4 ms·

I don’t know how you understand accountability but people who have clinically-diagnosed mental conditions that keep them from having full agencies over their ac

I don’t know how you understand accountability but people who have clinically-diagnosed mental conditions that keep them from having full agencies over their actions are out of the question. The online political discourse you are referring to rests on the assumption that people with bigoted views and behaviors have no such diagnoses and are willfully embracing and practicing bigotry on their own. You don’t even need to define absolutes, for god’s sakes. The point is that people shouldn’t bring their politics to the office, and they do that by not discriminating on anyone on the basis of anything, which necessitates respecting and valuing everyone equally. The problem is that, simply, people don’t do that and actively refuse to do that, because they feel that their inherently divisive views shouldn’t sow divisiveness in the office. It makes no sense.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago
So if a vegan is offended when you eat a meat sandwich at the office, how do you know who is respecting who? Society is currently not vegan in majority, so you could say they should adapt. Also you could adapt the point of view they are trying to do the least of harm, and are suffering from the harm you do. Then, you should adapt. Diversity is bound to cause friction. That's just how it is. There is no simple good answer to that. It's always case by case. What's right today it not what's right tomorrow.
- Dracophoenix 6y ago
  The points you've raised in your posts are a subject of one Aesop's Fables: the Miller, His Son, and Their Ass. [0] [0]https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miller-his-son-and-their-ass.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miller-his-son-and-their-ass.h...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- 3grdlurker 6y ago
  A vegan can take all the offense they want to take so long as they don’t take it out on someone in the office, because there are so many reasons why doing so is wrong (sowing division is one, as mentioned in previous comment) even if veganism itself is scientifically and ethically justified. I’ll leave it at that unless you actually want to talk about veganism in length. But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, it’s not as ambiguous and complicated as you make it out to be. You cannot be discriminating people on those grounds because all that really matters in the workplace is what each individual brings to the table. You know, the output that you’re actually getting compensated for. I run a small business and I like to draw talent from a diverse pool of applicants, but anybody who makes sexist or racist remarks isn’t getting hired or is definitely getting fired because I don’t like assholes who introduce non-work related friction in the office, though I really just don’t like working with assholes. What you also said about the minority adjusting to the majority is just disagreeable. There are so many periods in history where majority of humans believed something about the world that is also wrong. There also always tends to be an objective basis of right and wrong where a clear purpose is defined, so maybe you should clarify your purpose instead of dealing with ethics from a purely abstract level.
  - BiteCode_dev 6y ago
    So you draw the line at "no turmoil at the office". That's what important to you. That's what you value. That's what you consider respect. One person can be offended, but its on the person to take on themself. You can go anywhere you want with this. If I masturbate on my chair during my break, I don't harm anybody. Do you take offense ? Why ? I don't harm you. But the majority of society would feels it's weird, so you would not allow it. No more "the offended person should just keep the peace" here. Besides, with your example, you can't hire an autistic person. The person will cause turmoil. Just like a person in a wheelchair will need an elevator. So there is some sort of diversity that you decide up front not to accept by design. > But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity. > the output that you’re actually getting compensated for People are more than robots outputting thing. They interact and create likes and dislikes. They talk about something else than work, or they don't feel they belong. The "only" work culture is an illusion, work doesn't happen in a vacuum. But I can see you are starting to use words such as "asshole", which indicate to me this conversation stopped being about sharing idea. I assure you I read all your arguments and took them in consideration carefully, and wish you a good day.
    - 3grdlurker 6y ago
      As I said, no need to talk about absolutes and abstracts. Society as a whole isn’t the context, the context is the workplace, and context is key. There’s no question about how masturbating openly in the office is offensive, and there isn’t a single culture in the world where that is acceptable. I would certainly fire an employee who does that even during break time because the property they’d be doing it on would still be my property, and it certainly would affect the level of comfort and therefore productivity of my employees, so the example you provided is still unambiguously wrong in the office context. > You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity. Neither do you get to decide exactly what kind of diversity companies can aim for. It might not be explicit in the language, but you should know that companies are not going for unqualified diversity, where they put people from marginalized groups with the people who vocally marginalize them. Diversity initiatives typically aim to assemble a workforce that draws talent from multiple groups of people, but also except those that would actively hurt such people, because if they don’t draw a line, all that companies will end up creating is unproductive office drama. The argument about diversity being “completely open by definition” is actually irrelevant since diversity can be qualified and “diverse” != “universal”.

BiteCode_dev 6y ago

So if a vegan is offended when you eat a meat sandwich at the office, how do you know who is respecting who? Society is currently not vegan in majority, so you could say they should adapt. Also you could adapt the point of view they are trying to do the least of harm, and are suffering from the harm you do. Then, you should adapt. Diversity is bound to cause friction. That's just how it is. There is no simple good answer to that. It's always case by case. What's right today it not what's right tomorrow.

Dracophoenix 6y ago
The points you've raised in your posts are a subject of one Aesop's Fables: the Miller, His Son, and Their Ass. [0] [0]https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miller-his-son-and-their-ass.html https://fablesofaesop.com/the-miller-his-son-and-their-ass.h...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
3grdlurker 6y ago
A vegan can take all the offense they want to take so long as they don’t take it out on someone in the office, because there are so many reasons why doing so is wrong (sowing division is one, as mentioned in previous comment) even if veganism itself is scientifically and ethically justified. I’ll leave it at that unless you actually want to talk about veganism in length. But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, it’s not as ambiguous and complicated as you make it out to be. You cannot be discriminating people on those grounds because all that really matters in the workplace is what each individual brings to the table. You know, the output that you’re actually getting compensated for. I run a small business and I like to draw talent from a diverse pool of applicants, but anybody who makes sexist or racist remarks isn’t getting hired or is definitely getting fired because I don’t like assholes who introduce non-work related friction in the office, though I really just don’t like working with assholes. What you also said about the minority adjusting to the majority is just disagreeable. There are so many periods in history where majority of humans believed something about the world that is also wrong. There also always tends to be an objective basis of right and wrong where a clear purpose is defined, so maybe you should clarify your purpose instead of dealing with ethics from a purely abstract level.
- BiteCode_dev 6y ago
  So you draw the line at "no turmoil at the office". That's what important to you. That's what you value. That's what you consider respect. One person can be offended, but its on the person to take on themself. You can go anywhere you want with this. If I masturbate on my chair during my break, I don't harm anybody. Do you take offense ? Why ? I don't harm you. But the majority of society would feels it's weird, so you would not allow it. No more "the offended person should just keep the peace" here. Besides, with your example, you can't hire an autistic person. The person will cause turmoil. Just like a person in a wheelchair will need an elevator. So there is some sort of diversity that you decide up front not to accept by design. > But, going back to the variables that diversity actually pertains to, such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion, You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity. > the output that you’re actually getting compensated for People are more than robots outputting thing. They interact and create likes and dislikes. They talk about something else than work, or they don't feel they belong. The "only" work culture is an illusion, work doesn't happen in a vacuum. But I can see you are starting to use words such as "asshole", which indicate to me this conversation stopped being about sharing idea. I assure you I read all your arguments and took them in consideration carefully, and wish you a good day.
  - 3grdlurker 6y ago
    As I said, no need to talk about absolutes and abstracts. Society as a whole isn’t the context, the context is the workplace, and context is key. There’s no question about how masturbating openly in the office is offensive, and there isn’t a single culture in the world where that is acceptable. I would certainly fire an employee who does that even during break time because the property they’d be doing it on would still be my property, and it certainly would affect the level of comfort and therefore productivity of my employees, so the example you provided is still unambiguously wrong in the office context. > You are limited diversity to a class of parameters you valid. Diversity is, by definition, completely open. You don't decide to limit what's diverse. People are people, they are different. That's diversity. Neither do you get to decide exactly what kind of diversity companies can aim for. It might not be explicit in the language, but you should know that companies are not going for unqualified diversity, where they put people from marginalized groups with the people who vocally marginalize them. Diversity initiatives typically aim to assemble a workforce that draws talent from multiple groups of people, but also except those that would actively hurt such people, because if they don’t draw a line, all that companies will end up creating is unproductive office drama. The argument about diversity being “completely open by definition” is actually irrelevant since diversity can be qualified and “diverse” != “universal”.