3 ms·

I never claimed that businesses "exist in a vacuum", and no, it isn't about inclusivity as soon as an employee is hired: The sole reason why businesses hire peo

by melff 5y ago

I never claimed that businesses "exist in a vacuum", and no, it isn't about inclusivity as soon as an employee is hired: The sole reason why businesses hire people is because they have some work on their hands they want to get done to make money. Others want these decisions to be about "inclusivity" but from the business perspective it isn't. Employment laws don't exist because business is about inclusivity, they exist because we as society don't want businesses to do what they want to do. Employment laws work against business interests, not in favor of them. Regarding that dismissing concerns line, some concerns are not relevant for some people: If you are a doctor and you wish to save the lifes of your patients and to do that you use some sort of specialized software the interfaces with your medical equipment, concerns about the energy of efficiency of the x86 processor it runs on can be dismissed by "I don't care whether this computer draws 100 or 45 Watts, I need it to save lives". Many business people do the same thing but with their goals: "I don't care about inclusivity, I need employees who work for the business and not against it". And I'll be blunt aswell -- If you allow SJWs to disrupt your workforce with irrelevant junk, and thereby harm your business, then you are not qualified to be running that business. And regard HR professionals, yes they are there to keep the workforce productive, not to be inclusive for political activists. I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference.

zxzax 5y ago
>I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference. It really doesn't make much of a difference, you're still shaming activists as being "not normal acting" and for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. Please don't do this, you're an observant individual, you know this is not the point of activism and it's pointless to look at it that way. I don't have much more to say to you when you're saying that employment laws don't help business and that activists advocating for workplace fairness are "disrupting with irrelevant junk." This is completely wrong, the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. If you're saying this is irrelevant junk, well, that's a really great way to get a bad reputation and to get sued for violating employment laws, which would then harm the business. The point of being inclusive is that you're making an effort to avoid pushing people out who DO want to help the business.
- melff 5y ago
  > for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment. I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? > when you're saying that employment laws don't help business if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own. > that activists advocating for workplace fairness.. Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important? > the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working. > When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    >no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment. I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politics and drama. But it's hard to do that when they're being marginalized. >if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own. A lot of them do. Small companies don't have resources to come up with extensive policies so that's where the laws become helpful. >I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? [...] Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. These comments are exactly why I say the term is emotionally loaded and you should avoid using that term, please don't draw false equivalences to attack stereotypes and claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence. You might not mean to do that but that's what you're doing when you use those derogatory terms in that way. This is getting really close to flamewar territory again and I don't want to continue this conversation.

by melff 5y ago

zxzax 5y ago

>I've read the posts again and I think there is still a misunderstanding regarding the term SJW: I'm not using SJW as a term to dismiss something, as I already stated I use it to describe troublemaker/activist-types not normal-acting people who have concerns. That's a huge difference. It really doesn't make much of a difference, you're still shaming activists as being "not normal acting" and for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. Please don't do this, you're an observant individual, you know this is not the point of activism and it's pointless to look at it that way. I don't have much more to say to you when you're saying that employment laws don't help business and that activists advocating for workplace fairness are "disrupting with irrelevant junk." This is completely wrong, the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. If you're saying this is irrelevant junk, well, that's a really great way to get a bad reputation and to get sued for violating employment laws, which would then harm the business. The point of being inclusive is that you're making an effort to avoid pushing people out who DO want to help the business.

melff 5y ago
> for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business. no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment. I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? > when you're saying that employment laws don't help business if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own. > that activists advocating for workplace fairness.. Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important? > the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs. The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working. > When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means. I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.
- zxzax 5y ago
  >no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment. I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politics and drama. But it's hard to do that when they're being marginalized. >if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own. A lot of them do. Small companies don't have resources to come up with extensive policies so that's where the laws become helpful. >I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? [...] Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. These comments are exactly why I say the term is emotionally loaded and you should avoid using that term, please don't draw false equivalences to attack stereotypes and claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence. You might not mean to do that but that's what you're doing when you use those derogatory terms in that way. This is getting really close to flamewar territory again and I don't want to continue this conversation.