other, and the next woman would have that much better of an environment to go into.
By immediately coddling them, you are accomplishing the exact opposite of what you think are doing.
I think that's what the OP was trying to say, but I can't read minds so who knows.
Oh so, really your demand that we coddle that bunch of lousy and unprofessional folks in the workplace is in her best interests, because SHE shouldn't be coddled?
This seems arbitrary.
This is not some punishment game on reality TV. It's a workplace. Being professional with employees is the bare minimum. Even teenagers can do it. Why do you want to coddle these men?
Let me see if I understand this argument (with the awareness that you are attempting to restate it and not directly advocate it yourself).
When someone is being subjected to abuse in what is supposed to be a professional setting, the correct strategy for them is to take matters into their own hands and probably begin a disruptive and draining conflict which they are almost certain to lose in the end because the deck is stacked against them. Under absolutely no circumstances should the victim ask for assistance, because that would demonstrate weakness and a lack of self-respect. If only the victim had better strength of character, they could put those assholes in their places and nothing like this would ever happen again.
I really don't think I can make myself see the world that way. I don't think I want to.
Indeed, and in the larger context it's a contradictory set of advice.
If she struggles, it'll be a "poor culture fit." At-will employment means it's very challenging to push back against your boss's toxic culture. But if she doesn't, she isn't "strong enough" for the industry.
Actally madsax, reading your post you make a pretty strong case for never asking for help.
> By dragging in HR, parents or the state you are cultivating a draconian environment where nobody at the job will respect her and she will never respect them, no matter how much they eschew sexism
You say here that if at any point any authority figure (which you curiously include "parents" in the list of) is involved it will disqualify the subject of these treatments any hope of future respect. To name the torment as such is to condemn yourself to it.
I'm starting to think you may be using the phrase "strawman" in the more popular counter-factual sense than have a grasp of how the word is historically used. Because it sure seems here like you're saying, "Never go to an authority or appeal to the rules a group establishes because if you do, you forfeit all respect in perpetuity."
Maybe you didn't mean to say that. Maybe this didn't read like you intended it to. But it's not fair that you call foul on us for reading what you wrote and interpreting it within the scope you defined.
Given the number of UFO sighting claims, you would think everyone's chance of encountering a silent flying saucer shaped object in their lifetime is near 100%. My point is, everyone sympathizes with stories of abuse/sexism/racism, but the number of articles written about them doesn't prove they happen frequently or even that they happen in the majority of workplaces.
Most stories like the OP's can be summed as follows:
1. Some insensitive asshole was lacking respect or maturity or professionalism in general.
2. Women, who are generally more conscientious than men, naturally react more strongly to said assholes.
I think if you could magically make every employee not act like an asshole, reports of sexism would drop by 99%.
This is a comforting fiction, but all you're doing is renaming the special and unfair treatment men give women to "assholes being assholes."
And sure. Yes. That's not untrue. But read the article. She's particularly singled out for special treatment.
Redefining the words or claiming it's actually women being "more sensitive" is just a word game to try making excuses. To do anything but agree, "This is sexist behavior."
> She's particularly singled out for special treatment.
Where did you read this? In the entire article she didn't even describe anyone speaking to her or about her except when they apologized, how can this be seen as singling her out?
I don't think the vast majority Christians even worry about microchips anymore. It was a silly fear from the beginning that only caught on because of how novel and marvelous computers in general were and now that transistors have become more mundane, so have the old notions that piggybacked primarily on such novelties.
Hmm. I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss people's concerns about being microchipped--Christians or otherwise. We may hear more rumblings if this is implemented at scale.
