this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2023
316 points (95.4% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35438 readers
656 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FunkyMonk@kbin.social 96 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yahuh... now do one for police unions.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 39 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Aw come on now, we can't be holding our public servants to account for their actions now can we? You silly billy

[–] jhulten@infosec.pub 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh sweetie... They're not servants of the PUBLIC...

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Well unless by public you mean the public sector of the economy and their property, then yes they're specifically intended to protect that (alongside private infrastructure owned by their lobbyists and benefactors) at the cost of everyone else.

[–] superduperenigma@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Police should have to carry professional insurance just like doctors carry malpractice insurance.

Change my mind.

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I don't think it will work at all. I think it would make the problem much worse, not better.

Think about that for a second: Police are never convicted, and rarely officially sanctioned. They always get away with it. Insurance will never pay out, so the cost of insuring officers will be next to nothing.

But, now we have an insurer with a vested interest in clearing the officer of wrongdoing, lest they be forced to pay a claim.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] giantofthenorth@lemm.ee 84 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Love that most of the world's governments came together and said "collective punishment is bad, we should make it illegal during times of war" and shit like this can still fly within any first world country.

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

This sort of collective treatment seems awful "communist" for a system that claims to hate it so much.

Almost like they're okay with it when it means forcing their will and their hardship onto a group that is powerless to resist...

[–] pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz 58 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Or they could just find the vandal with the security cameras they no doubt installed in every single hallway to protect themselves against their own customers should they have to go to court 🤷

Oh wait, I forgot, we're trapped in tyranny.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

But that would require actual work and investigation! Why would they bother when they can just add on another $100 to everybody's rent bill for "repairs"

[–] half_built_pyramids@lemmy.world 52 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Pretty sure we all saw the dean drawing dicks everywhere.

[–] TrenchcoatFullofBats@belfry.rip 15 points 1 year ago

Un-dean-iable

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Lycerius@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The HRE ain't gonna do shit since it hasn't existed since 1806.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Voltaire would argue that even then it didn't

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 39 points 1 year ago (2 children)

How do you think it works in condo buildings and residential co-ops?

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 66 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They generally try to find a responsible party and bill them, file an insurance claim, use the general maintenance budget, and special assessments as a last resort.

[–] harmonea@kbin.social 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This. They should be going through insurance for this.

Of course, the insurance rates would rise, and they'd still be passing on that increase to the residents, but residents would be slightly less bitchy about it since the extra layers of opacity would make it seem like "just more of the usual greed and inflation."

[–] KeepFlying@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

It's also part of the reason why maintenance budgets exist. The condo board/government/etc should be responsible for factoring in the risk of vandalism repairs into their budget and spreading that cost over time. That's why they exist.

At the end of the day it's my dues/taxes that pay it either way, but I shouldn't get stuck with a surprise assessment unless it's a major unexpected repair.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 year ago

Insurance is only needed if things get really bad. What should happen is just having like 2 weeks of janitor time dedicated to powewashing graffiti in their annual budget.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Or in the wider world with public infrastructure and taxpayers

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

That's... how public infrastructure works?

You try to find the responsible party. If yes, they have to pay for repairs/damages.
If not, the tax money has to pay for it, as the infrastructure is needed.

[–] lemann@lemmy.one 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

🥲 sadly not when the public infrastructure is maintained by a private company that goes bankrupt

R.I.P. my city's previous bike share scheme, ruined by vandals wrecking the charging docks and stealing the bikes. Our tax money could not save it due to corruption laws AFAIK

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 39 points 1 year ago (4 children)

How do they know it is done by someone within that community and not some random person?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This happened to me in college. The dorms were “locked” over the holidays and student residents were not allowed to even access the dorm building, when we returned back to school after new year’s, the hallway and apartment doors had been vandalized. The university passed the bill on to each of the residents of the building, even without any way we could have stopped it, since campus police would’ve arrested anyone found attempting to get into our dorms.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Happened to me, too. Some unknown people caused damage to a common room and they billed everyone in the building. I tried to email about it, but they didn't budge. I felt I had to pay it because the university threatens to withhold transcripts and stuff if you have outstanding fines.

[–] Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Exactly what they did to me. I fought them on it. It was basically a shakedown racket and to get my diploma I decided it was better to pay and hold a grudge and have it written on my tombstone for posterity.

[–] Arrakis@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

This seems...unlawful...

Edit - for anyone who actually knows stuff about things, is it?

[–] Tar_alcaran@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

A lot can be legal if you agree to it. But they absolutely can't unilaterally declare this rule into effect.

Just don't pay, what are they gonna do? Sue you for damages that they admit themselves can't prove?

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In a general sense, you are completely right, but this seems to be a college. By being a student, you've agreed to ALL the terms they hand you. If you decline, then you aren't a student anymore. Even if you pay EVERYTHING you owe except the unfair vandalism fee, you're not getting a diploma.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Fairly certain you could take something like this to court. You didn’t agree to this when you first signed the paperwork to live there, to turn around and say “okay, now you also have to pay us a surprise $10k or you don’t get the diploma you paid for” sounds hella illegal.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm not disagreeing that it's shitty as hell, but they could easily implement the rule in between semesters. You'd be agreeing to all the terms when you registered for the next set of classes.

Again, it's a super slimy thing to do, and it should be illegal, but you'd spend more fighting a University in court then you would just paying the fees, and you'd be at a MAJOR disadvantage when they show up with your signed agreement to abide by ALL campus policies.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My solution would be this:

Have a running total for damages caused by vandals and call it a “Vandalism Lottery”. When someone is caught vandalizing in the community, they win the lottery, but instead of getting money, they pay whatever that lottery amount is up to. $700,000? To bad! Work the rest of your life to pay it off.

And to keep it fair, the starting amount should be no less than $20,000.

On top of that, they should be required to clean up any identified vandalism for at least the next year.

It should NEVER be at the loss of residents, students, or taxpayers to recoup damage caused by idiots.

And yes, I'm salty because vandals caused over $50,000 to a brand-new waterfront park we had open this past year, and the Vandalism Lottery would have been a wonderful prize to the jackasses who got caught!

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Even this I disagree with. It sounds like a good idea until the total cost is substantial, and they don’t want to foot the bill. So they watch for someone who does anything that can be misconstrued as vandalism and force them to foot the bill.

Not to mention, fining someone for $100 in damage nearly a million is honestly more unethical than the vandalism.

There’s a reason we don’t do this type of thing in the legal world, it’s easily taken advantage of, and unethical as fuck.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jayrhacker@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Approximately 30 days before students are charged, a notice will be sent to community members in an effort to identify the responsible individual(s) for additional investigation.

Ah, so if you don't rat out the vandals, you have to pay

[–] FuntyMcCraiger@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Weird that you wouldn't snitch on the dude who smears poop on the walls.

I'd like to think everyone would give you a pass for that.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Yeah I have a feeling this is more about paint on walls and that kind of thing. The phantom shitter has no friends.

[–] sadreality@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

That assumes you know who did lol

[–] wieson@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Mask out the vandalised area and put up a posting "free space available for graffiti art, email your sketch to blabla to get it approved "

load more comments (1 replies)

What a great way to ensure you'll never get donations from some specific alumni

[–] uis@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Koppensneller@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Holy Roman Empire.

[–] Tenbot@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

The Holy Roman Empire.

[–] Duplodicus@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›