>> Stores [and schools and government institutions and doctor's offices and...] can have policies like "wear shoes, because of broken glass" or "please keep out of this area, because private/danger" which I think are reasonable, even if not enshrined in law. Something like "everyone who shops here must dress like a clown" would be ridiculous, even if it were/is legal. <,
Some of those are laws and others aren't. However, even the sensible-looking laws have drawbacks.
Suppose folks want to get rid of the homeless, a popular goal. What is the easiest way to do that? Steal their shoes and clothes. Now the poor sod is committing a crime, public indecency, simply by existing in a body without the financial resources to purchase clothing -- and would not be allowed in any establishment whatsoever even if they had money. Further consider that shoe theft is routine in the homeless community anyhow because they wear out so fast and nobody can afford to replace theirs.
>> Though I do think safety issues should get extra consideration, even if only from an ettiquite standpoint. <<
Safety does get extra weight. Consideration? I would bet that people rarely or never give it that, due to the prevalence of solution-caused problems. They only look at what they want, what's right in front of them, without thinking about other implications.
>> (Think scent-free office, quiet shopping hour, wearing shoes in a pottery shop, etc.) <<
Safety precautions like "hardhat area" tend to be sensible, effective, and practical. Not always, but at least often enough to worth respecting most of the time, if you put some thought into whether or not a given rule is worthwhile.
A quiet shopping hour is a good example of a rule where the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. It expands the number of people who can use the facility but probably does not deny anyone access.
A scent-free office is a prime example of a hazardous rule that does a lot of harm which most people simply don't think about. It would literally never occur to them, even though some of it is ubiquitous. Let's take a look at some of the issues.
* It adds to a number of already very dangerous precedents about one person having any say over what another person puts on or in their body. Remember that every weapon you use in politics is a weapon in your enemy's hand. If they can forbid you to wear scents, they can force you to wear scents. If they can force you to wear shoes, they can forbid you to wear hijab. If they can forbid you to have an abortion, they can force you to have an abortion. The details don't matter; only the power and the deciders matter. Once you've given up control of your own body, you're screwed, because sooner or later -- probably sooner -- other people will make decisions for it that you don't like, or possibly can't survive. It usually takes a revolution to recover lost freedoms. That is alarming in a society that is stripping away personal freedom and privacy at increasing speed.
* It fails the "reasonable accommodations" standard. It is not reasonable to force people to behave as if they have a disability which they do not. For example, it is reasonable to add a ramp or elevator alongside the stairs to accommodate people in wheelchairs. It is not reasonable to remove the stairs because those are used by other people to maintain healthy activity levels or to navigate with balance issues and so on. Add, don't subtract.
* Nearly 100% of Americans have exactly zero tolerance for normal animal smells. Not their own, not another human's body, not a service dog farting. If you deny them the ability to cover smells, they will become extremely uncomfortable. Negative outcomes include: - Avoiding the facility because it is humiliating and/or disgusting to them. - Reporting the facility so persistently to the health board that it gets shut down due to the constant stream of complaints. - Breaking the rule and then being ashamed of that or terrified of discovery. - Saying cruel things to other people about their unavoidable bodily emissions. - Self-loathing from being forced into public while feeling stinky and disgusting. - Far subtler impacts of treating people as poor and dirty because their body has smells, such as which medical treatments or financial services are offered, choices that may even be below the conscious level and thus difficult or impossible to manage rationally. - General unhappiness and grouchiness due to stress, which undermines health and also makes interactions more difficult and miserable.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: Well ...
Date: 2021-10-03 04:47 am (UTC)Some of those are laws and others aren't. However, even the sensible-looking laws have drawbacks.
Suppose folks want to get rid of the homeless, a popular goal. What is the easiest way to do that? Steal their shoes and clothes. Now the poor sod is committing a crime, public indecency, simply by existing in a body without the financial resources to purchase clothing -- and would not be allowed in any establishment whatsoever even if they had money. Further consider that shoe theft is routine in the homeless community anyhow because they wear out so fast and nobody can afford to replace theirs.
>> Though I do think safety issues should get extra consideration, even if only from an ettiquite standpoint. <<
Safety does get extra weight. Consideration? I would bet that people rarely or never give it that, due to the prevalence of solution-caused problems. They only look at what they want, what's right in front of them, without thinking about other implications.
>> (Think scent-free office, quiet shopping hour, wearing shoes in a pottery shop, etc.) <<
Safety precautions like "hardhat area" tend to be sensible, effective, and practical. Not always, but at least often enough to worth respecting most of the time, if you put some thought into whether or not a given rule is worthwhile.
A quiet shopping hour is a good example of a rule where the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. It expands the number of people who can use the facility but probably does not deny anyone access.
A scent-free office is a prime example of a hazardous rule that does a lot of harm which most people simply don't think about. It would literally never occur to them, even though some of it is ubiquitous. Let's take a look at some of the issues.
* It adds to a number of already very dangerous precedents about one person having any say over what another person puts on or in their body. Remember that every weapon you use in politics is a weapon in your enemy's hand. If they can forbid you to wear scents, they can force you to wear scents. If they can force you to wear shoes, they can forbid you to wear hijab. If they can forbid you to have an abortion, they can force you to have an abortion. The details don't matter; only the power and the deciders matter. Once you've given up control of your own body, you're screwed, because sooner or later -- probably sooner -- other people will make decisions for it that you don't like, or possibly can't survive. It usually takes a revolution to recover lost freedoms. That is alarming in a society that is stripping away personal freedom and privacy at increasing speed.
* It fails the "reasonable accommodations" standard. It is not reasonable to force people to behave as if they have a disability which they do not. For example, it is reasonable to add a ramp or elevator alongside the stairs to accommodate people in wheelchairs. It is not reasonable to remove the stairs because those are used by other people to maintain healthy activity levels or to navigate with balance issues and so on. Add, don't subtract.
* Nearly 100% of Americans have exactly zero tolerance for normal animal smells. Not their own, not another human's body, not a service dog farting. If you deny them the ability to cover smells, they will become extremely uncomfortable. Negative outcomes include:
- Avoiding the facility because it is humiliating and/or disgusting to them.
- Reporting the facility so persistently to the health board that it gets shut down due to the constant stream of complaints.
- Breaking the rule and then being ashamed of that or terrified of discovery.
- Saying cruel things to other people about their unavoidable bodily emissions.
- Self-loathing from being forced into public while feeling stinky and disgusting.
- Far subtler impacts of treating people as poor and dirty because their body has smells, such as which medical treatments or financial services are offered, choices that may even be below the conscious level and thus difficult or impossible to manage rationally.
- General unhappiness and grouchiness due to stress, which undermines health and also makes interactions more difficult and miserable.