3 ms·

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that it's a complex issue with a lot of nuance that often gets discarded, and that there's a judgement call to be mad

by taneq 5y ago

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I agree that it's a complex issue with a lot of nuance that often gets discarded, and that there's a judgement call to be made on who needs to alter their expectations between the person taking the action and the person feeling uncomfortable. I think for myself that line is usually determined by who is more active and more specific in the situation, combined with the severity of the material. Some probably-poorly-thought-out off-the-top-of-my-head examples: - If someone's sending objectionable material to a coworker, they're clearly out of line (active > passive) - If someone's stalking a coworker online trying to find something to be offended about, they're clearly out of line (active > passive) - If someone's saying mildly mean things online about a large group in general, and a coworker of that group stalks them and finds the mean things, I'd usually side with the former (active+nonspecific < active+specific) - If someone's saying horrendous things online about a large group in general, and a coworker of that group stalks them and finds the mean things, I'd usually side with the latter (active+nonspecific+awful > active+specific) - If someone's writing explicit rape fantasies about a coworker and publishing them online, and the coworker stumbles on them, I'd definitely side with the latter (active+specific+awful >> passive+nonspecific)

didibus 5y ago
Ya, I agree with all those. Any active both ways is kind of creepy. But if it just came to be known, that's where I think things get grey. Like, I don't really know how to reconcile the thought of someone who actively, but outside of work, is taking a stance against certain people, and then goes to work and pretends to have no issue with having a coworker of that same group. Seems hypocrite, and also feels impossible for me to believe they truly have no issue, it sounds more like they have no choice, but if they did, they'd immediately take actions against them at work as well. Similarly, anyone "looking for dirt" about their coworkers actively, that's hostile in its own way. And if people overblow things, for example, maybe someone is into some weird fiction with female sex slaves, ya it's weird, but it can be a fantasy, it doesn't mean that they advocate for women to become men pleaser and have their rights relinquished, in fact, politically they might be a big feminist, and yet that could be a weird kink fantasy they're simultaneously into. A person who'd blow it out of proportion and try to get them fired for it is probably holding a grudge against people of their kind in a way as well, trying to get dirt and paint them for a scumbag where in actuality their actions could be generous, kind and supporting of all women. To me, both these extremes create a toxic work environment, and I don't want either as a coworker or manager. Thankfully, I think most people are neither of these, but we only hear of the bad apples, and we tend to immediately rally for the side where we feel the more likely to be characterized as. I was trying not to do that and see all sides.

by taneq 5y ago

didibus 5y ago

Ya, I agree with all those. Any active both ways is kind of creepy. But if it just came to be known, that's where I think things get grey. Like, I don't really know how to reconcile the thought of someone who actively, but outside of work, is taking a stance against certain people, and then goes to work and pretends to have no issue with having a coworker of that same group. Seems hypocrite, and also feels impossible for me to believe they truly have no issue, it sounds more like they have no choice, but if they did, they'd immediately take actions against them at work as well. Similarly, anyone "looking for dirt" about their coworkers actively, that's hostile in its own way. And if people overblow things, for example, maybe someone is into some weird fiction with female sex slaves, ya it's weird, but it can be a fantasy, it doesn't mean that they advocate for women to become men pleaser and have their rights relinquished, in fact, politically they might be a big feminist, and yet that could be a weird kink fantasy they're simultaneously into. A person who'd blow it out of proportion and try to get them fired for it is probably holding a grudge against people of their kind in a way as well, trying to get dirt and paint them for a scumbag where in actuality their actions could be generous, kind and supporting of all women. To me, both these extremes create a toxic work environment, and I don't want either as a coworker or manager. Thankfully, I think most people are neither of these, but we only hear of the bad apples, and we tend to immediately rally for the side where we feel the more likely to be characterized as. I was trying not to do that and see all sides.