5 ms·

"Semantic stop signs" are what are being used here. They indicate that the conversation is over. The problem is that it cuts both ways: "I think I might not b

"Semantic stop signs" are what are being used here. They indicate that the conversation is over. The problem is that it cuts both ways: "I think I might not be straight" "Oh, we don't do that here, we believe in the lord." If you're like me and believe in maximizing individual agency, you teach people to resist semantic stop signs and not use them. We question the stop signs. We actively interrogate the rules we are told to not question.

hansword 4y ago
Your comment made me remember another handy rule: "if stuff doesn't cut both ways, find out why it doesn't"
strken 4y ago
If you're like me, and probably also like you and the author, you pick your battles. "We don't write tests here" is probably a more worthy use of your time than "we don't talk about the receptionist's boobs here."
jtbayly 4y ago
“Question authority.” Why should I? Or Who’s going to make me? Or Or what?
- a1369209993 4y ago
  Congratulations, you've reached the de minimis level of contrariness that that advice was meant to instill; provided you're not a hypocrit about it, you should do fine.
  - jtbayly 4y ago
    Thanks for the condescension.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
This is just like "racist" and "groomer" in online discourse. I would hate being told "we don't do that here." Tell me why you don't do it. This is another way to ossify discourse and prevent people from questioning anything.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  The problem with that is that a lot of things, like for example racism or the value of eugenics, were publicly litigated decades ago and we overall decided we'd be overall better without them. Not everyone agrees with that! And by continually pushing back against the "we don't do that" consensus, and arguing about the details, they keep these ideas floating around longer than they really should. Choosing to engage with them when they've already been "settled" gives them apparent legitimacy and now you're setting explicit written policies about which words can and can't be used in what contexts and shit, rather than enforcing a social norm via a social mechanism. Some things need to be ossified! You can't be an athlete without a skeleton, you can't keep every idea in a pliable cartilage form forever if you want to do useful work on or around it. When things are more or less settled they should be solidified as well.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" is a much, much, much stronger answer than "we don't talk about eugenics". The semantic stop sign betrays weakness, like eugenics might maybe have some secret kernal of truth. The thrashing of it is both scientifically correct and demystifies it.
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.
hinkley 4y ago
If you don’t ever use the stop signs, you will get trolled as a means of blunting your effectiveness. Something I wish the Left would figure out because the Right uses it on them all the time. “We don’t do that here” means there are more important things for us to discuss right now. I knew a mother who allowed her kids to question everything all the time. It was cool to watch. Once. After a while I realized why she was also the most tired mom I had met. At some point the kids realize dessert before dinner is a question we are safe to ask, so we are gonna ask it four times a week. I’m not sure if she ever saw that she conditioned them into that via random reinforcement. They didn’t stop until the youngest was about 14. That’s a long time to be tired.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  There is an online segment that uses semantic stopsogns so much they have lost their power. "That's racist!" "You're a bigot!" "You can't use that word!" The response is predictably, "Yes, Yes, I'm a terrible nazi bigot racist. Now as I was saying..." There is a guide to responding, especially to the repeated questions, which often comes with discussions. Yes, you may need to repeat that discussion a bunch. So it goes.
  - olsonjeffery 4y ago
    You're just describing online interactions. This post was written for people who work in the real world with real people, not online freaks. There are many other pressures at play that make this a totally appropriate tool to communicate shared values, none of which you've considered in your argument.
- kaoD 4y ago
  > Something I wish the Left would figure out because the Right uses it on them all the time. Nice flamebait but I'll take it. Funny you said that considering the american left (and therefore the western left, delayed a couple years) is postmodernism distilled. The left is the kids in your story, and society is the mom. The right is just watching and reaping the rewards.
- valarauko 4y ago
axblount 4y ago
From the essay: > “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals. Of course it cuts both ways. Any method of setting a boundary can be used to enforce morally just or unjust rules. The authors point is that > “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture. Genuinely asking: Does your position of "maximizing individual agency" mean that we should not enforce boundaries? If am running an office and someone makes a homophobic joke (not acceptable), what (in your view) is my recourse?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  "Hey, I find that to be really hurtful and would appreciate it if you didn't make jokes like that." To in wit you might get the reply "Why do you find that joke hurtful?" You can either throw out a semantic stop sign or engage in empathy. You can share meaningfully why you don't like those terms or jokes. You might say something like "My father told a lot of homophobic jokes to crush my self esteem once I came out as gay and I still find them hurtful." Notice how we are enforcing a boundary not as an arbitrary line but as a conversation between two people? We use reasoning - not just cold rationality but the full spectrum of emotional reasoning too - to negotiate boundaries.
  - axblount 4y ago
    I think she's very clear that "We don't do that here." shouldn't be the first line of defense or used in every situation. > When I’m able I’d much rather spend the time to educate someone about diversity and inclusion issues and see if I can change how they see the world a bit. But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated. So in this case, I would agree with you. I think the author would as well. She is not making this suggestion as a one size fits all response to off-color remarks. It's useful when people really should know better and there's other work that should be done. Or, the person is unable to accept criticism.
screye 4y ago
The word "We" is of critical importance here. It implies that the one asking the question is by definition an outsider, and they should know their place. It also implies : "You do not need to know the answer because you are too unimportant; OR this is a stupid question who's answer is obvious." IMO, it is easier and less combative to tell the real reason you refuse to answer and take personal/individual ownership for it. "I spent X amount of time figuring out architecture. It will take a Y time to explain. Let's discuss this in another venue where time isn't a bottleneck"; OR; "The manager / higher-ups decided that certain personal topics are off the table to maintain cohesion between the team." It is fine to impose culture onto new entrants to the group. But, that inherently implies a power imbalance which is important to acknowledge and communicate. If this is supposed to be an equal relationship with equal agency, then this sort of behavior veers on workplace bullying. I agree with the above commenter, that such rigidity and opaqueness towards interrogating a team's culture cuts both ways. If you wish to use it, then do so at your own peril.
tomjen3 4y ago
It also doesn't work when you are prepared for it. If you tell me we don't do x here and I then say "then you haven't paid attention" or something like that, then all we do is set us up for conflict.
mcguire 4y ago
"teach people to resist semantic stop signs and not use them" Why would you do that? What's wrong with them?
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  Question asking and rationality are how humans grow. We both need to be able to explain our reasoning and listen to the reasoning of others.

hansword 4y ago

Your comment made me remember another handy rule: "if stuff doesn't cut both ways, find out why it doesn't"

strken 4y ago

If you're like me, and probably also like you and the author, you pick your battles. "We don't write tests here" is probably a more worthy use of your time than "we don't talk about the receptionist's boobs here."

jtbayly 4y ago

“Question authority.” Why should I? Or Who’s going to make me? Or Or what?

a1369209993 4y ago
Congratulations, you've reached the de minimis level of contrariness that that advice was meant to instill; provided you're not a hypocrit about it, you should do fine.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  Thanks for the condescension.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

This is just like "racist" and "groomer" in online discourse. I would hate being told "we don't do that here." Tell me why you don't do it. This is another way to ossify discourse and prevent people from questioning anything.

giraffe_lady 4y ago
The problem with that is that a lot of things, like for example racism or the value of eugenics, were publicly litigated decades ago and we overall decided we'd be overall better without them. Not everyone agrees with that! And by continually pushing back against the "we don't do that" consensus, and arguing about the details, they keep these ideas floating around longer than they really should. Choosing to engage with them when they've already been "settled" gives them apparent legitimacy and now you're setting explicit written policies about which words can and can't be used in what contexts and shit, rather than enforcing a social norm via a social mechanism. Some things need to be ossified! You can't be an athlete without a skeleton, you can't keep every idea in a pliable cartilage form forever if you want to do useful work on or around it. When things are more or less settled they should be solidified as well.
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  "Eugenics was a failure because it fundamentally misunderstands human development and behavior. We now have strong evidence that nurture and social expectations play a bigger role in behavior and outcomes than your genetics" is a much, much, much stronger answer than "we don't talk about eugenics". The semantic stop sign betrays weakness, like eugenics might maybe have some secret kernal of truth. The thrashing of it is both scientifically correct and demystifies it.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    And now you're having a nature vs nurture debate at work, how is this a better outcome? That approach assumes that 1) every venue is an appropriate venue for a debate, 2) that everyone who supports a value or norm is educated enough on it to explain its technical merits to a skeptical audience and 3) everyone is capable of defending that idea against a hostile debate opponent in public. To me "we decided, it's not like that here" is firm and clear, communicates that this is a social norm that is not up for debate at this time in this venue, without necessarily declaring it's absolutely final or that there is no appropriate venue. There are not really any perfect solutions here but this is a quite good one.

hinkley 4y ago

If you don’t ever use the stop signs, you will get trolled as a means of blunting your effectiveness. Something I wish the Left would figure out because the Right uses it on them all the time. “We don’t do that here” means there are more important things for us to discuss right now. I knew a mother who allowed her kids to question everything all the time. It was cool to watch. Once. After a while I realized why she was also the most tired mom I had met. At some point the kids realize dessert before dinner is a question we are safe to ask, so we are gonna ask it four times a week. I’m not sure if she ever saw that she conditioned them into that via random reinforcement. They didn’t stop until the youngest was about 14. That’s a long time to be tired.

vorpalhex 4y ago
There is an online segment that uses semantic stopsogns so much they have lost their power. "That's racist!" "You're a bigot!" "You can't use that word!" The response is predictably, "Yes, Yes, I'm a terrible nazi bigot racist. Now as I was saying..." There is a guide to responding, especially to the repeated questions, which often comes with discussions. Yes, you may need to repeat that discussion a bunch. So it goes.
- olsonjeffery 4y ago
  You're just describing online interactions. This post was written for people who work in the real world with real people, not online freaks. There are many other pressures at play that make this a totally appropriate tool to communicate shared values, none of which you've considered in your argument.
kaoD 4y ago
> Something I wish the Left would figure out because the Right uses it on them all the time. Nice flamebait but I'll take it. Funny you said that considering the american left (and therefore the western left, delayed a couple years) is postmodernism distilled. The left is the kids in your story, and society is the mom. The right is just watching and reaping the rewards.
valarauko 4y ago

axblount 4y ago

From the essay: > “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals. Of course it cuts both ways. Any method of setting a boundary can be used to enforce morally just or unjust rules. The authors point is that > “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture. Genuinely asking: Does your position of "maximizing individual agency" mean that we should not enforce boundaries? If am running an office and someone makes a homophobic joke (not acceptable), what (in your view) is my recourse?

vorpalhex 4y ago
"Hey, I find that to be really hurtful and would appreciate it if you didn't make jokes like that." To in wit you might get the reply "Why do you find that joke hurtful?" You can either throw out a semantic stop sign or engage in empathy. You can share meaningfully why you don't like those terms or jokes. You might say something like "My father told a lot of homophobic jokes to crush my self esteem once I came out as gay and I still find them hurtful." Notice how we are enforcing a boundary not as an arbitrary line but as a conversation between two people? We use reasoning - not just cold rationality but the full spectrum of emotional reasoning too - to negotiate boundaries.
- axblount 4y ago
  I think she's very clear that "We don't do that here." shouldn't be the first line of defense or used in every situation. > When I’m able I’d much rather spend the time to educate someone about diversity and inclusion issues and see if I can change how they see the world a bit. But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated. So in this case, I would agree with you. I think the author would as well. She is not making this suggestion as a one size fits all response to off-color remarks. It's useful when people really should know better and there's other work that should be done. Or, the person is unable to accept criticism.

screye 4y ago

The word "We" is of critical importance here. It implies that the one asking the question is by definition an outsider, and they should know their place. It also implies : "You do not need to know the answer because you are too unimportant; OR this is a stupid question who's answer is obvious." IMO, it is easier and less combative to tell the real reason you refuse to answer and take personal/individual ownership for it. "I spent X amount of time figuring out architecture. It will take a Y time to explain. Let's discuss this in another venue where time isn't a bottleneck"; OR; "The manager / higher-ups decided that certain personal topics are off the table to maintain cohesion between the team." It is fine to impose culture onto new entrants to the group. But, that inherently implies a power imbalance which is important to acknowledge and communicate. If this is supposed to be an equal relationship with equal agency, then this sort of behavior veers on workplace bullying. I agree with the above commenter, that such rigidity and opaqueness towards interrogating a team's culture cuts both ways. If you wish to use it, then do so at your own peril.

tomjen3 4y ago

It also doesn't work when you are prepared for it. If you tell me we don't do x here and I then say "then you haven't paid attention" or something like that, then all we do is set us up for conflict.

mcguire 4y ago

"teach people to resist semantic stop signs and not use them" Why would you do that? What's wrong with them?

vorpalhex 4y ago
Question asking and rationality are how humans grow. We both need to be able to explain our reasoning and listen to the reasoning of others.