Believe it or not, it's perfectly possible to get work done without turning everyone into emotional robots that are deathly afraid to ever speak because someone might get offended. I know it's insane, but telling a joke actually doesn't waste that much time.
It's about professional self respect
No True Professional would do something that I object to!
Your point is not relevant to the reality of harassment policies.
Sure it is. I just believe it's rather idiotic that you can be fired merely because someone was offended by your speech (probably a mere joke). Then other people who are offended by rather different things are completely ignored. They arbitrarily decide that speech they label as "sexual harassment" is bad but the people offended by a common English word, for instance, are just insane.
and no reasonable, mature
.
What are "reasonable" and "mature"? Perhaps you could come up with an objective definition?
would ever find them an undue imposition on their personality or ability to work effectively.
It's too bad that these offended people won't do something else with their time (something that doesn't involve them expecting everyone to cater to their sensibilities).
and their employer could tell them to go pound rocks.
No one on the streets is offended by the word "the".
Again, it absolutely does not matter to me. The fact that someone is offended does not mean you need to cater to them. I just used that example to demonstrate a point.
people that are offended by such mundane things are living in psychiatric hospitals so you don't have to cater to them.
Exactly my point. These people are deemed "unhealthy" and the things they're offended by are deemed "mundane." You probably feel perfectly free to cause offense to them if you happen to meet them (and I would too), but no one can do the same to you.
When there are two sides to an issue, often both are wrong.
I did not miss that; I just found it absurd. The fact that you deem something to be 'extreme' does not mean that it's wrong, and it does not mean that it's more likely to be wrong.
I wasn't talking about laws at all. What is your point?
The ones that allow you to get sued into oblivion.
In all fairness, you seem to view your opinions just as factual
Factual in what way? They're not. I'm just speaking of how I think things "should" be.
Not really, it isn't.
How is speaking of what someone "should" do not subjective?
Everything in life is about making compromises.
Irrelevant to whether or not it's subjective.
By doing so, they all miss the real answer which is somewhere in the middle.
How many people have you encountered for which "the" is disrespectful?
Apparently you don't understand the point. Anyone can be offended by anything. What if such a person were to exist? Would you be expected to cater to them? If not, why? Have you arbitrarily decided that it's less important to not offend them for some reason?
Then, learn to respect the others.
"Get out or conform." There are more options, though. Work to change the laws.
So you can't just dismiss it.
I never said that I could. I just find it amusing how it seems that some people believe that their opinions are facts. The fact of the matter is that your opinions will influence society and laws will perhaps reflect that. That is obvious. But I too have an opinion about all this.
In everything you have two sides, and most often both are stupid
If you want to interact with other human beings, start by respecting them.
"Respect" is such a subjective term. Using the word "the" might be deemed to be disrespectful by one person who happens to take offense to it.
Mind you it's not an obligation.
It practically is, but changing your manner of speaking in case someone might be offended by it has its advantages. You can avoid being sued into oblivion, apparently. That's why school adopt nonsensical zero tolerance policies.
Whose? Why are they objectively important standards? It might someday be deemed "unprofessional" to use the word "the," but that wouldn't mean it's a bad thing.
They would have an expectation that they're joining a professional company
It doesn't really matter what they expect or how they define "professional." Until lawsuits that are quite possibly frivolous begin, of course.
not a bunch of cowboys who can't control their mouths and sexism.
Well, it might be sexism (depending on their intentions and what they're saying). It would require intent and meaning, though.
mature and grow up
One person's "mature" and "grown up" is another person's "immature" and "childish."
where nobody feels that they are the victim of prejudice, bullying, etc.
Given that it's possible to be offended by anything, I think this is a mere fantasy (not to mention arbitrary).
there's a good chance they'll be sued into oblivion.
They're quite lawsuit-happy. US schools apparently have that same problem with parents, so they implement zero-tolerance policies and attempt to turn everyone into an emotionless robot.
So they'd rather ban it for everyone and declare that it's okay because they arbitrarily deem it "useless." "For the children" is idiotic even if children are getting hurt. In the same way, the TSA and the Patriot Act are idiotic. I believe collective punishment is not the answer.
Find something important to whine over instead of a toy
Indeed. Instead of trying to ban something for everyone, why not find something else to do (directed at both the government and people who thought this was a good idea)?
Most likely if it's not in self-defense. In any case, a gun can be used for more than murder. Banning them for everyone would be similar to this (where a few get misused/people get hurt by them).
We don't sell cribs or strollers that collapse on infants.
That's simply a bad product. I'm sure you could sue the company for that. These work as intended, however.
We don't sell poisoned dog food.
That would be intentionally harming them. Not a fitting analogy.
We don't sell toys marketed to children that can easily kill them.
I think we should be able to if they're just imbeciles and their parents don't pay attention.
It's just a toy, and it really isn't worth kids dying over it.
If it means banning it, it is. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. I believe "for the children" is a terrible excuse whether or not children really are in danger.
The number of infringers is simply too vast to do anything to a significent number while still respecting due process and assumption of innocence.
Probably. But when the choices are between "infringe upon people's rights in exchange for security" and "do nothing," I'll pick the latter every time. Given that this is a rather insignificant issue, even more so.
We need a real solution and so far it's policing people who steal content.
No, it seems to be getting rid of due process, suing people en masse and presenting dubious evidence to the courts, invading everyone's privacy, forcing everyone (including non-infringers) to pay taxes for storage media, and using inflammatory terms to describe copyright infringement.
I feel sorry for you if you lost your humanity and became a soulless code monkey, because there's more to life than computers.
That sounds like a straw man. No one ever said that there isn't more to life than computers. There is. But whether or not you care about the other things is another matter (he didn't say anything about that).
I don't believe there's anything wrong with liking your job.
(or perhaps "if" might be a better word)
Indeed it is. Not everyone has the same goals, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with not having a wife or kids.
you'll look back on what you wrote and realize what a complete tool you were.
This is as ridiculous as saying "you'll understand when you're older." You can't see into the future, you're assuming you're right in the first place, and you're assuming they don't understand now but simply disagree. I'd say it's a very arrogant thing to say. Better yet, it can be used for anything. Example: "You'll understand that the world is flat when you're older." If you want to make a point, then do that and present evidence to prove it. Don't just say that they'll agree with you at some unspecified point in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is highly offensive to me. In fact, I seem to get offended whenever someone disagrees with me. You have been warned.
Work is not supposed to be about fun and hyjinks
Believe it or not, it's perfectly possible to get work done without turning everyone into emotional robots that are deathly afraid to ever speak because someone might get offended. I know it's insane, but telling a joke actually doesn't waste that much time.
It's about professional self respect
No True Professional would do something that I object to!
Your point is not relevant to the reality of harassment policies.
Sure it is. I just believe it's rather idiotic that you can be fired merely because someone was offended by your speech (probably a mere joke). Then other people who are offended by rather different things are completely ignored. They arbitrarily decide that speech they label as "sexual harassment" is bad but the people offended by a common English word, for instance, are just insane.
and no reasonable, mature
.
What are "reasonable" and "mature"? Perhaps you could come up with an objective definition?
would ever find them an undue imposition on their personality or ability to work effectively.
It's too bad that these offended people won't do something else with their time (something that doesn't involve them expecting everyone to cater to their sensibilities).
and their employer could tell them to go pound rocks.
How arbitrary.
That's great, but not really related to my point.
It might surprise you, but 1 + 1 = 3.
a fairly objective standard exists: respecting your fellow human beings.
In what way is that objective? It seems subjective by definition.
No one on the streets is offended by the word "the".
Again, it absolutely does not matter to me. The fact that someone is offended does not mean you need to cater to them. I just used that example to demonstrate a point.
people that are offended by such mundane things are living in psychiatric hospitals so you don't have to cater to them.
Exactly my point. These people are deemed "unhealthy" and the things they're offended by are deemed "mundane." You probably feel perfectly free to cause offense to them if you happen to meet them (and I would too), but no one can do the same to you.
When there are two sides to an issue, often both are wrong.
I did not miss that; I just found it absurd. The fact that you deem something to be 'extreme' does not mean that it's wrong, and it does not mean that it's more likely to be wrong.
I wasn't talking about laws at all. What is your point?
The ones that allow you to get sued into oblivion.
In all fairness, you seem to view your opinions just as factual
Factual in what way? They're not. I'm just speaking of how I think things "should" be.
Not really, it isn't.
How is speaking of what someone "should" do not subjective?
Everything in life is about making compromises.
Irrelevant to whether or not it's subjective.
By doing so, they all miss the real answer which is somewhere in the middle.
Argument to moderation.
How many people have you encountered for which "the" is disrespectful?
Apparently you don't understand the point. Anyone can be offended by anything. What if such a person were to exist? Would you be expected to cater to them? If not, why? Have you arbitrarily decided that it's less important to not offend them for some reason?
Then, learn to respect the others.
"Get out or conform." There are more options, though. Work to change the laws.
So you can't just dismiss it.
I never said that I could. I just find it amusing how it seems that some people believe that their opinions are facts. The fact of the matter is that your opinions will influence society and laws will perhaps reflect that. That is obvious. But I too have an opinion about all this.
In everything you have two sides, and most often both are stupid
Except that this is a subjective matter.
Oh gosh, that's the first time I've seen fully half of the human population defined as 'magical entities'.
Subjectivity can be difficult to grasp for certain people. I don't know about the whole "half of the human population" thing, though.
Grow up.
I'm sorry, but you disagreed with me. You need to grow up and conform to my arbitrary standards.
If you want to interact with other human beings, start by respecting them.
"Respect" is such a subjective term. Using the word "the" might be deemed to be disrespectful by one person who happens to take offense to it.
Mind you it's not an obligation.
It practically is, but changing your manner of speaking in case someone might be offended by it has its advantages. You can avoid being sued into oblivion, apparently. That's why school adopt nonsensical zero tolerance policies.
is simply out of line if somebody really wants to consider themselves a professional.
Yes, that imaginary line that only exists in people's minds. The one that isn't defined by a magical entity.
where certain standards
Whose? Why are they objectively important standards? It might someday be deemed "unprofessional" to use the word "the," but that wouldn't mean it's a bad thing.
They would have an expectation that they're joining a professional company
It doesn't really matter what they expect or how they define "professional." Until lawsuits that are quite possibly frivolous begin, of course.
not a bunch of cowboys who can't control their mouths and sexism.
Well, it might be sexism (depending on their intentions and what they're saying). It would require intent and meaning, though.
mature and grow up
One person's "mature" and "grown up" is another person's "immature" and "childish."
where nobody feels that they are the victim of prejudice, bullying, etc.
Given that it's possible to be offended by anything, I think this is a mere fantasy (not to mention arbitrary).
there's a good chance they'll be sued into oblivion.
They're quite lawsuit-happy. US schools apparently have that same problem with parents, so they implement zero-tolerance policies and attempt to turn everyone into an emotionless robot.
what user1 perceives as "It's what normal, mature human beings do" is offensive to user2.
And it ends there. So you're offended by the word "the"? Don't expect me to stop using it to make you happy.
They'll probably end up that way if the people get too careless, though.
So they'd rather ban it for everyone and declare that it's okay because they arbitrarily deem it "useless." "For the children" is idiotic even if children are getting hurt. In the same way, the TSA and the Patriot Act are idiotic. I believe collective punishment is not the answer.
If that is the case, that is.
Find something important to whine over instead of a toy
Indeed. Instead of trying to ban something for everyone, why not find something else to do (directed at both the government and people who thought this was a good idea)?
And the democratic government looked at the wishes of the citezens and responded.
The wishes of how many citizens, exactly?
I wish they'd do the same thing with the TSA and just get rid of it. If it was anything like this, a vocal minority could get rid of it.
It may be illegal to shoot another person
Most likely if it's not in self-defense. In any case, a gun can be used for more than murder. Banning them for everyone would be similar to this (where a few get misused/people get hurt by them).
We don't sell cribs or strollers that collapse on infants.
That's simply a bad product. I'm sure you could sue the company for that. These work as intended, however.
We don't sell poisoned dog food.
That would be intentionally harming them. Not a fitting analogy.
We don't sell toys marketed to children that can easily kill them.
I think we should be able to if they're just imbeciles and their parents don't pay attention.
It's just a toy, and it really isn't worth kids dying over it.
If it means banning it, it is. Just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean everyone else feels the same way. I believe "for the children" is a terrible excuse whether or not children really are in danger.
First I thought this was another nanny-state ban. But it looks like they are dangerous for small children.
That is a nanny-state ban. Banning something for all of us because a minority abuse it/get hurt by it.
The number of infringers is simply too vast to do anything to a significent number while still respecting due process and assumption of innocence.
Probably. But when the choices are between "infringe upon people's rights in exchange for security" and "do nothing," I'll pick the latter every time. Given that this is a rather insignificant issue, even more so.
We need a real solution and so far it's policing people who steal content.
No, it seems to be getting rid of due process, suing people en masse and presenting dubious evidence to the courts, invading everyone's privacy, forcing everyone (including non-infringers) to pay taxes for storage media, and using inflammatory terms to describe copyright infringement.
Clearly this is all working well.
It doesn't have to be perfect. But that's not really the kind of error that he made, anyway. There are large errors and then there are small errors.
I feel sorry for you if you lost your humanity and became a soulless code monkey, because there's more to life than computers.
That sounds like a straw man. No one ever said that there isn't more to life than computers. There is. But whether or not you care about the other things is another matter (he didn't say anything about that).
I don't believe there's anything wrong with liking your job.
(or perhaps "if" might be a better word)
Indeed it is. Not everyone has the same goals, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with not having a wife or kids.
you'll look back on what you wrote and realize what a complete tool you were.
This is as ridiculous as saying "you'll understand when you're older." You can't see into the future, you're assuming you're right in the first place, and you're assuming they don't understand now but simply disagree. I'd say it's a very arrogant thing to say. Better yet, it can be used for anything. Example: "You'll understand that the world is flat when you're older." If you want to make a point, then do that and present evidence to prove it. Don't just say that they'll agree with you at some unspecified point in the future.