3 ms·

I'm annoyed by the complete lack of reasoning behind the assumption porn ought to be especially rejected from workplaces. I'm neutral on the conclusion itself.

I'm annoyed by the complete lack of reasoning behind the assumption porn ought to be especially rejected from workplaces. I'm neutral on the conclusion itself. Porn isn't work - neither is reading hacker news, and every sane employer knows that employees need breaks. Some porn is sexist and objectifying - arguably not all of it, and a lot of other things are sexist and objectifying too; are those being equally purged? That might be a good idea. And what about explicitly feminist porn? The article mentions the protection from harassment act - that protects against whatever repeated actions knowingly cause alarm and distress. Porn per se is never mentioned. No doubt it can be a tool of harassment. Ought it to be automatically assumed to equal harassment? The word "inappropriate" is often used - to my mind, that's just a value judgment, like "sinful", unless it's bundled with a reason that stands up to scrutiny, and unless every other thing that would be caught by that reasoning is treated the same. Inappropriate why?

tow21 17y ago
People reading HN at work are unlikely to make their colleagues feel uncomfortable. People looking at (image-based) porn at work are extremely likely to make at least some of their colleagues feel uncomfortable. That's not cool. It doesn't really matter if you feel your colleagues ought or ought not to feel uncomfortable - some of them almost certainly will, and it's frankly antisocial behaviour to act in ways that will offend your colleagues, regardless of whether they "should" be offended. The particular nature of the porn is irrelevant - whether objectifying, sexist of otherwise. (Except if it's text-only perhaps. That would get in people's face much less.) (And all of the above would be equally true, for example, for image-heavy neo-fascist boards.)
- JulianMorrison 17y ago
  OK, that's a justification; would you apply it equally to everything that is just as likely to make others uncomfortable?
mrtron 17y ago
This site just matched a lot of spam filters on explicit...porn

tow21 17y ago

People reading HN at work are unlikely to make their colleagues feel uncomfortable. People looking at (image-based) porn at work are extremely likely to make at least some of their colleagues feel uncomfortable. That's not cool. It doesn't really matter if you feel your colleagues ought or ought not to feel uncomfortable - some of them almost certainly will, and it's frankly antisocial behaviour to act in ways that will offend your colleagues, regardless of whether they "should" be offended. The particular nature of the porn is irrelevant - whether objectifying, sexist of otherwise. (Except if it's text-only perhaps. That would get in people's face much less.) (And all of the above would be equally true, for example, for image-heavy neo-fascist boards.)

JulianMorrison 17y ago
OK, that's a justification; would you apply it equally to everything that is just as likely to make others uncomfortable?

mrtron 17y ago

This site just matched a lot of spam filters on explicit...porn