There are clear rules and patterns you follow. It’s kinda like a script with some improvisation in between.
As a relationship anarchist, I couldn't disagree more and it's a regular source of anxiety and tension for me because many people think this, yet differ so widely in what that script looks like. The classic low stakes example of this is when and where and how the first kiss should happen. The reality, though, is that it goes so much deeper. The unspoken rules can extend to things as simple as 'my partner should open doors for me' to 'unless my partner says otherwise we will spend every birthday and important holiday together' to 'my partner cannot be emotionally close with a members of the genders they are attracted to' and so much more. People often don't even consciously know what their needs and assumptions are and it can lead to fights over acceptable behavior or a waxing/waning of sexual and romantic interest. I've seen countless relationships fall apart over unwritten rules that neither side realized were rules or boundaries they wanted in the relationship!
Hope you’ll be more lucky in finding your half than me 😁
I'm poly and have a few partners. Dating is a regular part of my social life. I don't like to think in terms of 'other half' because it's a rather monogamous framework but more importantly because it implies you can't be whole without someone else which is a sign of enmeshment.
But I do very much think everyone deserves someone who is excited to build something cooperatively with them, who's passionate about spending time with them and who is supportive and compassionate and helps them grow. And I hope you find that person or those people in your life, whether it's through friendship or dating or some combination of both.
Do you want to date and these questions are more about trying to understand the process and dynamics of dating or are you unsure whether you want to date (or definitely do not want to)?
I don't think it's a necessity, but I'm a scientist and I tend to be a bit nitpicky about word choice. In the sciences we're taught to use the right language for the right situation. If something isn't an absolute, we soften language. There's a big difference between "simply ignore them" and "you can generally ignore these" or "in most cases these are unenforceable" and that distinction is important. Simplifying knowledge is wonderful, but when and where we simplify is important and when stakes are high, it's better to side with caution.
Yes, I'm aware. If people are able to create business around this, it's clearly an area where litigation can happen and happens enough that, well, someone can sustain a business. Whether something is legal or not does not mean that every judge and every lawyer will agree and that people can't bully others around with their finances. Large companies typically have a lot more finances and leeway to do this kind of bullying to individuals and that's where this kind of nuance is important (and frankly out of scope of my own expertise).
This is an online forum where I have no idea whether you are an expert in law or not. I also don't know whether the law you're referencing would be the same for where I live (same state? same country?). Furthermore, there are entire legal firms which exist to help defend and prosecute in this space, indicating that it is not as clear cut as you make it. It took very little time to find lists online which explain whether non-competes are enforceable, by state, and some broad guidelines on when and where it can be enforced.
There are many reasons why it is not 'actually very simple' and claiming that it is online while ignoring these realities might cause others real harm. It feels casually dismissive to folks who don't have the legal background to assess this information and it took very little time to find holes in what you claimed. Please do not go on the internet and offer advice in areas you're not an expert in and don't minimize the severity of fields in which incorrect information can cause serious harm to individuals.
The sinister part about these non-competes and NDAs is that it requires you to either know the law in your country at a level well above that of a layperson, or be willing to take a risk that you do get sued into oblivion to be willing to take the risk of violating it. Companies should be held liable for creating unenforceable non-competes as it can cause serious harm to individuals.
So I'm not familiar with why that particular judge was criticized, but you'll note that the entirety of arguments and discussion surround the brief and response letters which were submitted to the supreme court. It's possible that Cannon was stepping outside what was presented, which would warrant criticism. The supreme court never steps outside what is presented, except when it's necessary to understand what is being presented - for example they may call upon other legal text or rulings in order to fully frame what is and is not in scope with regards to the presented case or to understand precisely what a particular lawyer is arguing for or against.
But I also think that the fact that the supreme court is the final court which gets to have say on a matter lends them to pontificate in depth about some issues that other courts may not be given latitude to do the same because it may address issues which are currently working their way through the court system or may be called upon as a matter of jurisprudence in the future. The entire text of every decision they make can have consequences on lower courts and understanding the limits and the spirit of law they weigh in on and as of such it's important to fully understand the exact claims being made and appropriately scope where the response lies and whether certain issues could or should be weighed in upon during that case.
In ways, this doesn't really surprise me. But, it's neat to see some actual data on this. Ultimately, sexism reigns supreme, as per usual, in the workplace.
I do think there are some minor methodological issues with this study, but they really aren't worth going into.
Law is entirely man made and purely a concept to allow for formal processes that we agree on as necessary to maintaining an ethical society. I see no reason why we can't recognize natural entities as having legal rights. In fact, it's a pretty good idea, markedly better than deciding that corporations are people.
I'm completely on board with this kind of thing, but a much more effective measure is to levy fines which can get extreme. HIPAA is a great example of how powerful of a force fines can be. If you get stripped of your right to do business you can always start a new business or move to another state. But if you have to pay a fine, there's no easy way out - you can fight it in court but at the end of the day you're likely paying the fine. This would allow the state to actually recoup on the damage that wage theft reaps on the populace of the state.
Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org Posts 213Comments 766Joined 3 yr. ago
As a relationship anarchist, I couldn't disagree more and it's a regular source of anxiety and tension for me because many people think this, yet differ so widely in what that script looks like. The classic low stakes example of this is when and where and how the first kiss should happen. The reality, though, is that it goes so much deeper. The unspoken rules can extend to things as simple as 'my partner should open doors for me' to 'unless my partner says otherwise we will spend every birthday and important holiday together' to 'my partner cannot be emotionally close with a members of the genders they are attracted to' and so much more. People often don't even consciously know what their needs and assumptions are and it can lead to fights over acceptable behavior or a waxing/waning of sexual and romantic interest. I've seen countless relationships fall apart over unwritten rules that neither side realized were rules or boundaries they wanted in the relationship!