3 ms·

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 of

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”.

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”.