4 ms·

Personally it strikes me as Puritanical -- rather than prohibiting disruptive or abusive behavior, the regulation bans a particular state of mind.

by verteu 3y ago

TylerE 3y ago
It doesn't ban it. It bans it ON PROPERTY. If someone values getting fucked up all the time more than their career, fine, but don't subsidize that behavior with my tax dollars. These people are not just getting free training, but free room and board, clothing, tech, and even a stipend on top.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  Everyone gets free life. That cost has to be subsidized by someone. None of us truly gets to choose who will pay, just like none of us chose to be born in the first place.
Aurornis 3y ago
They can do whatever they want on their own property. If they want subsidized housing, they have to play by the rules. It's not about banning "mind states". Once you have shared dorm-style housing you have to be more careful about the rules. If you have minors getting and/or being obviously drunk on your shared dorm-style housing and you do nothing, you're going to be in for a huge scandal as soon as one of those drunk minors does something harmful to someone else. But let's think about this from a practical standpoint: If someone is quietly and safely getting drunk and then returning to their dorm unnoticed, nobody is going to know or care. This is a tool for them to exercise when people get out of line.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  That is only truly moral if everyone involved is on equal footing with respect to the opportunity to own "their own property". The entire existence of programs like this depends on the opposite notion. Puritanical authoritarianism has an outsized effect on people who are less financially independent.
- verteu 3y ago
  What do you mean "their property"? It's not private property, the program is funded by US taxpayers (eg: me).
  - l33t7332273 3y ago
    I think you misread that. GP is saying they could do whatever they want on their property, but they are not on their property. They are on government property
    - verteu 3y ago
      Ah yes I see.
ethbr1 3y ago
I think you're looking at this from a "How does it impact a responsible person's freedoms?" perspective. But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective. If you're serving low income populations, higher incidences of substance abuse come hand in hand. And 1 person with a serious substance abuse problem in a group of 10 is still a big problem for everyone else. Nobody's saying they can't avail themselves of vices... they just can't do it in a communal environment where people are trying to better themselves.
- verteu 3y ago
  > But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective. My point was: Why not ban the actual behavior that inconveniences or threatens others? Being too loud, causing property damage, etc. (Though frankly, I don't feel very strongly about this. Presumably there's a reason for the rules -- I don't have much experience interacting with unemployed young adults.)
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic. Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape. In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior. Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.
  - toast0 3y ago
    They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others: > "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.
lr4444lr 3y ago
Don't overthink it: it's a liability issue in a shared living space, all morality aside.
zer8k 3y ago
"A certain state of mind"? Being drunk? The entire rule is about discipline. The Job Corp is designed to instill such discipline in people who need it. No one said you can't drink at all. They said you can't drink on our property. God forbid they look out for the safety of people! I truly don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over rules and regulations. They exist for a reason. Drunks cause problems. Drunks grope people, drunks get in fights, drunks vomit all over the place, drunks make your organization look sloppy, drunks miss work, etc. There are plenty of reasons to ban drunks on YOUR campus. None of them have to be, what you call, "puritanical" in origin.
- verteu 3y ago
  Nobody's "panties are in a twist," as you so eloquently conjectured. Many of America's alcohol-related regulations are, literally, Puritan in origin and exist largely due to historical precedent. [1] [2] Thus, when encountering a surprisingly harsh anti-alcohol regulation, it's reasonable to question its origin and validity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States [2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/blue%20laws https://www.etymonline.com/word/blue%20laws
  - zer8k 3y ago
    "Surprisingly harsh" to who? Are you also upset you can't bring a kegger to a construction site to get all liquored up before you hop in the backhoe? Are the puritans also responsible for OSHA safety regulations?
moomoo11 3y ago
As a taxpayer and someone who’s interested in being part of civil society, I’m fine with it. Freedom doesn’t mean being a nuisance or disruptive. Some of us like to live in NICE living conditions. What’s wrong with not being drunk when they’re in a program designed to help them? Do you think it’s bad when you can’t drink alcohol or be drunk in a public library? Or at work? Two person startup aside are you going to show up to work drunk or smoke a J at your desk in an open office? Gonna join zoom zoinked with red eyes? Come on bro.

Personally it strikes me as Puritanical -- rather than prohibiting disruptive or abusive behavior, the regulation bans a particular state of mind.

by verteu 3y ago

Personally it strikes me as Puritanical -- rather than prohibiting disruptive or abusive behavior, the regulation bans a particular state of mind.

TylerE 3y ago

It doesn't ban it. It bans it ON PROPERTY. If someone values getting fucked up all the time more than their career, fine, but don't subsidize that behavior with my tax dollars. These people are not just getting free training, but free room and board, clothing, tech, and even a stipend on top.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
Everyone gets free life. That cost has to be subsidized by someone. None of us truly gets to choose who will pay, just like none of us chose to be born in the first place.

Aurornis 3y ago

They can do whatever they want on their own property. If they want subsidized housing, they have to play by the rules. It's not about banning "mind states". Once you have shared dorm-style housing you have to be more careful about the rules. If you have minors getting and/or being obviously drunk on your shared dorm-style housing and you do nothing, you're going to be in for a huge scandal as soon as one of those drunk minors does something harmful to someone else. But let's think about this from a practical standpoint: If someone is quietly and safely getting drunk and then returning to their dorm unnoticed, nobody is going to know or care. This is a tool for them to exercise when people get out of line.

thomastjeffery 3y ago
That is only truly moral if everyone involved is on equal footing with respect to the opportunity to own "their own property". The entire existence of programs like this depends on the opposite notion. Puritanical authoritarianism has an outsized effect on people who are less financially independent.
verteu 3y ago
What do you mean "their property"? It's not private property, the program is funded by US taxpayers (eg: me).
- l33t7332273 3y ago
  I think you misread that. GP is saying they could do whatever they want on their property, but they are not on their property. They are on government property
  - verteu 3y ago
    Ah yes I see.

ethbr1 3y ago

I think you're looking at this from a "How does it impact a responsible person's freedoms?" perspective. But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective. If you're serving low income populations, higher incidences of substance abuse come hand in hand. And 1 person with a serious substance abuse problem in a group of 10 is still a big problem for everyone else. Nobody's saying they can't avail themselves of vices... they just can't do it in a communal environment where people are trying to better themselves.

verteu 3y ago
> But I'd imagine the rule was designed from a "How do we prevent everyone else from being inconvenienced (or threatened) by an irresponsible person?" perspective. My point was: Why not ban the actual behavior that inconveniences or threatens others? Being too loud, causing property damage, etc. (Though frankly, I don't feel very strongly about this. Presumably there's a reason for the rules -- I don't have much experience interacting with unemployed young adults.)
- ethbr1 3y ago
  From experience with government operations, the answer is likely because they knew it would be a lengthy, drawn-out process to get rid of someone problematic. Government program means apathetic mid-level management, lawsuits for civil rights violations, and all sorts of red tape. In most scenarios I'd envision, the person being thrown out is incentivized to try everything they can to avoid getting tossed. Which includes lying and concealing behavior. Or, they could just have a clearer rule that allowed them to remove people with unaddressed substance abuse problems. Much easier.
- toast0 3y ago
  They did ban the actual behavior that inconveniences others: > "we consider an individual intoxicated when they exhibit a state in which their capacity to act or reason normally has been inhibited by the ingestion of a substance with the intent to cause such a state [including alcohol]" If you're acting and reasoning normally, that's evidence that you have the capacity to do so. So act normal and you won't attract discipline for being intoxicated and acting up.

lr4444lr 3y ago

Don't overthink it: it's a liability issue in a shared living space, all morality aside.

zer8k 3y ago

"A certain state of mind"? Being drunk? The entire rule is about discipline. The Job Corp is designed to instill such discipline in people who need it. No one said you can't drink at all. They said you can't drink on our property. God forbid they look out for the safety of people! I truly don't understand why people get their panties in a twist over rules and regulations. They exist for a reason. Drunks cause problems. Drunks grope people, drunks get in fights, drunks vomit all over the place, drunks make your organization look sloppy, drunks miss work, etc. There are plenty of reasons to ban drunks on YOUR campus. None of them have to be, what you call, "puritanical" in origin.

verteu 3y ago
Nobody's "panties are in a twist," as you so eloquently conjectured. Many of America's alcohol-related regulations are, literally, Puritan in origin and exist largely due to historical precedent. [1] [2] Thus, when encountering a surprisingly harsh anti-alcohol regulation, it's reasonable to question its origin and validity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States [2] https://www.etymonline.com/word/blue%20laws https://www.etymonline.com/word/blue%20laws
- zer8k 3y ago
  "Surprisingly harsh" to who? Are you also upset you can't bring a kegger to a construction site to get all liquored up before you hop in the backhoe? Are the puritans also responsible for OSHA safety regulations?

moomoo11 3y ago

As a taxpayer and someone who’s interested in being part of civil society, I’m fine with it. Freedom doesn’t mean being a nuisance or disruptive. Some of us like to live in NICE living conditions. What’s wrong with not being drunk when they’re in a program designed to help them? Do you think it’s bad when you can’t drink alcohol or be drunk in a public library? Or at work? Two person startup aside are you going to show up to work drunk or smoke a J at your desk in an open office? Gonna join zoom zoinked with red eyes? Come on bro.