3 ms·

AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. The problem here is A, not B. The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectfu

• a1369209993 5y ago
  > AFAICT, B was polite and respectful while engaging in open debate. Yep. > The problem here is A, not B. I'm pretty sure the implied problem is "B's manager" and "HR". > The problem is _not_ the requirement to be polite and respectful. The problem is that this requirement is not seperable from the details of how it's interpreted and enforced, and in a plurality of organizations that talk about "politeness" and "respect", it is in fact interpreted and enforced in a A(-hole)-ish manner, rather than a manner based on actual politeness and respect. Conversely, organizations that care about actual politeness and respect generally don't belabor the point as much as those that use it as a flimsy excuse, so people tend[0] to see a explicitly "'polite' 'respectful' org" as warning sign of the latter. 0: rightly or wrongly; I'm not sure how the statistics work out on that one. TL;DR: as other people have pointed out, the scare quotes are there for a reason.
• atq2119 5y ago
  Sure, but now the case is before HR and B has to waste cycles defending themselves. Or, depending on just how dysfunctional the place is, they never even hear of the false accusation until months later when it has already metastasized through the organization. Obviously people should be polite and respectful, but when there is too much posturing around these facts, it's easy for malicious actors to weaponize.