3 ms·
> Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate this policy when it is so severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educa
by loeg 3y ago
> Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate this policy when it is so severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive
In what contexts is (explicitly) calling for the genocide of Jews not objectively offensive or hostile? Maybe if you whisper it quietly in an empty room? I don't buy the examples provided in TFA (the ones he deems acceptable are not explicit calls for genocide).
- s1artibartfast 3y agoThe phrase "reasonable person" does the heavy lifting here. A reasonable person should be able to understand that others have different opinions that may be distasteful or wrong. Unless those opinions are violent and directed at them personally, they are not hostile.
- PeterStuer 3y agoSo you are saying 'words are violence' was BS all along? Better tell that to those college campusses and their speech police squads. Bring back the reasonable people they ousted over the last two decades.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoYes
- funcDropShadow 3y agoCalling for the genocide of Jews is context-dependent, but misgendering is always a hate crime?
- loeg 3y ago> Unless those opinions are violent and directed at them personally, I mean, I think a statement advocating for the genocide of Jews is reflecting a violent opinion and is obviously personal for Jews!
- dmvdoug 3y agoThe test isn’t simply if a statement is objectively offensive. You ignored that the harassment has to be severe and pervasive.
- loeg 3y agoRead the larger context (I quoted it above). It only has to be severe or pervasive enough to be "intimidating, hostile, or abusive."