this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
2 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13426 readers
35 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank

Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here

Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

He’s literally fighting to stay alive and the nurse, who was not even wearing an N95 just a regular mask, told my mother-in-law in the ICU room to keep a few feet away because she has Covid. She said she had to work because of staffing issues and the hospital’s strict attendance policy. Later we called the nurse supervisor who said “well there aren’t any positive tests so it’s fine” even though the nurse point blank told us she had Covid. Supervisor said she could “try to get her reassigned if it would make us feel better.” Just please burn this country down to the ground. Please

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Love our culture of shaming people into working no matter their ailments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

what-the-hell

this fucking death cult, man

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That sounds very close to lawsuit territory.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It would be if the entire political system weren't blatantly devoted to trying to make COVID out to be an individual problem (see the case on a recent Death Panel episode about a California Court ruling that businesses are not liable for the harm that happens to workers' families when bosses deliberately expose workers to COVID and get them and their families sick). The reasoning was not that bosses shouldn't be held liable, it was that it would be too economically destructive to acknowledge their liability -- that is, even while the victims had moral standing, they should fuck off and die for the economy.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Would that not satisfy the definition of reckless endangerment?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I'm so sorry.