4 ms·

I specifically said East! East! haha. The person I responded to phrased it in a soul revealing manner: > you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking

I specifically said East! East! haha. The person I responded to phrased it in a soul revealing manner: > you chose to flagrantly violate the rules, thinking that you were special Therefore the snitch will punish you and vengefully cut you down to size. You will be equally unspecial and unhappy compared to the snitch, don't you see? We aren't talking some rule about borrowing red staplers. We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple. This is very much the toxic vibe of East Germany and USSR societies. To a tee.

jchw 5y ago
The whole reason why it’s difficult to empathize is not about whether someone snitches or not, or the mentality of the person who snitches. It’s already clear that the incentives for rule enforcement is screwy. But the rule is there for a reason, a good reason, and everybody else had to follow it. I’ve heard of people leaving companies and having to effectively be demoted due to interpersonal relationships; that’s the responsible thing to do. It avoids the issues of conflict of interest and power dynamics. Choosing to simply flaunt the rules is not exactly admirable and maybe not even that romantic. The maximally romantic thing would be to give up the position as a sacrifice. Do I get why someone wouldn’t want to do that? Sure, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too…
- recuter 5y ago
  My friend, you may very well be right, you may be wrong, completely besides the point. Hypotheticals aside, and with all due respect, what godly business is it of yours? "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. The old soviet ladies watching like hawks from balconies the goings on in the hood were all about power trips and exploiting the situation. If you wish to explore how one well intentioned rule building on another leads to atrocities I recommend you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago What is "maximally romantic" for other people to do is truly none of your concern. Other peoples affairs are their own, who knows if you even understand the situation properly and yet you rush to become their self appointed judge, jury, and executioner... why? For the greater good? Take a long honest look in the mirror.
  - humanistbot 5y ago
    > "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. We are too far apart in our assumptions and definitions to have a meaningful discussion.
    - recuter 5y ago
      Mhm, of course. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition. The pope is infallible. And the cardinal surely knows best. Ours is not to question why. You see, every two bit authoritarian is always so very sure that they are correctly interpreting and enforcing the rules. Strong sense of justice, all for the greater good. And every two bit dictator learns to capitalize on these proclivities. All one has to do is create a rotten atmosphere of guilt, after all, who isn't guilty of something? And then just crown yourself enforcer-in-chief. If anybody questions you just assert that they are morally inferior, insensitive or just don't get it and goose-step away in a huff. You are not batman. You are Thunder Karen.
  - unmole 5y ago
    > "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. Right, because things like rule of law and consistent application of rules are the hallmarks of a fascist polity.
humanistbot 5y ago
> We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple. Sexual relationships between bosses and subordinates are seen a bad idea by many organizations. For the subordinate, is difficult to have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who is managing you, who is in charge of what you do on a day-to-day basis, and can decide whether you are fired or promoted. The power imbalance seeps in to everything. And then even if that was possible and there are no consent issue, there is the other looming accusations of preferential treatment. Did the subordinate get that promotion or that more lucrative assignment because they are sleeping with the boss? Finally, if these office relationships break-up (and many, many of them do), the resulting fallout can be devastating to the organization's productivity and legal liability. For these reasons, many organizations make it a policy to require that these kinds of relationships be disclosed and prohibited. If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other. So that is the rationale. Agree or disagree if you want, but many organizations choose to have this policy. The second-order problem is what do you do if someone who is in a position of authority flagrantly violates an official, explicit policy? What other policies are the violating? Do they also think it is OK to charge personal expenses to a work account? People who are in power and who think the rules are meant to be broken often find their way into rationales to break all kinds of rules. They are a liability to the organization.
- recuter 5y ago
  You yourself are the biggest liability to the organization. People like you is how we ended up in this HR power mad world to begin with. You don't need to laborousoly explain to me office romance, yet another obvious power trip. These policies can hypothetically make sense, sure. You want to talk about a power imbalance, contemplate by whom and how these things are enforced and whether false positives are possible. Are we dealing with subjective or objective things? And sweetness, this is a rhetorical question, I know your answer. I'll ask another one, have you yourself been in many successful relationships? Any? Tell me, are you the HR lady human person in this situation or just some random busybody? Is this not a whole profession that supposedly requires training? > If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other. Gee, thanks for your permission, and what and who are you in all of this? Is this point really flying over your head? Suppose they, as human people, are in this process of figuring it all out. Or that they aren't a couple at all and you misread. And there you go and parachute in with your nonsense and force the issue for them on explicitly your personal terms, not some company policy. Hero vigilantly rescuing the office from these ne'er-do-wells who no doubt are bad immoral people who no doubt also charge personal expenses to the work account and stole your lunch probably.

jchw 5y ago

The whole reason why it’s difficult to empathize is not about whether someone snitches or not, or the mentality of the person who snitches. It’s already clear that the incentives for rule enforcement is screwy. But the rule is there for a reason, a good reason, and everybody else had to follow it. I’ve heard of people leaving companies and having to effectively be demoted due to interpersonal relationships; that’s the responsible thing to do. It avoids the issues of conflict of interest and power dynamics. Choosing to simply flaunt the rules is not exactly admirable and maybe not even that romantic. The maximally romantic thing would be to give up the position as a sacrifice. Do I get why someone wouldn’t want to do that? Sure, but you can’t eat your cake and have it too…

recuter 5y ago
My friend, you may very well be right, you may be wrong, completely besides the point. Hypotheticals aside, and with all due respect, what godly business is it of yours? "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. The old soviet ladies watching like hawks from balconies the goings on in the hood were all about power trips and exploiting the situation. If you wish to explore how one well intentioned rule building on another leads to atrocities I recommend you read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gulag_Archipelago What is "maximally romantic" for other people to do is truly none of your concern. Other peoples affairs are their own, who knows if you even understand the situation properly and yet you rush to become their self appointed judge, jury, and executioner... why? For the greater good? Take a long honest look in the mirror.
- humanistbot 5y ago
  > "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. We are too far apart in our assumptions and definitions to have a meaningful discussion.
  - recuter 5y ago
    Mhm, of course. Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition. The pope is infallible. And the cardinal surely knows best. Ours is not to question why. You see, every two bit authoritarian is always so very sure that they are correctly interpreting and enforcing the rules. Strong sense of justice, all for the greater good. And every two bit dictator learns to capitalize on these proclivities. All one has to do is create a rotten atmosphere of guilt, after all, who isn't guilty of something? And then just crown yourself enforcer-in-chief. If anybody questions you just assert that they are morally inferior, insensitive or just don't get it and goose-step away in a huff. You are not batman. You are Thunder Karen.
- unmole 5y ago
  > "Rules are there for a good reason and must be followed" is also called fascism under certain circumstances. Right, because things like rule of law and consistent application of rules are the hallmarks of a fascist polity.

humanistbot 5y ago

> We're talking about private affairs between adults. Could be a perfectly happy couple. Sexual relationships between bosses and subordinates are seen a bad idea by many organizations. For the subordinate, is difficult to have a consensual sexual relationship with someone who is managing you, who is in charge of what you do on a day-to-day basis, and can decide whether you are fired or promoted. The power imbalance seeps in to everything. And then even if that was possible and there are no consent issue, there is the other looming accusations of preferential treatment. Did the subordinate get that promotion or that more lucrative assignment because they are sleeping with the boss? Finally, if these office relationships break-up (and many, many of them do), the resulting fallout can be devastating to the organization's productivity and legal liability. For these reasons, many organizations make it a policy to require that these kinds of relationships be disclosed and prohibited. If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other. So that is the rationale. Agree or disagree if you want, but many organizations choose to have this policy. The second-order problem is what do you do if someone who is in a position of authority flagrantly violates an official, explicit policy? What other policies are the violating? Do they also think it is OK to charge personal expenses to a work account? People who are in power and who think the rules are meant to be broken often find their way into rationales to break all kinds of rules. They are a liability to the organization.

recuter 5y ago
You yourself are the biggest liability to the organization. People like you is how we ended up in this HR power mad world to begin with. You don't need to laborousoly explain to me office romance, yet another obvious power trip. These policies can hypothetically make sense, sure. You want to talk about a power imbalance, contemplate by whom and how these things are enforced and whether false positives are possible. Are we dealing with subjective or objective things? And sweetness, this is a rhetorical question, I know your answer. I'll ask another one, have you yourself been in many successful relationships? Any? Tell me, are you the HR lady human person in this situation or just some random busybody? Is this not a whole profession that supposedly requires training? > If a boss and a subordinate truly fall in love and want to live a life together more than anything else, then they can try to find alternative roles in the organization where one person in the relationship doesn't report to each other. Gee, thanks for your permission, and what and who are you in all of this? Is this point really flying over your head? Suppose they, as human people, are in this process of figuring it all out. Or that they aren't a couple at all and you misread. And there you go and parachute in with your nonsense and force the issue for them on explicitly your personal terms, not some company policy. Hero vigilantly rescuing the office from these ne'er-do-wells who no doubt are bad immoral people who no doubt also charge personal expenses to the work account and stole your lunch probably.