Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

This kind of broad definition I find fairly incoherent, because it mixes an emotionally neutral situation(e.g. "black people eat a lot of chicken", which requires context to get any positivity or negativity from) with very emotionally charged situations("especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races"). It's the difference between "the japanese eat a lot of fish, which is peculiar" - a very natural determination for humans to make, owing to our base pattern matching capabilities and curiosity, and "the japanese untermensch feed on garbage from the sea", which is an emotionally charged condemnation of the nationality.

Mixing definitions this way allows activists to declare almost everything racist, which people immediately associate with the worst possible situation. This gives them power over conversations via a motte and bailey tactic - they will demand that their opponents and critics are racist, invoking terrible imagery in neutral observers; once the critics question this, they will retreat to their motte, qualifying their statements were just following the dictionary definition; when the critics are no longer there to rebut the statement, they will dive back to the bailey of claiming "racism" without the qualifications evoked.

> What he did was not the point.

But the way you talk about him totally is. You shouldn't defend people who give you undeserved favors at the cost of others, if this is what he did. And you absolutely shouldn't be surprised by the consequences, if you do.

Your coworkers may have felt equally threatened by this supervisor as you did by them. Associating yourself with people like him will do you no good.

> I feel like you are totally missing why I wrote this piece by focusing on one sentence.

No doubt. People have their own agendas to play, not everybody will support yours.

It's culturally stereotypical, not racially stereotypical.

> it's clearly applied to an entire race

Clearly? How so?

You likely think I am playing a game of semantics, but I genuinely think if we keep playing this game of trying to find reasons to be victims, things will never get better, even if that is what all parties want!

The reason I brought up comedians is because they seem to allow normal people a view into this world, where we can admit that black people in the south eat a lot of fried chicken. Know why? Because it's cheap, and delicious!

Do some racist rednecks still say things like that with an intent to cause harm? Yes, and what should we do? Laugh at them for using such an old, tired, irrelevant, pathetic joke of an attack. Because really, it's really nothing more than that, the rest of "what's there" is often purely in our minds.

We're telling helpless teenagers that don't know any better over and over that a huge portion of the population hate them because of their race, and it is simply not true! We seem determined as a society that racism lives on forever, and it is really unfortunate.

For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIgSQDQC0qc

What should New Zealander's do here, fire up the navy for a show of force off the coast of Sydney? Or should they crack a smile and say "good on ya mate"? Will we forever think of people who have a different color of skin than us...or actually, to be more precise, that have non-white skin, because that's what it's really about, isn't it, thinking that people who are non-white are "different" and must be handled with extreme caution. I reject that completely.

To add further to the former category: appropriate friendly ribbing or banter definitely fall under the category of basic human dignity or respect.

People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of social bonds when you are comfortable enough to be defenseless.

Friendly banter is exactly that, on an emotional level. Sure, crying may make me physically less defended, but allowing some friendly coworker banter makes me emotionally less defended. This encourages bonding. it's the difference between laughing at and laughing with.

Targeting someone maliciously is never acceptable. But friendly banter is sometimes not acceptable. Different people have different tolerances. Calling someone a fat worthless piece of garbage. Probably not ok. saying "geez, another donut?" to a coworker may trigger a group laughter (the subject included: "I start my diet tomorrow, i swear!") or it may cause a reaction the exact same way calling them a worthless piece of garbage might. Discussing their weight might make them feel vulnerable in a bonding sort of way, or in a targeted sort of way, you really should know a person before making those kind of comments though.

I had a young colleague who quit recently. He missed our weekly developer meeting (because he was new, and forgot) and when we got back, another colleague said "Yeah, since you weren't at the meeting, we spent the whole time talking about you" in a clearly joking way, trying to include the new guy in the banter. In fact, he said it to 3 different people who missed the meeting (man, a lot of people missed the meeting that week). The guy demanded he not be a part of the "bro culture" and wanted to work remotely full time. The counter was remote 3 days a week, in office 2, and his desk could be on the opposite side of the building. He rejected that. If you were there, it was apparent that he wasn't being bullied. he had moved across the state for a job and was looking for any way to be able to move back home while keeping the job. His goal was not to get dignity and respect, his goal was to get his way. If he wanted dignity and respect (and honestly thought we spent a whole meeting talking about him behind his back), then any of the concessions offered to him should have worked. Everyone on the team tried to include this guy. Treating him with kid gloves really was kinda more segregating than a toxic individual (when its better to just not talk to someone about real problems than risk upsetting them, that's an issue too). The other guys who missed the meeting looked at the clock, said a profanity, then laughed about it.

[1]: http://www.livescience.com/7854-theory-cry.html - "Crying is a highly evolved behavior," said researcher Oren Hasson, an evolutionary biologist at Tel Aviv University in Israel. "My analysis suggests that by blurring vision, tears lower defenses and reliably function as signals of submission, a cry for help, and even in a mutual display of attachment and as a group display of cohesion."

> I would argue that if the repeated joke is agreed upon by all involved, it doesn't have to be bullying.

True, and this can occur on work, but by default it does not. See my comment hereunder on the different social rings.

There is also the argument that one needs to accept criticism, or "take some flak". People take much better criticism 1 on 1. So if your boss finds that you clothe yourself badly he could address that during a meeting. Another way is by addressing a whole group without mentioning individuals. I suppose at a small company the likelihood you're on close terms with your direct superior is higher, making a situation where a boss just casually mentions your clothing style more fitting.

> If someone can't tell that the subject isn't involved, the problem isn't their bullying/teasing, it's the fact that the person is a jerk.

I'd say a bully is a jerk (and very likely, worse, suffering from personality disorder(s)), but also there is the autism spectrum which meddles with the point you make. A normal person learns this in their childhood but there are people who simply lack the social skills to read their joke is inappropriate. Although even then, it is a spectrum, not a binary 0/1.