4 ms·

I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. Or is it just if I'm oblivious to the harassment I cause & don't care to fi

• breischl 11y ago
  >>I mean if we're going to use that definition, then the shirt itself was harassment. I'll just assume you meant "bullying" instead of "harassment" since that was the immediate topic. From my brief research it seems Matt Taylor wore the shirt because he liked it, not with an intention to harass women, so it fails the intent clause of the definition. And it appears he only wore it once, so it would also fail the persistence clause. Thus it wouldn't be bullying by that definition. I suspect that wearing that shirt would qualify as harassment under some definitions, such as US workplace law. And I personally think it's in terrible taste in most contexts.
• 13thLetter 11y ago
  How is wearing a tacky bowling shirt "persistent acts intended to make life unpleasant for another person"? Can you, at the very least, point to that person?