5 ms·

It's not in the US, but it seems some people have become socially fearful. I think that there is an artificial sense of risk possibly driving by 24x7 news and s

It's not in the US, but it seems some people have become socially fearful. I think that there is an artificial sense of risk possibly driving by 24x7 news and social media that prey on people's fears and anxieties.

pizzafeelsright 3y ago
I would not say artificial. An individual with whom I work spoke a common word, with respect, and despite being a respectable term for another person, a term agreed by all parties as acceptable except the offended party, the accused was contacted by HR and advised to no longer use that term. There are other anecdotes of course but this is one example that even the best intentions the accuser is never told their position is untenable.
- comfypotato 3y ago
  What was the term?
- Volundr 3y ago
  This anecdote is not only unverifiable (as most are), but vague to the point of uselessness. I don't doubt that there are all sorts of overzealous HR departments out there, but I can also think of all sorts of ways of using "respectable terms for another person" in disrespectful ways, and have met plenty of people far more creative than I am at doing so. And invariably these people will hide behind "I totally meant it respectfully" because frankly that's the game. A subtle jibe with just enough wiggle room to hide behind. Which is the case here? Who knows? The description of events as written works just as well for both.
  - ryanwaggoner 3y ago
    In either case, it feels a little overly dramatic to worry too much about a scenario where HR asks you to not use a word anymore. Is this what people mean when they worry about people being cancelled?
    - monksy 3y ago
      Is it overly dramatic to have HR dictate formally non-offensive speach? (I'm talking about non-derogatory and non-slur based language) Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" (https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/ https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/) If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.
      - magicalist 3y ago
        > Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" There's absolutely nothing on that page to indicate they're upset about violent language > If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that. There's even less indication of that. If the goal is for fewer people to overreact, why are we inventing boogeymen to overreact about?
        monksy 3y ago
        That page is there making a statement of examples of "bad language". It's an organization shooting it's shot on language change. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phrases-branded-offensive-violent-undertones.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phr... (DailyMail.. yuck yes) https://www.fastcompany.com/90865534/its-time-stop-using-violent-words-phrases-work https://www.fastcompany.com/90865534/its-time-stop-using-vio... https://elizabethgrim.com/adopting-inclusive-and-non-violent-language-part-2/ https://elizabethgrim.com/adopting-inclusive-and-non-violent...
        magicalist 3y ago
        lol, again it's the dailymail article that's trembling with terror at imagined grievances, while the non-violent language advocates are like, "hey, kind of weird these phrases are about shooting people, here's some alternatives if you want them." > The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language Clearly this is a dog whistle and they're coming for me and my guns(-related words)
  - monksy 3y ago
    I've been in multiple organizations now that have the redefinition of whats appropriate. Many times there is training sourced from a third party company that does this. I've had one organization call the "confederate flag" a form of racism. (For those who haven't been in the US South for a long time, those who display it aren't racist, but many are)
    - Volundr 3y ago
      > I've had one organization call the "confederate flag" a form of racism. Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. It was a perfect example of hiding behind the thinnest veneer of legitimacy while attacking someone. I don't doubt that many in the modern day display it out of ignorance, not understanding what it actually is and how it became a symbol of their culture, but it's definitely something HR shouldn't allow in the workplace.
      - monksy 3y ago
        > Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Me either, also I'm for banning all flags in the workplace. But people who vastly generalize large swaths of the population in a negative light in an inaccurate manner is as bad. > Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. Growing up in the south the flag is used as an regional identification and lifestyle pride. (Mostly that you're a redneck, rebelious, you're going to own a pickup truck, like the idea of hardwork/farming, country music, etc). Making a claim that a race hate group has taken over the flag is pretty laughable. (About as much as the ok hand symbol being a "white nationalist flagging signal") My concern with your statement is that you're making claims here and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence from a sociological point of view to back them up. > many in the modern day display it out of ignorance, Ask them why they choose to display it, and what it means to them. You made a judgement call to say what it is and that they're ignorant for doing so.
        Volundr 3y ago
monksy 3y ago
It's not artificial. You can and will be isolated, excommunicated, wrong think, and separated based on your acceptance of new language definitions and sensibilities. There have been groups out there that have enforced this via "Code of Conduct" agreements in organizations.
flippinburgers 3y ago
I have a younger sibling who is much younger than me. I would have to disagree and say that they are hypersensitive about conflicting opinions to the point that it could destroy a relationship to have an argument about the wrong subject.

pizzafeelsright 3y ago

I would not say artificial. An individual with whom I work spoke a common word, with respect, and despite being a respectable term for another person, a term agreed by all parties as acceptable except the offended party, the accused was contacted by HR and advised to no longer use that term. There are other anecdotes of course but this is one example that even the best intentions the accuser is never told their position is untenable.

comfypotato 3y ago
What was the term?
Volundr 3y ago
This anecdote is not only unverifiable (as most are), but vague to the point of uselessness. I don't doubt that there are all sorts of overzealous HR departments out there, but I can also think of all sorts of ways of using "respectable terms for another person" in disrespectful ways, and have met plenty of people far more creative than I am at doing so. And invariably these people will hide behind "I totally meant it respectfully" because frankly that's the game. A subtle jibe with just enough wiggle room to hide behind. Which is the case here? Who knows? The description of events as written works just as well for both.
- ryanwaggoner 3y ago
  In either case, it feels a little overly dramatic to worry too much about a scenario where HR asks you to not use a word anymore. Is this what people mean when they worry about people being cancelled?
  - monksy 3y ago
    Is it overly dramatic to have HR dictate formally non-offensive speach? (I'm talking about non-derogatory and non-slur based language) Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" (https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/ https://hopeandsafety.org/learn-more/violent-language/) If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that.
    - magicalist 3y ago
      > Right now there is a wave of people that are upset over "violent language" There's absolutely nothing on that page to indicate they're upset about violent language > If push comes to shove.. they'd lose their marbles over that. There's even less indication of that. If the goal is for fewer people to overreact, why are we inventing boogeymen to overreact about?
      - monksy 3y ago
        That page is there making a statement of examples of "bad language". It's an organization shooting it's shot on language change. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phrases-branded-offensive-violent-undertones.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11714189/Latest-phr... (DailyMail.. yuck yes) https://www.fastcompany.com/90865534/its-time-stop-using-violent-words-phrases-work https://www.fastcompany.com/90865534/its-time-stop-using-vio... https://elizabethgrim.com/adopting-inclusive-and-non-violent-language-part-2/ https://elizabethgrim.com/adopting-inclusive-and-non-violent...
        magicalist 3y ago
        lol, again it's the dailymail article that's trembling with terror at imagined grievances, while the non-violent language advocates are like, "hey, kind of weird these phrases are about shooting people, here's some alternatives if you want them." > The guide is for those who would like to replace mostly violently framed idioms with more positive and inclusive language Clearly this is a dog whistle and they're coming for me and my guns(-related words)
- monksy 3y ago
  I've been in multiple organizations now that have the redefinition of whats appropriate. Many times there is training sourced from a third party company that does this. I've had one organization call the "confederate flag" a form of racism. (For those who haven't been in the US South for a long time, those who display it aren't racist, but many are)
  - Volundr 3y ago
    > I've had one organization call the "confederate flag" a form of racism. Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. It was a perfect example of hiding behind the thinnest veneer of legitimacy while attacking someone. I don't doubt that many in the modern day display it out of ignorance, not understanding what it actually is and how it became a symbol of their culture, but it's definitely something HR shouldn't allow in the workplace.
    - monksy 3y ago
      > Claiming it's not is not the hill I'd choose to die on. Me either, also I'm for banning all flags in the workplace. But people who vastly generalize large swaths of the population in a negative light in an inaccurate manner is as bad. > Modern display of what most call the "confederate flag" (it isn't) rose to prominence in response to the civil rights movement. Growing up in the south the flag is used as an regional identification and lifestyle pride. (Mostly that you're a redneck, rebelious, you're going to own a pickup truck, like the idea of hardwork/farming, country music, etc). Making a claim that a race hate group has taken over the flag is pretty laughable. (About as much as the ok hand symbol being a "white nationalist flagging signal") My concern with your statement is that you're making claims here and I'm not seeing a lot of evidence from a sociological point of view to back them up. > many in the modern day display it out of ignorance, Ask them why they choose to display it, and what it means to them. You made a judgement call to say what it is and that they're ignorant for doing so.
      - Volundr 3y ago

monksy 3y ago

It's not artificial. You can and will be isolated, excommunicated, wrong think, and separated based on your acceptance of new language definitions and sensibilities. There have been groups out there that have enforced this via "Code of Conduct" agreements in organizations.

flippinburgers 3y ago

I have a younger sibling who is much younger than me. I would have to disagree and say that they are hypersensitive about conflicting opinions to the point that it could destroy a relationship to have an argument about the wrong subject.