491–500 of 692 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I apologize. I read the article, but overlooked that. It's an odd comment for her to make -- and one I'd be curious to know her explanation for.
It sounds like she was rather obviously being white knighted, in a situation where it was clear to her and her coworkers that it was inappropriate. Which then started the problem that her coworkers saw her as favored. (My reading)
If I was back at the start of my career, I would of dismissed this article and told the author to "toughen up". After all, what's a bit of ribbing among co-workers? Surely she's just being overly-sensitive. Until I had the (mis)pleasure of working with a truly toxic co-worker did my mindset completely change on the issue of bullying, intimidation, and hostility in the workplace. He was a senior guy, decent at his job…
I don't mean to discount your experience, but honestly I don't feel like this is the whole story. At least from what I've seen these sorts of things are systemic issues, and it is extremely rare for such problems to be caused by a single bad apple. Again, not trying to discount your personal experiences or lessons, but I'd just be very wary of assigning scapegoat status to a single person for what is clearly a toxic…
You seem like a good leader. I felt more stressed after reading the original post, but I felt a lot less stressed after reading your comment.
I hope you use the way you think to lead and do good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" --> "I don't think there is one." No - the feminine of 'guy' is 'girl'. Point blank. "The guys/girls are in town this week" "Those guys/girls are from Facebook" This is very common and normal language.
I see now that you're from Canada. Maybe what you are saying is true there. In the US, it is not true. Women don't like to be called girls, just like men don't like to be called boys. That our forebears didn't deign to create a feminine version of "guy" is no excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Honest question: what would be the equivalent of "guy" --> "I don't think there is one." No - the feminine of 'guy' is 'girl'. Point blank. "The guys/girls are in town this week" "Those guys/girls are from Facebook" This is very common and normal language.
I see now that you're from Canada. Maybe what you are saying is true there. In the US, it is not true. Women don't like to be called girls, just like men don't like to be called boys. That our forebears didn't deign to create a feminine version of "guy" is no excuse.
There is rather enormous variation in individuals and, often even for the same individual, context in this, within the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except its almost never teasing, its bullying. I learned the difference between teasing someone and bullying in elementary school, directly via the education system (ie. the teacher). Repeated 'joke' on/about the same subject? Bullying. Is it mutual fun between/with different subjects, and can the subject themselves laugh about the joke? Teasing. Telling someone to 'shape up' after they heard a joke regarding their r…
I agree with the distinction you're making, but I don't see at all how it supports the "almost never teasing" lead-in. I'm making a general point, and there are plenty of workplaces where "different subjects and people laugh at themselves also" is a perfectly good summary. I also agree that teasing really shouldn't tread on race/sex/etc - even if it's innocently meant it can easily be a topic too raw for human, and t…
Agreed! Not sure where the theory I use is from but allow me to explain:
Ring 0: 0-5 people. Your best friends. Can be family members, too. Max 5 people, likely less. Ring 1: Your other family, and friends. (These are not your Facebook friends.) Ring 2: Everyone else you know, or think you know. Your co-workers are probably in ring 2. You barely know them, if at all, and you must stay courteous to them by default. Maybe you drink a cup of coffee with a few of them during a break, and eventually get close and get to ring 1 (or even 0, just don't dream about that).
[Note I am not sure if there is also a ring 3 to distinct further. I don't use it.]
So IOW I default co-workers in ring 2.
Those people in ring 0, you can say pretty much anything you want to them. I can make a very, very bad joke about something to people in ring 0 and they'll know I am joking. They can take the offence, and I can take offence from them as well, besides I know when they're joking and when not. It is because I know these people very well, for a longer period of time, and I love them. You don't make friends, you become friends; ie. you can't really force people to get higher in the ring. It kinda goes natural, over time.
The people in ring 2 require a professional attitude. Those are your co-workers. You don't insult them, you don't hurt them, you don't bully them, and... you don't tease them. Why not? Teasing belongs to those in ring 0, and perhaps in ring 1 provided you're careful.
> Which is why your last line is jarring - it's almost exactly the sort of comment that you and the original post are objecting to!
Oh, in such a situation I'd keep it before me, so that'd be some kind of thought crime. The reason why it matters in this context tho is because that detail makes it easy to envision how she became a victim of bullies. You see, bullies pick their victim like a leopard picks their pray. In this example they wouldn't pick a vocal woman who seems to stand up for themselves.
Very well put. I find it very annoying when people declare something to be racist. Racism is the idea that some races are superior or inferior. Unless you literally declare that some races are superior or inferior, what you say is not racist. I do agree that some things might imply that you think some races are inferior, but by declaring something racist, you state that the author has that specific idea and is trying…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia. If you make a blonde joke once and someone says "hey, I don't like being teased about that" then you're not going to face any legal consequences. If you persist in the jokes after that point, you might. It's not that complicated to not be a jerk. I'd also gently suggest to reread your post and consider how slanted your characterizations are. Do you know the…
"You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia." --> The 'blonde joke' reference is not my characterization - it's actually used as the example in the fairly legal and specific summary that I referenced. Whoever wrote that article (a lawyer, presumably) felt that was a good way to communicate the essence of the law. So that you'd accuse me of 'being paranoid' when I'm just given you the example offered b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't comment like this on HN, and by this point you should know that.
I was replying to the person who said the very same thing I said. I literally use their own comment to demonstrate how bad comments like this are. Maybe I should have explicitly called that out for those that weren't reading this comment in context, but the person I replied to knows what I said, and they were who I was replying to. If you are against this comment, you should also report the original comment that said…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wasn't trying to say this at all. What I was saying is simply that X and !X cannot both be evidence of a hypothesis. If X increases your confidence that Y is true, then !X must reduce your confidence. If you want to make a more complicated argument as to why these things aren't actually X and !X, do it. But RodericDay wasn't doing that.
There is something called benevolent sexism ...
For those who doubt it: yes "benevolent" sexism (or racism) is real, unfortunately. There are many ways it can manifest itself, but what it always boils down to is someone with the proverbial "good intentions" who decides to treat someone differently, even in a way they think of as positive, for no other reason than because of their sex (or race). It can be particularly poisonous because once you call someone out for being different, even if it is in a way that you believe to be beneficial, it highlights to everyone around them that they are different, which can make them a target.
The best solution is to always strive to treat everyone equally. People are not perfect, so there will be mistakes, but that should nevertheless always be the goal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have very different experiences then. But again, what word would be better? Is there anything notable about the statement "Black people eat a lot of chicken"? What adjective should we use?
Well, it's a stereotype, that a lot of people find offensive, depending on who they are talking to of course.