4 ms·

For context, I looked up a summary of the US law (and it's complicated, there's a lot of dense material) but here is a succinct definition: "Although harassing

For context, I looked up a summary of the US law (and it's complicated, there's a lot of dense material) but here is a succinct definition: "Although harassing conduct must be objectively viewed as creating a hostile work environment to be unlawful, the subjective perception of the particular harassed employee is still significant. If the employee does not perceive the work environment to be hostile because of that conduct, the conduct is not unlawful harassment." from [1] So, at least in the US (I don't know how this works given state laws) - harassment must objectively be so - but it's clearly also in the eyes of the beholder. They give an example of 'blonde jokes'. Telling a 'blonde joke' constitutes harassment if someone is offended by it. Otherwise, it's not. Which is definitely interesting - 'Blonde jokes' are effectively considered to be 'objectively harassing' - but it's a crime (or not) depending on whether a person perceives it to be offensive. [1] http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/office-hr/managing-the-workplace/workplace-harassment-prevention.aspx http://www.bizfilings.com/toolkit/sbg/office-hr/managing-the...

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia. If you make a blonde joke once and someone says "hey, I don't like being teased about that" then you're not going to face any legal consequences. If you persist in the jokes after that point, you might. It's not that complicated to not be a jerk. I'd also gently suggest to reread your post and consider how slanted your characterizations are. Do you know the people involved? I've met some of them. Many of the people directly involved would strongly disagree with you.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia." --> The 'blonde joke' reference is not my characterization - it's actually used as the example in the fairly legal and specific summary that I referenced. Whoever wrote that article (a lawyer, presumably) felt that was a good way to communicate the essence of the law. So that you'd accuse me of 'being paranoid' when I'm just given you the example offered by what seems to be a very credible legal resource ... is not fair. I don't know anyone involved in this scenario. I have no idea what happened. This person could have been viciously harassed for all I know. But I do know we've only heard one persons voice, and we've only heard totally un-contextualized snippets. (For example - I do not think that 'being told to ask the waitress for a cheque in a stern voice' constitutes harassment.) Assuming that what she is saying is 'basically true'... then the guys she's dealing with are probably douche-bags. But maybe not. I'm not going to assume they are and I don't think anyone should, unless of course 'you know the people involved' in which case you have more information on which to make a judgement.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
    I was unclear, I was referring to your characterization of people and events at github, not the topic of the blog post.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  The issue is that the people arguing against it don't want to not be a jerk. They want to continue being a jerk, and not face any consequences for doing so.

jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago

You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia. If you make a blonde joke once and someone says "hey, I don't like being teased about that" then you're not going to face any legal consequences. If you persist in the jokes after that point, you might. It's not that complicated to not be a jerk. I'd also gently suggest to reread your post and consider how slanted your characterizations are. Do you know the people involved? I've met some of them. Many of the people directly involved would strongly disagree with you.

edblarney 10y ago
"You are way overthinking this bordering on absurd paranoia." --> The 'blonde joke' reference is not my characterization - it's actually used as the example in the fairly legal and specific summary that I referenced. Whoever wrote that article (a lawyer, presumably) felt that was a good way to communicate the essence of the law. So that you'd accuse me of 'being paranoid' when I'm just given you the example offered by what seems to be a very credible legal resource ... is not fair. I don't know anyone involved in this scenario. I have no idea what happened. This person could have been viciously harassed for all I know. But I do know we've only heard one persons voice, and we've only heard totally un-contextualized snippets. (For example - I do not think that 'being told to ask the waitress for a cheque in a stern voice' constitutes harassment.) Assuming that what she is saying is 'basically true'... then the guys she's dealing with are probably douche-bags. But maybe not. I'm not going to assume they are and I don't think anyone should, unless of course 'you know the people involved' in which case you have more information on which to make a judgement.
- jasonwatkinspdx 10y ago
  I was unclear, I was referring to your characterization of people and events at github, not the topic of the blog post.
st3v3r 10y ago
The issue is that the people arguing against it don't want to not be a jerk. They want to continue being a jerk, and not face any consequences for doing so.