5 ms·

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

by 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.

by bisby 10y ago

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.