4 ms·

I'm sympathetic to this point of view, but the effect of social media is that people are effectively speaking into a bullhorn for the whole world to hear. Once

I'm sympathetic to this point of view, but the effect of social media is that people are effectively speaking into a bullhorn for the whole world to hear. Once they've done so it's hard to keep that out of work. Let's say someone, call them Frank, expresses on twitter that he thinks women aren't fit for work outside the home and his coworkers discover he said this. At the very least, Frank's female coworkers will almost certainly not feel comfortable working with him anymore knowing his opinions. They're unlikely to believe he respects them, and since they don't believe that they likely won't want to collaborate with him. If Frank's work requires collaboration (as most does), he's now hamstrung himself at work. From the employer's perspective: Frank is now less effective at work. Frank's coworkers who are uncomfortable may try to leave teams Frank is on, or avoid work that might force them to collaborate with Frank. The result is organizational chaos and Frank becomes a drag on the company. The natural response here, I think, is to let Frank go. It's hard to avoid it because there aren't just social pressures to fire him, but economic ones. The above isn't a thought experiment, I've watched more than one version of the above happen. I just don't really see how this separation can be maintained.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
RememberTheFtr 5y ago
This is maybe a fallacy since very few men actually think women shouldn’t work outside the house. A lot of men (and women) think women would be happier in the home than working. There’s also psychological and sexual dynamics in play with submissiveness vs assertiveness required to be competitive. And that our culture of 2 income households and every woman wants to be in STEM to build ad products is a flawed concept. We want all genders to be technically competent but we want a resilient, self sufficient world, that doesn’t have to ‘capitalize’ on every human ambition/potential. Except we live in a world where me saying that makes me sexist. And worthy of doxxing.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  You’re completely missing his point. Think in generalities, the specifics of his example.
kmlx 5y ago
> and his coworkers discover he said this. how and why? we all hold crazy opinions. as long as “Frank” has a proven record of successfully working with women, what exactly is the problem? throughout my career i’ve been working with some crazy individuals. their opinions were expressed in non office settings. then at work they were basically the antithesis of what they were preaching in private. the gist is easy to understand: as long as your opinions don’t affect your work, why should anything like this matter?
- colpabar 5y ago
  I think the difference here is that in this case, there is a tangible record of what was said outside of work, rather than a story about how someone said something outside of work. I'm sure there are countless examples of employees wishing that whatever their crazy coworker said after work was recorded or written down somewhere so they could report it, but that wasn't the case until social media came along and gave everyone a chance to post things online. In the example, Frank probably wouldn't have kept a written record of his opinions precisely because he knew it'd probably get him in trouble if anyone else found it. This doesn't really answer your question of "why does it matter," but I bet that if some of the crazy individuals you worked with had posted their opinions somewhere that people could see them, they would have been fired too.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  > how and why? Someone on twitter tells them?
- Hermitian909 5y ago
  > > and his coworkers discover he said this. > how and why? My post specifically mentions how social media makes this difficult, so that's one way. Rumor is another, but that has existed for as long as we've had workplaces and has not had the same effects, so I presume most people are worried about, again, social media. > as long as “Frank” has a proven record of successfully working with women, what exactly is the problem? Feelings are not always rational, knowing he holds those opinions will make many people viscerally uncomfortable and they will act on it. Whether you think they should react that way, people do, moralizing the issue doesn't solve it. If you disagree with that, I don't think it's a difference we can resolve here. I also think whether Frank has had a proven record of successfully working with women isn't something we can know, and I think others share this view. For example if Frank is in a hiring position he may have passed on female candidates because of his views, or he may not have. No one can verify the details. Frank knows we can't verify the details. Frank may only be acting on his views when he's confident no one can credibly accuse him. This all sounds overwrought, but people really do get caught in these game theory thought experiment quagmires wondering whether Frank or someone like him have or will hurt someone and decide "I don't want to deal with this person". Which leads back to the social dysfunction I described above.
shkkmo 5y ago
Except in this case, Frank used a pseudonym and the only reason why Franks's coworkers feel uncomfortable is because a Twitter admin outed Frank and alleged Frank said things on other platforms that Frank denies having said.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  Frank has no right to anonymity. If someone wants to tell all his coworkers what he said they have just as much right as Frank does to say those things.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    And to face the consequences for that speech, such as the lawsuit that is the subject of this article. I think there are real societal costs to encouraging the removal of anonymity, especially using less than ethical methods and more especially when it causes real harm to people. In this case it was perhaps just losing a job, but often it results in significant risks of real physical harm.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

RememberTheFtr 5y ago

This is maybe a fallacy since very few men actually think women shouldn’t work outside the house. A lot of men (and women) think women would be happier in the home than working. There’s also psychological and sexual dynamics in play with submissiveness vs assertiveness required to be competitive. And that our culture of 2 income households and every woman wants to be in STEM to build ad products is a flawed concept. We want all genders to be technically competent but we want a resilient, self sufficient world, that doesn’t have to ‘capitalize’ on every human ambition/potential. Except we live in a world where me saying that makes me sexist. And worthy of doxxing.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
You’re completely missing his point. Think in generalities, the specifics of his example.

kmlx 5y ago

> and his coworkers discover he said this. how and why? we all hold crazy opinions. as long as “Frank” has a proven record of successfully working with women, what exactly is the problem? throughout my career i’ve been working with some crazy individuals. their opinions were expressed in non office settings. then at work they were basically the antithesis of what they were preaching in private. the gist is easy to understand: as long as your opinions don’t affect your work, why should anything like this matter?

colpabar 5y ago
I think the difference here is that in this case, there is a tangible record of what was said outside of work, rather than a story about how someone said something outside of work. I'm sure there are countless examples of employees wishing that whatever their crazy coworker said after work was recorded or written down somewhere so they could report it, but that wasn't the case until social media came along and gave everyone a chance to post things online. In the example, Frank probably wouldn't have kept a written record of his opinions precisely because he knew it'd probably get him in trouble if anyone else found it. This doesn't really answer your question of "why does it matter," but I bet that if some of the crazy individuals you worked with had posted their opinions somewhere that people could see them, they would have been fired too.
colinmhayes 5y ago
> how and why? Someone on twitter tells them?
Hermitian909 5y ago
> > and his coworkers discover he said this. > how and why? My post specifically mentions how social media makes this difficult, so that's one way. Rumor is another, but that has existed for as long as we've had workplaces and has not had the same effects, so I presume most people are worried about, again, social media. > as long as “Frank” has a proven record of successfully working with women, what exactly is the problem? Feelings are not always rational, knowing he holds those opinions will make many people viscerally uncomfortable and they will act on it. Whether you think they should react that way, people do, moralizing the issue doesn't solve it. If you disagree with that, I don't think it's a difference we can resolve here. I also think whether Frank has had a proven record of successfully working with women isn't something we can know, and I think others share this view. For example if Frank is in a hiring position he may have passed on female candidates because of his views, or he may not have. No one can verify the details. Frank knows we can't verify the details. Frank may only be acting on his views when he's confident no one can credibly accuse him. This all sounds overwrought, but people really do get caught in these game theory thought experiment quagmires wondering whether Frank or someone like him have or will hurt someone and decide "I don't want to deal with this person". Which leads back to the social dysfunction I described above.

shkkmo 5y ago

Except in this case, Frank used a pseudonym and the only reason why Franks's coworkers feel uncomfortable is because a Twitter admin outed Frank and alleged Frank said things on other platforms that Frank denies having said.

colinmhayes 5y ago
Frank has no right to anonymity. If someone wants to tell all his coworkers what he said they have just as much right as Frank does to say those things.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  And to face the consequences for that speech, such as the lawsuit that is the subject of this article. I think there are real societal costs to encouraging the removal of anonymity, especially using less than ethical methods and more especially when it causes real harm to people. In this case it was perhaps just losing a job, but often it results in significant risks of real physical harm.