5 ms·

Constantly waking on eggshells that anything you say could be misinterpreted to be offensive and have career ending repercussions is exhausting. Now, go on, pa

Constantly waking on eggshells that anything you say could be misinterpreted to be offensive and have career ending repercussions is exhausting. Now, go on, parrot the same question again. Surely you’ll bait someone into accepting your framing of the issue sooner or later.

scuff3d 11mo ago
What is it that you say on a regular basis that makes you feel like you need to walk on eggshells? As I've said many times in the comments. I have 20+ years experience working for corporations. All through the me too wave, the increase focus on DE&I, and the general move to try and be less exclusionary. I've worked with woman, gay people, trans, and people of just about every ethnicity you could think of. Never once, in all those years, have I ever feared for my job or felt excluded. Literally the only people I have ever heard complain are the ones I know for a fact tell racist and sexist jokes because they always felt comfortable enough around me to tell them. If the fact that we are a bit more mindful about being racist and sexist in the work place bothers you, I think you may need to look inward at your own behavior. Not outward.
- torstenvl 11mo ago
  This is exactly the kind of dishonest manipulative baiting that makes people feel uncomfortable. Absolutely nothing InvertedRhodium said was in any way racist, and your allegations otherwise are both wholly devoid of evidence and against the community standards here. If you can't make your point without leveling extreme and baseless allegations at fellow posters, that's a good sign that your point is without merit.
  - scuff3d 11mo ago
    I didn't say he was a racist. But we are talking about feeling excluded in environments where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. People have had three opportunities now to give concrete examples of behavior that should be acceptable and makes them feel excluded or like they need to walk on eggshells. Nobody has offered a single thing. So point blank: What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal?
    - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
      Don't agree with the comments above and generally support DEI initiatives, but I also have an example. A new DEI director joined a previous employer and started a mandatory survey to affirmatively label everyone's trans status. Whatever you entered would be used to auto-update your public info page with details on whether you identified as trans or not, with no opt out. I hope I don't have to explain why that's ill-considered at best. Anyway, refusing to fill it out immediately escalated to a disciplinary meeting with the director.
      - scuff3d 11mo ago
        Yeah that's pure idiocy. That's so bad it almost feels like someone trying to out trans people under the guise of DEI.
        AlotOfReading 11mo ago
        The director was a trans woman themselves, just not good at their job. At least they recognized the issue when was pointed out to them in that meeting, but this was just the tip of the iceberg for silly changes they pushed.
        scuff3d 11mo ago
        Yeah that's unfortunate. Hopefully they'll find the right balance. Well intentioned missteps are better then maliciousness I suppose.
        machomaster 11mo ago
        There is no difference. Even the worst people in the world easily explain their actions as good or at the very least as not so bad.
      - ryan_lane 11mo ago
        This isn't a good example, because this isn't "walking on eggshells", this is an example of a misguided policy that has unintended consequences, and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. Sure, this person was probably bad at their job, and that's problematic, but this isn't an example of someone being fired because they said something non-problematic.
- zahlman 11mo ago
  > What is it that you say on a regular basis that makes you feel like you need to walk on eggshells? For example, the things James Damore said, that resulted in his firing and which were blatantly misrepresented all over social media and journalism — to the point of people directly quoting things and then asserting that the quote means something other than its actual meaning. > Never once, in all those years, have I ever feared for my job or felt excluded. Not even when people assert that discrimination against your kind doesn't count as X-ism? > Literally the only people I have ever heard complain are the ones I know for a fact tell racist and sexist jokes because they always felt comfortable enough around me to tell them. If the fact that we are a bit more mindful about being racist and sexist in the work place bothers you You directly equivocate here. If they are telling racist and sexist jokes "around you", that is not doing so "in the work place". Moreover, if they "feel comfortable enough around you to tell them", that requires that you aren't objecting to it.
  - scuff3d 11mo ago
    I've been working for 20 years, I've watched the landscape transform around me. Those were jokes/comments made to me in the workplace back when it was more acceptable. Those same people went on to complain they couldn't do that anymore. As for Damore, I'm not going to debate the merit of that memo. But even the NLRB thought he went beyond projected speech, saying his memo was "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive"
shadowgovt 11mo ago
Lot of people restating their discomfort but no examples. It suggests they know these are not things to be said in mixed company and the real discomfort is the PSF events have become mixed company for them.
- scuff3d 11mo ago
  Still nothing. Lol I'm happy to give people the benefit of the doubt. But this specific topic I don't think I've ever seen someone actually provide a real answer.
  - machomaster 11mo ago
    It means that you were not really looking, because you could easily find examples that caused the chilling effect (even if it did not cause the firing, but a simple HR talk). How about you check the content of DEI indoctrination classes, what constitutes offense? Like 2 people talking and the 3rd overhearing is a violation. Like not playing with the fantasies and embracing reality is a violation. Being against (the "wrong one") discrimination is a violation. Like communicating too much with a woman is a violation as is talking too little. Don't let me started on a microaggression BS. In general, it is a violation if any delusional person decides to be offended, no matter the reality. Did you know that liking progress, efficiency, technology, as well as simply being on time is a core of white suppremacy culture that is improperly and racially being imposed on the Black population? Now that you know (like we estsblished, the opinion of only one minority person like myself is enough to make it a fact) that you are a racist, you must repent. Your clear dishonesty and bad-faith acting is what causes people to not engage you, not the lack of examples.
    - shadowgovt 11mo ago
      I have taken the classes and it really isn't as hard to follow the guidelines as you seem to be painting it. > Like 2 people talking and the 3rd overhearing is a violation This is the principle that "locker-room talk" in the workplace is not okay, and that's a good principle. Yes, it's not okay to have a "just us guys" conversation because the content of the conversation is not acceptable in the workplace. The fact a third-party overhearing it gets it reported isn't the issue. > Like not playing with the fantasies and embracing reality is a violation You'll have to be more specific about what fantasies you mean. I'm pretty sure I know, but you are continuing to dance around it and your reluctance to name words strongly suggests you know your opinion is unwelcome in polite society. > Being against (the "wrong one") discrimination is a violation Again, you'll have to be more clear. Sounds like you're toeing the line Damore toed before Google fired him. > Like communicating too much with a woman is a violation as is talking too little Neither of these are violations, and I don't think I know how someone concludes they are. > Don't [g]et me started on [] microaggression BS Microaggression theory is grounded in research dating back to the 1970s. Do you have some specific concerns with the research or its interpretation? The theory seems pretty sound from where I sit, but maybe I've missed something. > Did you know that liking progress, efficiency, technology, as well as simply being on time is a core of white suppremacy culture that is improperly and racially being imposed on the Black population? That's not at all what anyone has said. You are misinterpreting several layers of information that suggest to me that your frustration is second-hand. I'm going to have to call for a "cite your sources" on this claim. > In general, it is a violation if any delusional person decides to be offended, no matter the reality. This is, broadly, untrue.

scuff3d 11mo ago

What is it that you say on a regular basis that makes you feel like you need to walk on eggshells? As I've said many times in the comments. I have 20+ years experience working for corporations. All through the me too wave, the increase focus on DE&I, and the general move to try and be less exclusionary. I've worked with woman, gay people, trans, and people of just about every ethnicity you could think of. Never once, in all those years, have I ever feared for my job or felt excluded. Literally the only people I have ever heard complain are the ones I know for a fact tell racist and sexist jokes because they always felt comfortable enough around me to tell them. If the fact that we are a bit more mindful about being racist and sexist in the work place bothers you, I think you may need to look inward at your own behavior. Not outward.

torstenvl 11mo ago
This is exactly the kind of dishonest manipulative baiting that makes people feel uncomfortable. Absolutely nothing InvertedRhodium said was in any way racist, and your allegations otherwise are both wholly devoid of evidence and against the community standards here. If you can't make your point without leveling extreme and baseless allegations at fellow posters, that's a good sign that your point is without merit.
- scuff3d 11mo ago
  I didn't say he was a racist. But we are talking about feeling excluded in environments where the primary change has been it's not longer acceptable to tell racist/sexist jokes or make disparaging comments about others based race/sex/ethnicity. People have had three opportunities now to give concrete examples of behavior that should be acceptable and makes them feel excluded or like they need to walk on eggshells. Nobody has offered a single thing. So point blank: What can you not say or do in these environments for fear of reprisal?
  - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
    Don't agree with the comments above and generally support DEI initiatives, but I also have an example. A new DEI director joined a previous employer and started a mandatory survey to affirmatively label everyone's trans status. Whatever you entered would be used to auto-update your public info page with details on whether you identified as trans or not, with no opt out. I hope I don't have to explain why that's ill-considered at best. Anyway, refusing to fill it out immediately escalated to a disciplinary meeting with the director.
    - scuff3d 11mo ago
      Yeah that's pure idiocy. That's so bad it almost feels like someone trying to out trans people under the guise of DEI.
      - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
        The director was a trans woman themselves, just not good at their job. At least they recognized the issue when was pointed out to them in that meeting, but this was just the tip of the iceberg for silly changes they pushed.
        scuff3d 11mo ago
        Yeah that's unfortunate. Hopefully they'll find the right balance. Well intentioned missteps are better then maliciousness I suppose.
        machomaster 11mo ago
        There is no difference. Even the worst people in the world easily explain their actions as good or at the very least as not so bad.
    - ryan_lane 11mo ago
      This isn't a good example, because this isn't "walking on eggshells", this is an example of a misguided policy that has unintended consequences, and in your own example, when they understood the unintended consequences, they removed this. Sure, this person was probably bad at their job, and that's problematic, but this isn't an example of someone being fired because they said something non-problematic.
zahlman 11mo ago
> What is it that you say on a regular basis that makes you feel like you need to walk on eggshells? For example, the things James Damore said, that resulted in his firing and which were blatantly misrepresented all over social media and journalism — to the point of people directly quoting things and then asserting that the quote means something other than its actual meaning. > Never once, in all those years, have I ever feared for my job or felt excluded. Not even when people assert that discrimination against your kind doesn't count as X-ism? > Literally the only people I have ever heard complain are the ones I know for a fact tell racist and sexist jokes because they always felt comfortable enough around me to tell them. If the fact that we are a bit more mindful about being racist and sexist in the work place bothers you You directly equivocate here. If they are telling racist and sexist jokes "around you", that is not doing so "in the work place". Moreover, if they "feel comfortable enough around you to tell them", that requires that you aren't objecting to it.
- scuff3d 11mo ago
  I've been working for 20 years, I've watched the landscape transform around me. Those were jokes/comments made to me in the workplace back when it was more acceptable. Those same people went on to complain they couldn't do that anymore. As for Damore, I'm not going to debate the merit of that memo. But even the NLRB thought he went beyond projected speech, saying his memo was "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive"

shadowgovt 11mo ago

Lot of people restating their discomfort but no examples. It suggests they know these are not things to be said in mixed company and the real discomfort is the PSF events have become mixed company for them.

scuff3d 11mo ago
Still nothing. Lol I'm happy to give people the benefit of the doubt. But this specific topic I don't think I've ever seen someone actually provide a real answer.
- machomaster 11mo ago
  It means that you were not really looking, because you could easily find examples that caused the chilling effect (even if it did not cause the firing, but a simple HR talk). How about you check the content of DEI indoctrination classes, what constitutes offense? Like 2 people talking and the 3rd overhearing is a violation. Like not playing with the fantasies and embracing reality is a violation. Being against (the "wrong one") discrimination is a violation. Like communicating too much with a woman is a violation as is talking too little. Don't let me started on a microaggression BS. In general, it is a violation if any delusional person decides to be offended, no matter the reality. Did you know that liking progress, efficiency, technology, as well as simply being on time is a core of white suppremacy culture that is improperly and racially being imposed on the Black population? Now that you know (like we estsblished, the opinion of only one minority person like myself is enough to make it a fact) that you are a racist, you must repent. Your clear dishonesty and bad-faith acting is what causes people to not engage you, not the lack of examples.
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    I have taken the classes and it really isn't as hard to follow the guidelines as you seem to be painting it. > Like 2 people talking and the 3rd overhearing is a violation This is the principle that "locker-room talk" in the workplace is not okay, and that's a good principle. Yes, it's not okay to have a "just us guys" conversation because the content of the conversation is not acceptable in the workplace. The fact a third-party overhearing it gets it reported isn't the issue. > Like not playing with the fantasies and embracing reality is a violation You'll have to be more specific about what fantasies you mean. I'm pretty sure I know, but you are continuing to dance around it and your reluctance to name words strongly suggests you know your opinion is unwelcome in polite society. > Being against (the "wrong one") discrimination is a violation Again, you'll have to be more clear. Sounds like you're toeing the line Damore toed before Google fired him. > Like communicating too much with a woman is a violation as is talking too little Neither of these are violations, and I don't think I know how someone concludes they are. > Don't [g]et me started on [] microaggression BS Microaggression theory is grounded in research dating back to the 1970s. Do you have some specific concerns with the research or its interpretation? The theory seems pretty sound from where I sit, but maybe I've missed something. > Did you know that liking progress, efficiency, technology, as well as simply being on time is a core of white suppremacy culture that is improperly and racially being imposed on the Black population? That's not at all what anyone has said. You are misinterpreting several layers of information that suggest to me that your frustration is second-hand. I'm going to have to call for a "cite your sources" on this claim. > In general, it is a violation if any delusional person decides to be offended, no matter the reality. This is, broadly, untrue.