4 ms·

That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?

by st3v3r 10y ago

MaulingMonkey 10y ago
I'm not entirely sure if you're saying "toughen up" is never the answer, or "firing" is never the answer. Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of. Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.
- bisby 10y ago
  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 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."
  - vanderreeah 10y ago
    Bisby, I just can't understand how you go from a - very clearly to me - thought-through understanding of the nuances of response to targeted banter, to your apparent mind-reading of your colleague's motivations. I'm not saying that his motivations weren't bound up with a desire to move back home, but you state it with such dogmatic certainty it undoes any reasonableness your previous arguments so convincingly showed. "His goal was [...] to get his way". The assumption that your view must also be his view, and that if it is not he must be duplicitous, bespeaks a terrifying lack of imagination. Perhaps he's not the kind of guy to "say a profanity" and carry on working. Who knows? Perhaps you're right, but we just can't say. Why assume the worst of him?
    - bisby 10y ago
      You're right, I can't for sure say that. I've left out some stuff, but it is sort of a "you had to be there" kind of things. A lot of small stuff added up. He had been working 2-3 months at a job where it was clearly labeled as remote work is a one off privilege (Snowed in? Work remotely. Kid sick? Work remotely. In general, be in the office). Yet after the incident, his only demand was full time remote. He didn't care if people were reprimanded. He didn't care if he didn't have to see the people that offended him. Anyone who was actually bothered by the situation I feel would care more about having the situation corrected rather than just getting full time remote. "I don't like the culture in the programming area" - "we can move your desk so you aren't even within earshot of that area, and we'll make sure the programmers are more professional in their discussions" - "no, that won't do, I need to be full time remote" We had previously invited this guy to partake in stuff on weekends with us. The one time he even said "maybe", he wound up going to visit his parents that weekend instead. This was not some sort of exclusionary tactic, and this was probably the first time he was "targeted" by something. Also, I'm not going to say that the "bully" was in the right here. This was a person who was clearly not intending to be a friend. Keeping things limited to professional interactions only would have been just fine, I don't need to be friends with all my coworkers (though I could see being the only one in a department that isn't a friend as kind of intimidating, but again, that was by his decision, not anyone else's). This "bully" has a hard time determining when it is appropriate to make jokes or when he's pushing it too far. But this wasn't an exceptionally inappropriate comment in my mind. I used a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but it truly did seem like a case of "straw that broke the camel's back." The incident very possibly did bother him, but it was an isolated incident, and any of the reparations offered to him should have worked. This was not a scenario of him being bullied constantly. In my mind, in any other scenario, this event could not have triggered the response it got. Quitting your job because they won't let you work remotely after someone says "we were talking about you when you weren't around" seems like an extreme response. To that extent, I'm not assuming "the worst of him." He was a young homesick guy who was having an off day. Unfortunately, that off day was the day someone decided to include him in the office banter, and in that moment, he made a decision to go back home and made a last effort to keep his job while doing it. Edit - point being that someone being constantly harassed for sexual, gender, religious, racial or whatever reasons, I can totally see making a "fuck this I'm out"... Maybe I'm too close to the situation to see why this guy was bothered so much, but his situation to me doesn't seem anything like the woman in the article's.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Toughen up" is never the answer. "It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. " This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building. "To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned." Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring. "Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice" Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing".
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    > This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building. When two people agree that they're engaging in friendly banter with/against each other, and an unrelated third party freaks out with their own misinterpretation of the situation, is it still the people engaging in banter who are to blame? Because I've seen this. And what about the person who cannot handle having their code reviewed - no matter how softly and kindly the reviewer attempts to approach the topic? Despite making it very clear that minor suggestions for further improvements aren't some kind of slanderous attack against one's personal character? Look: We agree sometimes someone's just being a dick, even if they weren't intentionally malicious about it, and it's their fault and they need to change their behavior. But it does not follow that absolutely every bit of miscommunication is completely and utterly the fault of the person attempting to convey something. If I misremember the meaning of a word, that's on me. If I willfully twist and misinterpret someone's words, that's on me. If I mistakenly do so, when the other party has communicated quite clearly and in good will? That's still on me. Communication requires the effort of two parties, and completely absolving one of them from any roll in doing so successfully isn't reasonable or helpful. If I have a habit of ascribing malice where there is none - in an ideal world, someone sits down and we have a conversation where they can successfully convey that, no, pointing out a typo in a doc comment isn't a personal attack on my character, we all make the same mistakes, we're just trying to help each other out and get more stuff done better as a team - they mean to offer me a hand up, rather than to put me down. I'd call this a long winded way of saying: "toughen up." What would you call it, instead? Or do you even agree with me that this conversation should happen? Surely we shouldn't just fire the person giving me a code review, because of my own hangups and hypersensitivities? > Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring. Which is why I suggested it. On the other hand, we see calls to disinvite people from conferences, ban their social media accounts, fire them, to 'dox' them and harass them off the internet entirely for perceived transgressions. These, perhaps, are attempts at censorship. This I suggest against. > Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing". At which point, you've moved from assumptions of malice to evidence. Yes, there are assholes out there. It sucks. We should try to do something about it. "Doing something about it" should not be pretaliation based on thin assumptions, being an asshole before they can be an asshole.

That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?

by st3v3r 10y ago

That's never the answer. Why is it that it's ok to not treat some people with basic human dignity and respect?

I'm not entirely sure if you're saying "toughen up" is never the answer, or "firing" is never the answer. Assuming the former: It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned. "Toughen up" is perhaps not quite the right phrasing here: It's asking people to perhaps extend the basic human dignity and respect you request of others, to others. Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice. Treating the other person as a person capable of mistakes or being misunderstood, instead of a gremlin to simply assume the worst of. Assuming the latter: Sometimes you simply can't work through the problem. They may be a toxic individual - they may simply be driven to toxic behavior at this job (perhaps they hate it) - perhaps it's simply a matter of deciding who you're going to keep between two people who simply cannot get along with each other, to the point of causing problems for the rest of the team. Assuming you can fix their issues when they can't isn't treating them with dignity or respect. Leaving the situation to fester and drag on isn't treating the rest of your team with dignity and respect. Firing one or both of them might not be treating them with dignity and respect either - but you've only so many options. But just because you're firing someone doesn't mean you can't at least strive to do so. Wish them well on their next venture, and mean it.

bisby 10y ago
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 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."
- vanderreeah 10y ago
  Bisby, I just can't understand how you go from a - very clearly to me - thought-through understanding of the nuances of response to targeted banter, to your apparent mind-reading of your colleague's motivations. I'm not saying that his motivations weren't bound up with a desire to move back home, but you state it with such dogmatic certainty it undoes any reasonableness your previous arguments so convincingly showed. "His goal was [...] to get his way". The assumption that your view must also be his view, and that if it is not he must be duplicitous, bespeaks a terrifying lack of imagination. Perhaps he's not the kind of guy to "say a profanity" and carry on working. Who knows? Perhaps you're right, but we just can't say. Why assume the worst of him?
  - bisby 10y ago
    You're right, I can't for sure say that. I've left out some stuff, but it is sort of a "you had to be there" kind of things. A lot of small stuff added up. He had been working 2-3 months at a job where it was clearly labeled as remote work is a one off privilege (Snowed in? Work remotely. Kid sick? Work remotely. In general, be in the office). Yet after the incident, his only demand was full time remote. He didn't care if people were reprimanded. He didn't care if he didn't have to see the people that offended him. Anyone who was actually bothered by the situation I feel would care more about having the situation corrected rather than just getting full time remote. "I don't like the culture in the programming area" - "we can move your desk so you aren't even within earshot of that area, and we'll make sure the programmers are more professional in their discussions" - "no, that won't do, I need to be full time remote" We had previously invited this guy to partake in stuff on weekends with us. The one time he even said "maybe", he wound up going to visit his parents that weekend instead. This was not some sort of exclusionary tactic, and this was probably the first time he was "targeted" by something. Also, I'm not going to say that the "bully" was in the right here. This was a person who was clearly not intending to be a friend. Keeping things limited to professional interactions only would have been just fine, I don't need to be friends with all my coworkers (though I could see being the only one in a department that isn't a friend as kind of intimidating, but again, that was by his decision, not anyone else's). This "bully" has a hard time determining when it is appropriate to make jokes or when he's pushing it too far. But this wasn't an exceptionally inappropriate comment in my mind. I used a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but it truly did seem like a case of "straw that broke the camel's back." The incident very possibly did bother him, but it was an isolated incident, and any of the reparations offered to him should have worked. This was not a scenario of him being bullied constantly. In my mind, in any other scenario, this event could not have triggered the response it got. Quitting your job because they won't let you work remotely after someone says "we were talking about you when you weren't around" seems like an extreme response. To that extent, I'm not assuming "the worst of him." He was a young homesick guy who was having an off day. Unfortunately, that off day was the day someone decided to include him in the office banter, and in that moment, he made a decision to go back home and made a last effort to keep his job while doing it. Edit - point being that someone being constantly harassed for sexual, gender, religious, racial or whatever reasons, I can totally see making a "fuck this I'm out"... Maybe I'm too close to the situation to see why this guy was bothered so much, but his situation to me doesn't seem anything like the woman in the article's.
st3v3r 10y ago
"Toughen up" is never the answer. "It is entirely possible to misinterpret friendly ribbing or banter as something far more malicious. " This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building. "To assume the worst of someone who genuinely means no harm, and to suggest they should be punished, censored, and shunned." Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring. "Where, perhaps, simply asking them firmly to knock it off, explaining you are finding their jokes hurtful, and giving them the chance to change their behavior, is perhaps more appropriate than forming an internet lynch mob based on assumptions of malice" Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing".
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  > This is still entirely the fault of the one who mistakes ribbing for actual team building. When two people agree that they're engaging in friendly banter with/against each other, and an unrelated third party freaks out with their own misinterpretation of the situation, is it still the people engaging in banter who are to blame? Because I've seen this. And what about the person who cannot handle having their code reviewed - no matter how softly and kindly the reviewer attempts to approach the topic? Despite making it very clear that minor suggestions for further improvements aren't some kind of slanderous attack against one's personal character? Look: We agree sometimes someone's just being a dick, even if they weren't intentionally malicious about it, and it's their fault and they need to change their behavior. But it does not follow that absolutely every bit of miscommunication is completely and utterly the fault of the person attempting to convey something. If I misremember the meaning of a word, that's on me. If I willfully twist and misinterpret someone's words, that's on me. If I mistakenly do so, when the other party has communicated quite clearly and in good will? That's still on me. Communication requires the effort of two parties, and completely absolving one of them from any roll in doing so successfully isn't reasonable or helpful. If I have a habit of ascribing malice where there is none - in an ideal world, someone sits down and we have a conversation where they can successfully convey that, no, pointing out a typo in a doc comment isn't a personal attack on my character, we all make the same mistakes, we're just trying to help each other out and get more stuff done better as a team - they mean to offer me a hand up, rather than to put me down. I'd call this a long winded way of saying: "toughen up." What would you call it, instead? Or do you even agree with me that this conversation should happen? Surely we shouldn't just fire the person giving me a code review, because of my own hangups and hypersensitivities? > Telling them to knock it off is NOT censoring. Which is why I suggested it. On the other hand, we see calls to disinvite people from conferences, ban their social media accounts, fire them, to 'dox' them and harass them off the internet entirely for perceived transgressions. These, perhaps, are attempts at censorship. This I suggest against. > Because no one has ever faced retaliation for doing just this. No one, upon hearing this from a co-worker, has never ratcheted up the "friendly ribbing". At which point, you've moved from assumptions of malice to evidence. Yes, there are assholes out there. It sucks. We should try to do something about it. "Doing something about it" should not be pretaliation based on thin assumptions, being an asshole before they can be an asshole.