6 ms·

I know it's not what you meant, but obviously unwanted physical sexual conduct is immoral/illegal. In regard to verbal sexual conduct I would say it is certain

I know it's not what you meant, but obviously unwanted physical sexual conduct is immoral/illegal. In regard to verbal sexual conduct I would say it is certainly undesirable in a work environment. I wouldn't allow it for a second if I ran a company, but this isn't my company. If Upload want's sexual conduct to be a part of their work environment, it's a dumb choice, but it's their choice. You can't brow beat society into being perfect, you can only give people basic rights and hope for the best. I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. I challenge you to even come up with a definition for verbal harassment that could be universally applicable.

mratzloff 9y ago
Fortunately, it's not your decision if someone is allowed to feel offended or threatened.
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  This is not really relevant either, though — people can feel offended or threatened for many reasons, it doesn’t mean those things can’t be part of the work environment. For example, if someone has questions about the quality of their work, a person might feel threatened — they might be afraid of getting fired — or they might be offended — they might be proud of their work. But we accept reviewing other people’s work as part of the work place, whether or not it offends or threatens. Emotional response is not enough to establish that something (a) is illegal or (b) should be. With regards to feeling threatened, for example, we have to ask: Was the threat of something unlawful? Being fired for doing bad work is not unlawful; being fired for not putting out is.
  - neveroffensive 9y ago
    This is what I've been trying to get at. What makes people offended or uncomfortable is much more arbitrary and subjective than I think most people are willing to admit.
solidsnack9000 9y ago
> I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. Is it the verbal nature of it, that leads you to believe people have no right to be free of it? As a counter example, consider that verbal intimidation is just as illegal as any other kind.
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  This is an interesting comparison. Is verbal intimidation illegal/immoral because of the words being said or the intention of physical violence behind them? Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"? Edit: To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words. Most crimes of words or planning are like that: * Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”. * Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing. * Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth). If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough. Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job. It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark. > If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand... This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?

mratzloff 9y ago

Fortunately, it's not your decision if someone is allowed to feel offended or threatened.

solidsnack9000 9y ago
This is not really relevant either, though — people can feel offended or threatened for many reasons, it doesn’t mean those things can’t be part of the work environment. For example, if someone has questions about the quality of their work, a person might feel threatened — they might be afraid of getting fired — or they might be offended — they might be proud of their work. But we accept reviewing other people’s work as part of the work place, whether or not it offends or threatens. Emotional response is not enough to establish that something (a) is illegal or (b) should be. With regards to feeling threatened, for example, we have to ask: Was the threat of something unlawful? Being fired for doing bad work is not unlawful; being fired for not putting out is.
- neveroffensive 9y ago
  This is what I've been trying to get at. What makes people offended or uncomfortable is much more arbitrary and subjective than I think most people are willing to admit.

solidsnack9000 9y ago

> I'm sorry but I just don't think anyone has the right to be free from verbal harassment. Is it the verbal nature of it, that leads you to believe people have no right to be free of it? As a counter example, consider that verbal intimidation is just as illegal as any other kind.

neveroffensive 9y ago
This is an interesting comparison. Is verbal intimidation illegal/immoral because of the words being said or the intention of physical violence behind them? Is there a difference between saying, "I'm going to kill you tomorrow", or "You must sleep with me or I'll fire you", and "I like your behind"? Edit: To answer your question, yes I do believe that the verbal nature of the non threatening harassment means you don't have a basic human right to be free of it. If the harassment occurred in a language she didn't understand would it have affected her the same?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  Verbal intimidation is illegal because of the threat of harm, not because of the words. Most crimes of words or planning are like that: * Conspiracy is only illegal because it is “conspiracy to commit <something illegal>”. * Slander is a problem because of the potential for damage to one's business, and social standing. * Intimidation of various kinds — including “assault” which is the threat of bodily harm — is problematic because it is so clearly tied to injury (or the disruption or destruction of one’s property, livelihood and so forth). If we examine intimidation, it sheds light on harassment (and overt racism, homophobia and the like). One does not have to spell out the threat of bodily harm in precise detail for it to be assualt. Words and actions that constitute a credible threat are enough. Not every homophobic comment, Nazi salute or joke about women constitutes a positive threat; but in many circumstances they do carry with them a threat: of loss of standing or esteem or even of one’s job. It is not an individual remark like “I like your behind” that constitutes a problem in the work environment, but these cases are never an issue of an individual remark. > If the harassment occurred in a language she didn’t understand... This is a non sequitur. Does intimidation in another language count?