this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2023
10 points (85.7% liked)

DebunkThis

1072 readers
1 users here now

Debunking pseudoscience, myths, and spurious hogwash since 2010.

We are an evidence-based Reddit/Lemmy community dedicated to taking an objective look at questionable theories, dodgy news sources, bold-faced claims, and suspicious studies.

Community Rules:

Posting

Title formatting on all posts should be "Debunk This: [main claim]"

Example: "Debunk This: Chemicals in the water are turning the frogs gay."

All posts must include at least one source and one to three specific claims to be debunked, so commenters know exactly what to investigate.

Example: "According to this YouTube video, dihydrogen monoxide turns amphibians homosexual. Is this true? Also, did Albert Einstein really claim this?"

NSFW/NSFL content is not allowed.

Commenting

Always try to back up your comments with linked sources. Just saying "this is untrue" isn't all that helpful without facts to support it.

Standard community rules apply regarding spam, self-promotion, personal attacks and hate speech, etc.

Links

Suggested Fediverse Communities

RFK Jr. Watch @lemm.ee - Discuss misinformation being spread by antivaxxer politician, Robert F Kennedy Jr.
Skeptic @lemmy.world - Discuss pseudoscience, quackery, and bald-faced BS
Skeptic @kbin.social - The above, just on Kbin
Science Communication @mander.xyz - Discuss science literacy and media reporting

Useful Resources

Common examples of misleading graphs - How to spot dodgy infographics
Metabunk.org - a message board dedicated to debunking popular conspiracies
Media Bias / Fact Check - Great resource for current news fact checking + checking a source's political bias
Science Based Medicine - A scientific look at current issues and controversies
Deplatform Disease - A medical blog that specifically counters anti-COVID-vaccine claims
Respectful Insolence - David Gorsky's blog on antivax shenanigans, politics, and pseudoscience

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

News pundit claims that a proposed new law would make it 1) "illegal for store employees to confront shoplifters", and that 2) "it is legal to shoplift" in California.

What can we make of these claims?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does the proposed bill apply to retail employees only or employees of all kinds? I see how it makes sense to protect people like cashiers by NOT telling them to jump out in front of an active shooter and shield customers with their bodies, but what about private security/loss prevention? Say, police already do not have a duty to protect anyone in particular. If you are hired and trained as a security guard and then refuse to stop any shoplifters, does it mean you cannot be fired for that under this bill?

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

The section referring to the shoplifting mentions specifically all employers. So that would include anyone.

There is a very important note though. There was an update to the line to include dedicated safety personnel when it comes to dealing with suspected shoplifters or active shooter:

(12) Provisions prohibiting the employer from maintaining policies that require employees who are not dedicated safety personnel to confront active shooters or suspected shoplifters.

I imagine that this is mostly to keep safely in mind without forcing standard employees into action. Being a dedicated safety personnel most likely applies to positions like a school body guard that isn't a police officer or someone handling security for something like an armored truck. Someone who is working as dedicated safety personnel could get fired for failing to act. A regular employee would not be fired in the same situation: at the very least legally speaking.