Reminder to folks that "less lethal" still means "lethal" even if the cops pretend it doesn't.

Reminder to folks that "less lethal" still means "lethal" even if the cops pretend it doesn't.

You shouldn’t have to wear safety rated glasses to protest, but I wouldn’t go to one without them at this point. If you normally wear glasses and they’re not rated an impact can shatter them and cause even more damage than not wearing them at all would have.
If you have glasses buy safety glasses that go over top of them. Doesn’t matter if your glasses are rated for it, use the safety glasses. Glasses are expensive and safety glasses can be bought for fairly cheap.
If you can’t afford them, check if there is a robotics event going on near you. Then check if they have open access to the pits, if they do then they will have safety glasses stations that you can pick up a pair at. They won’t hound you for then back really, the people working those stations are usually volunteers. At those kinds of events they also expect a lot of those pairs to get taken, whether accidentally or on purpose. So you taking a pair will go unnoticed.
Edit: Not everyone has a few dollars that can be spared for a pair of safety glasses. Stealing from a store is more risky than taking them from an event where they aren’t expecting them back. Remember that jails are filled with people who can’t afford to pay their bails. I’m not here to price gatekeep people going to protests, get a pair however you can. I want you to be safe, not keep you out.
If you can afford multiple pairs buy extras for others. Be selfless rather than be an asshole.
Lol wat? Why go through all that to steal from volunteer event supplies? If you really, seriously, need to steal a pair go to home depot, grab a pair and walk out. Take from corpos not science nerds.
Edit- I'm not condoning stealing from anyone, but if that's where your heads at, choose better targets.
I’ve worked as a volunteer at robotics events, pairs can be donated by large corporations. And the events aren’t expecting the pairs back anyways. Stores might give more of a shit, probably not but it’s safer for the people who can’t afford them.
If you walk up and ask for a pair you can keep because yours were broken, they'll give you them. Don't have to steal. Just be kind.
This seems like a lot of work to save two dollars.
Sometimes money is tight, it can matter to people more than you might think
Safety glasses that are actually safety glasses aren't two dollars
You’re right, if you check Amazon you can get a box of 10 ANSI certified safety glasses for 16.99. So actually less than two dollars.
I originally pulled that number out of thin air, but how much do you think the ones they give out for these robotics events cost? If you tour a manufacturing facility and they pass out OSHA required safety glasses, how much do you think they cost? Probably also less than two dollars.
Yes glad you understand the concept of bulk buying!! Maybe you’d also understand that the events are buying in even larger amounts and they get their money (or even the safety glasses themselves) from sponsors who aren’t it back anyways. Maybe you also might understand that the people who run these events don’t really care if they are returned or not. That they care more about people being safe than about a piece of plastic being brought back.
I volunteer at events and have spoken with organizers of said events. They aren’t bothered by pairs going missing, they are bothered by people not wearing them.
Another you should consider is that not everyone has the 16.99, plus shipping, plus tax, to buy that 10 pair on a discount. Remember that roughly half of all people in this country survive paycheck to paycheck. Money can be tight and even cheap things can be expensive to others. Be understanding of where others are, rather than assume your position is the default. Walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and you’ll see things differently.
Single glasses are also $2 in local retail stores.

I actually prefer the clear $2 glasses to the fancier padded $8 ones. They last longer and the rubber on the fancy ones will eventually get sticky and fall off.
Look at this condescending ass motherfucker who was telling everyone to go find a robotics event somewhere to snag some free glasses on their way to a protest to save two five dollars. You can get a single pair at Home Depot for five bucks.
Thanks for the tip buddy. I’m sure it will help exactly zero people.
You’d get it if you know people in the actual lowest rungs of society, if you’ve been there yourself, you’d get it. You’d get it if you knew what barely having enough for just rent, electricity and water bills. You’d get it if you knew what skipping medicine doses because you need to stretch it out is like. You’d get it if you knew what stretching out already cheap meals is like. You’d get it if you knew what skipping meals because you can’t afford to have a place to live if you ate. You’d get it if you knew what looking for the cheapest gas because it’s the only way to make it through the month was. You’d get it if you knew what not having a car in a country build for to because it’s too expensive is like.
I could go on with ways you don’t get it, but hopefully my point lands with you this time. When you are at that level of struggle, or near it, risk calculations matter more. Taking from a store is riskier because they will be more likely to care. Even if just a few bucks. Pointing out an option to give them something that will help them isn’t evil.
It's such a bizarre piece of "advice", as if robotics events are as common as grocery stores or something.
It would cost me more than the price of the safety glasses to attend such and event, after accounting for transportation costs and (very likely) admission fee.
I wonder if it would help to frame the suggestion as a “questionably ethical, depending, life pro tip“.
Then explain you might be able to have some fun checking out a robotics event and—especially if you are able to make a little connection with one of the organizers—you should explain your financial situation and ask if one of the pairs went missing if they could forgive you for it.
And for some two-dollar item when it’s a question they probably never get asked, they’re probably gonna say “sure!“ and be able to feel good about helping a near stranger.
(As it stood, it had vibes like “your local library might leave their late fee coin jar unlocked!” which I know was notttt anything like your perspective cuz you’ve been to those events! This is a risky parenthetical, not accusing you of nuthin’ pls :) )
Why steal things that you can buy for $5?
Unethical life pro tip there. "Steal from volunteers" shouldn't inspire any sympathy for you from anyone.
If you're going to steal, steal from Home Depot.
This! Look for "Z87" somewhere on the frame of the glasses to know if they're impact rated.
I don't think z87 are strong enough for rubber bullets, especially if they're taking a direct shot like this. Looking around the internet you need to jump up to MIL-PRF-32432 for that.
I looked it up, and take this how you will as it's from safetyglassesusa.com and they say, "Yes, safety glasses & goggles can stop a rubber bullet, provided the correct type of safety eyewear is used. Industrial-rated ANSI Z87.1+ safety eyewear is specifically designed to protect your eyes from work-related hazards. Ballistic-rated eyewear is designed and tested to protect your eyes from higher-velocity projectiles and debris typically found in combat environments."
So you're right. Z87 may not cut it, but still it's probably going to be fine except in extreme circumstances. Still better safe than sorry.
And kevilar vest. And jock. Maybe even a helmet.
But if course, that enables the narrative that you come dressed to fight or something stupid. What has happened to Western civilization...
I hope they recover their vision. As someone who lost sight in one eye I can attest that going from binocular to monocular vision is life altering AND not considered a disability under the law Social Security requirements but typically is covered by ADA.
Edit: clarification.
How is losing 50% of your eyesight not a disability?
Because you still have eyesight in the other eye, so in social security's mind there's jobs in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (the DOT) you could still perform, and if there's three jobs you could perform despite your impairment you aren't disabled. Also, if you're under 50 you almost certainly aren't disabled for some reason. It's maddening.
A lot of states don't even care if you've only got so-so vision in one eye and are completely blind in the other. No stereopsis, no problem! Here's a driver's license. Good luck.
That's bonkers, in the UK I'm technically disabled because i have tinnitus and ADHD. (I still work like anyone else, but I have protected rights because of my status)
My dude, teeth are considered luxury bones in this country.
I'll adjust my comment because I realize it might be confusing. It's protected by ADA but it doesn't meet the requirements for a disability claim under Social Security:
It’s protected by ADA
IOW - work from home (assuming job duties can be done remotely) due to being unable to safely operate a 2-ton vehicle. Of course you would need to actually relinquish driving altogether and not just use it to skip the commute.
Unfortunately no. Not only does monocular vision not automatically disqualify you from driving but you can still get a commercial drivers license with vision in only one eye.
Regardless, I would still stop driving and seek ADA accommodation with assistance from a medical professional. It should be noted that my driving skills are marginal (but passable) as it is.
Even if some can pull it off doesn't mean that I personally can. Some can run a mile under 6 minutes. I cannot.
Edit: Incidentally, I do not find it comforting that someone with significantly impaired vision would be allowed a CDL and able to drive a semi. But then given the standards for driving in the U.S., I suppose I shouldn't find it particularly surprising. We don't take automobile safety nearly as seriously as we should.
That's not how reasonable accommodation works under ADA. If you were applying for a job that required you to be in office they could just refuse to hire.
If you tried to force working from home at a job you already had a reasonable accommodation would be adjusting your schedule so you could utilize public transportation.
It would be nice if people could dictate the terms but that's not what ADA protects under "reasonable accommodation".
That’s not how reasonable accommodation works under ADA. If you were applying for a job that required you to be in office they could just refuse to hire.
It's what it is, and I would have no choice but to keep looking. Fortunately companies and employers are not a monolith, and some are more reasonable than others regarding things like this and may not challenge it. Particularly if you have in-demand skills.
could utilize public transportation.
This would certainly be a viable in some parts of the U.S. Indeed, loss of vision would very likely push me to relocate to somewhere with better accessibility for non-drivers.
Despite my misgivings regarding their technological viability, this is one of many reasons why I am a big promoter of self-driving vehicles. But I still think working models available to consumers are a minimum decade or more off.
Over 12 million
Yeah the 5 Million seemed like the total number from just counting the big cities. If you actually include the thousands of small protest events all over the US, 12 Million makes a lot more sense
Over 12 million is also over 5 million, which is tens of thousands (over 1200 tens of thousands, technically)
I used to drink. I still do, but I used to too
top 90 comments