601–610 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d remove religion. Adults choose their beliefs, both political and spiritual.
Beliefs aren't chosen, or at least they are very "sticky". What you chose is how you let those beliefs inform your actions
Race and sex and sexual attraction are innate qualities.
People can and do change their beliefs - I’m not sure why anyone would say otherwise as they can easily confirm this for themselves.
They're reaping what they've sowed, so I don't exactly feel bad about big tech firms trying to flee "wokeness" (read: performative activism that hurts its causes more than it helps them) and finding out they won't be able to do so that easily, as it's exactly the kind of environment they've cultivated and the sort of people they've catered to for the past decade. Everything you do can be construed as a political stat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think in the future, people will start to embrace pseudonymous accounts. People will not share any opinions with their real identities. But they'll do it with their pseudonymous accounts. This can go further than sharing opinions. People's livelihood will be based on their pseudonymous accounts. It happens already in cryptocurrencies projects. Some accounts who work in these projects are pseudonymous accounts. They…
This is also what people do in autocratic regimes. Effectively we have created a "democratic autocracy" by means of allowing mobs of people to steamroll people online and destroy their reputations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The grandparent was asking what those purposes are, not what amount of them there are.
And I offered one place to look for an answer: one’s own purposes for engaging in this very discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee…
> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…
For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment.
I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things.
I'm not super keen on how this is all shaking out either, but it's pretty obvious how to avoid problems at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee…
> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…
I mean, suppose Chaos Monkey (again, I haven't read it, so I don't have an opinion) said "Man, the US was so much better when we had slavery" or "This country has all been downhill ever since women got the right to vote." Would you still be making this same argument? I mean this seriously: go ahead and respond with a truly egregious, offensive example and see if you still want to argue "they shouldn't be fired for what they do in their own time".
Again, my whole point is that I think what you really believe is that the offense really just wasn't that bad (and, indeed, maybe it wasn't, I don't know), not that anything out of work is off limits.
> according to a new Harris poll commissioned by Paradigm, a diversity consultancy, more than two-thirds of adults in America want to be able to discuss racial-justice issues at work I just plain do not believe this poll.
This was never a problem pre-pandemic. People would discuss these issues at lunch or at the watercooler. If you were bothered by politics interrupting your little heads-down work bubble? Just take lunch at your desk or pack your own water bottle. But in the WFH age, there's no getting away from it. These discussions happen in company general chat, where often important business also happens.
I'm lucky in that I have never worked at such a company. My love for email continues to grow and knows no bounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…
> I don't see how that is hard to understand. For a growing percentage of the workplace, knowing that a coworker has a socially unacceptable opinion is creating a hostile work environment. I completely understand where you're coming from, but you're literally wrong. If you don't want to be shunned from society, don't be identified as someone who does socially unacceptable things. I'm not super keen on how this is all…
People who claim to have superior moral principles do not get to enforce them in the workplace. Organisations that rally around moral principles don't get to decide who does and does not enjoy employment.
Intransigent squeaky wheels do not get to decide what "hostile work environment" means. It has to mean hostility in the work environment. If it comes to mean "disagrees with my politics" then society is in for a world of hurt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. No. A million times no. If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. Nobody, absolutely nobody, is under any obligation to preemptively address things someone imagines might happen based on their misi…
With how much we know about implicit bias causing so many problems in equity for things like promotions and opportunity in the workplace, having someone publicly espouse explicit bias should come with some consequences. The glass ceiling exists. You’re saying it shouldn’t be based on an out of context fragment, and I agree but often in those situations in context can mean the same thing. Case by case for sure but if…
Researchers haven't found a link between implicit bias and behavior. [1] From the abstract:
"No causal relationship: Implicit bias doesn't affect behavior at all."
Is there more recent research that contradicts this?
1: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190802144415.h...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If and when an employee creates a hostile work environment, then the employer may address it by disciplining or firing that employee. I don't believe this at all, and more importantly, the way you've phrased your second paragraph, I don't think you really believe it all, either. That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee…
> That is, your first paragraph appears to be arguing that it's only OK to fire an employee for "hostile work environment" if that employee does something hostile at work, and never OK to fire based on stuff an employee has written before being hired. What do you think a hostile work environment is? How do writings outside of work affect the work environment? The work environment is...things that happen at work. In o…
Hypothetically, say someone hates you, think you're a low life, that you're not as smart, and have bad habits, a trash culture, despise the way you dress and talk, and find your life choice repulsive, might even think you're tainted and doomed to eternal condemnation.
Now say you work with this person, but at work they pretend like none of it. They act normal and casual with you, and so they don't exhibit an active hostile environment.
Now say you found their online blog, where they basically reveal their sentiment about you. Lets even say they don't specifically mention you by name, but they clearly describe their hate for people which you'd identify as.
Now you go to work the next day with this person... Will you also just pretend like none of it? Will that knowledge now not have inherently tainted the work environment for you? What if they're your manager?