Google memo.

Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 1.04pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger The issue is when people mistake or deliberately classify stating a fact or even an opinion based on anecdotal evidence as 'prejudice'. Everyone is prejudiced. The individual is prejudiced by being an individual. What we cannot have is the homogeny of opinion and the threat of punishment for rejecting that line. That is a tyranny against free thinking. It depends, if you keep being 'prejudiced' and upsetting your work mates by acting like an entitled snowflake dick, you probably only have yourself to blame if you get sacked. Same as I can't call my workmates cts, no matter how ctish they are. Its just not conducive to a professional working relationship. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 1.04pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

The issue is when people mistake or deliberately classify stating a fact or even an opinion based on anecdotal evidence as 'prejudice'.
Everyone is prejudiced. The individual is prejudiced by being an individual. What we cannot have is the homogeny of opinion and the threat of punishment for rejecting that line.
That is a tyranny against free thinking.

It depends, if you keep being 'prejudiced' and upsetting your work mates by acting like an entitled snowflake dick, you probably only have yourself to blame if you get sacked.

Same as I can't call my workmates c**ts, no matter how c**tish they are. Its just not conducive to a professional working relationship.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 17 1.35pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 It depends, if you keep being 'prejudiced' and upsetting your work mates by acting like an entitled snowflake dick, you probably only have yourself to blame if you get sacked. Same as I can't call my workmates cts, no matter how ctish they are. It's just not conducive to a professional working relationship. This is not about deliberately insulting people. It is about having an opinion that might 'offend'. Offence is ever more political in our modern world. This stuff is the thin end of the wedge and when we just dismiss this kind of events as 'understandable' we allow this kind of orchestrated attitude to grow in strength. '1984' does not happen overnight. It is a slow pervasive movement that people barely notice and just dismiss as this or that. It allows people to get on side with it because it seems reasonable. It slowly becomes quasi religious where its denial ultimately alienates you from society like a heretic. Call it paranoia if you wish but everything you would expect to happen in a society moving toward 'Big Brother' is happening.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 17 1.35pm

Send a Private Message to Hrolf The Ganger

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

It depends, if you keep being 'prejudiced' and upsetting your work mates by acting like an entitled snowflake dick, you probably only have yourself to blame if you get sacked.

Same as I can't call my workmates c**ts, no matter how c**tish they are. It's just not conducive to a professional working relationship.

This is not about deliberately insulting people. It is about having an opinion that might 'offend'. Offence is ever more political in our modern world.
This stuff is the thin end of the wedge and when we just dismiss this kind of events as 'understandable' we allow this kind of orchestrated attitude to grow in strength.
'1984' does not happen overnight. It is a slow pervasive movement that people barely notice and just dismiss as this or that. It allows people to get on side with it because it seems reasonable. It slowly becomes quasi religious where its denial ultimately alienates you from society like a heretic.
Call it paranoia if you wish but everything you would expect to happen in a society moving toward 'Big Brother' is happening.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 2.10pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger This is not about deliberately insulting people. It is about having an opinion that might 'offend'. Offence is ever more political in our modern world. This stuff is the thin end of the wedge and when we just dismiss this kind of events as 'understandable' we allow this kind of orchestrated attitude to grow in strength. '1984' does not happen overnight. It is a slow pervasive movement that people barely notice and just dismiss as this or that. It allows people to get on side with it because it seems reasonable. It slowly becomes quasi religious where its denial ultimately alienates you from society like a heretic. Call it paranoia if you wish but everything you would expect to happen in a society moving toward 'Big Brother' is happening. Which is why its up to companies to deal with issues that cause offence, even if the person isn't aware that's what they're doing, offending people. Now I don't think they should be sacked immediately, but if its not ok to offend someone deliberately, then its not ok to offend someone unknowingly - and the right course of action is to address that with the person. But most people do seem to get through the day without directly or indirectly insulting their colleagues with their personal opinions. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 2.10pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Which is why its up to companies to deal with issues that cause offence, even if the person isn't aware that's what they're doing, offending people. Now I don't think they should be sacked immediately, but if its not ok to offend someone deliberately, then its not ok to offend someone unknowingly - and the right course of action is to address that with the person.

But most people do seem to get through the day without directly or indirectly insulting their colleagues with their personal opinions.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 17 3.09pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Which is why its up to companies to deal with issues that cause offence, even if the person isn't aware that's what they're doing, offending people. Now I don't think they should be sacked immediately, but if its not ok to offend someone deliberately, then its not ok to offend someone unknowingly - and the right course of action is to address that with the person. But most people do seem to get through the day without directly or indirectly insulting their colleagues with their personal opinions. So you think that it OK to be sacked for saying, as an example, I don't think women are very good at management. You are justifying the curtailing of the right to express an opinion because it might offend someone. Are you sure you think that is a good idea? Slippery slope.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 17 3.09pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

But most people do seem to get through the day without directly or indirectly insulting their colleagues with their personal opinions.

So you think that it OK to be sacked for saying, as an example, I don't think women are very good at management.
You are justifying the curtailing of the right to express an opinion because it might offend someone.
Are you sure you think that is a good idea?

Slippery slope.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 3.37pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger So you think that it OK to be sacked for saying, as an example, I don't think women are very good at management. You are justifying the curtailing of the right to express an opinion because it might offend someone. Are you sure you think that is a good idea? Slippery slope. Not what I said at all - its not something someone should be sacked for, but it is something that's likely to offend other colleagues especially women. If you keep doing it, then yeah, you're probably looking at being sacked - because companies generally don't want to create a hostile work environment - where one ct is offending people repeatedly and affecting the whole team. Personally, I'd call them on their bulls* - but that's me. But I understand why women might hear that, and be offended and report people to HR, and rightly so, because you're being an unprofessional t* (and likely alienating people from wanting to work with you) Its not a slippery slope, a slippery slope would be reporting someone for using the term slippery slope Of course I'd be fine with it, if I was allowed to reply in kind to people like that - and call them an ignorant ct, but I'm not and rightly so. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 3.37pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Slippery slope.

Not what I said at all - its not something someone should be sacked for, but it is something that's likely to offend other colleagues especially women.

If you keep doing it, then yeah, you're probably looking at being sacked - because companies generally don't want to create a hostile work environment - where one c**t is offending people repeatedly and affecting the whole team.

Personally, I'd call them on their bulls*** - but that's me. But I understand why women might hear that, and be offended and report people to HR, and rightly so, because you're being an unprofessional t*** (and likely alienating people from wanting to work with you)

Its not a slippery slope, a slippery slope would be reporting someone for using the term slippery slope

Of course I'd be fine with it, if I was allowed to reply in kind to people like that - and call them an ignorant c**t, but I'm not and rightly so.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 17 3.57pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Not what I said at all - its not something someone should be sacked for, but it is something that's likely to offend other colleagues especially women. If you keep doing it, then yeah, you're probably looking at being sacked - because companies generally don't want to create a hostile work environment - where one ct is offending people repeatedly and affecting the whole team. Personally, I'd call them on their bulls* - but that's me. But I understand why women might hear that, and be offended and report people to HR, and rightly so, because you're being an unprofessional t* (and likely alienating people from wanting to work with you) Its not a slippery slope, a slippery slope would be reporting someone for using the term slippery slope Of course I'd be fine with it, if I was allowed to reply in kind to people like that - and call them an ignorant ct, but I'm not and rightly so. Hmmm. I cannot accept that acting on what offends people can be sensible. Imagine the ultimate result of this policy. Emotion and identity agenda dictating decision making. In a company, the bottom line is profit so they act to maintain an effective team. This means that money trumps wider reason. Practical but philosophically dodgy. It is perfectly fine and healthy to challenge opinion but to effectively ban a particular one is a recipe for Orwell world. When people make bad decisions that have repercussions, they usually do it thinking it is reasonable. Problem is that their reason, unbeknown to them, can be flawed. Worse still, it might be entirely self serving. This is how we get to 1984 land. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2017 3.57pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 17 3.57pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Not what I said at all - its not something someone should be sacked for, but it is something that's likely to offend other colleagues especially women.

Its not a slippery slope, a slippery slope would be reporting someone for using the term slippery slope

Of course I'd be fine with it, if I was allowed to reply in kind to people like that - and call them an ignorant c**t, but I'm not and rightly so.

Hmmm. I cannot accept that acting on what offends people can be sensible. Imagine the ultimate result of this policy. Emotion and identity agenda dictating decision making.
In a company, the bottom line is profit so they act to maintain an effective team. This means that money trumps wider reason. Practical but philosophically dodgy.
It is perfectly fine and healthy to challenge opinion but to effectively ban a particular one is a recipe for Orwell world.

When people make bad decisions that have repercussions, they usually do it thinking it is reasonable. Problem is that their reason, unbeknown to them, can be flawed. Worse still, it might be entirely self serving. This is how we get to 1984 land.

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2017 3.57pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 4.11pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Hmmm. I cannot accept that acting on what offends people can be sensible. Imagine the ultimate result of this policy. Emotion and identity agenda dictating decision making. In a company, the bottom line is profit so they act to maintain an effective team. This means that money trumps wider reason. Practical but philosophically dodgy. It is perfectly fine and healthy to challenge opinion but to effectively ban a particular one is a recipe for Orwell world. When people make bad decisions that have repercussions, they usually do it thinking it is reasonable. Problem is that their reason, unbeknown to them, can be flawed. Worse still, it might be entirely self serving. This is how we get to 1984 land. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2017 3.57pm) Snowflake alarm - they're taking my right to offend people in the work place 'by accident' - its 1984 hyperbole time - end of freedoms etc etc. Basically, its easy, in the work place, don't be a dick to people. Everyone else seems to manage it. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 4.11pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (09 Aug 2017 3.57pm)

Snowflake alarm - they're taking my right to offend people in the work place 'by accident' - its 1984 hyperbole time - end of freedoms etc etc.

Basically, its easy, in the work place, don't be a dick to people. Everyone else seems to manage it.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 17 4.21pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Snowflake alarm - they're taking my right to offend people in the work place 'by accident' - its 1984 hyperbole time - end of freedoms etc etc. Basically, its easy, in the work place, don't be a dick to people. Everyone else seems to manage it. In this specific example, was this guy being a dick to anyone or just the reputation of his company? He stated an opinion. When we are in 1984 world I will blame people like you who let it happen by justifying the actions of self serving organisations by mistaking it for 'fairness'.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 17 4.21pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Snowflake alarm - they're taking my right to offend people in the work place 'by accident' - its 1984 hyperbole time - end of freedoms etc etc.

Basically, its easy, in the work place, don't be a dick to people. Everyone else seems to manage it.

In this specific example, was this guy being a dick to anyone or just the reputation of his company? He stated an opinion.

When we are in 1984 world I will blame people like you who let it happen by justifying the actions of self serving organisations by mistaking it for 'fairness'.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 4.28pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger In this specific example, was this guy being a dick to anyone or just the reputation of his company? He stated an opinion. When we are in 1984 world I will blame people like you who let it happen by justifying the actions of self serving organisations by mistaking it for 'fairness'. Nah, you're like me, an IT guy, we'll all probably be working in the department of records correcting history, and liquidating Mr Smith. Probably as third party contractors. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 4.28pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

In this specific example, was this guy being a dick to anyone or just the reputation of his company? He stated an opinion.

When we are in 1984 world I will blame people like you who let it happen by justifying the actions of self serving organisations by mistaking it for 'fairness'.

Nah, you're like me, an IT guy, we'll all probably be working in the department of records correcting history, and liquidating Mr Smith.

Probably as third party contractors.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger 09 Aug 17 4.32pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Nah, you're like me, an IT guy, we'll all probably be working in the department of records correcting history, and liquidating Mr Smith. Probably as third party contractors. Maybe. But I'll secretly be working for the resistance.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hrolf The Ganger

09 Aug 17 4.32pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Nah, you're like me, an IT guy, we'll all probably be working in the department of records correcting history, and liquidating Mr Smith.

Probably as third party contractors.

Maybe. But I'll secretly be working for the resistance.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 09 Aug 17 4.32pm
Publishing a 'memo' off your own back is defo a dick move, no matter what the content.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 09 Aug 17 4.32pm

Publishing a 'memo' off your own back is defo a dick move, no matter what the content.

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Aug 17 5.18pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Maybe. But I'll secretly be working for the resistance. That's the spirit, cover your bases, and play both sides against the middle. Although if I remember rightly, the resistance in 1984 was set up and run by Big Brother, as a means of catching 'criminals'. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 09 Aug 17 5.18pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Maybe. But I'll secretly be working for the resistance.

That's the spirit, cover your bases, and play both sides against the middle. Although if I remember rightly, the resistance in 1984 was set up and run by Big Brother, as a means of catching 'criminals'.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 7 of 8 < 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Google memo.

Site Map

Sponsors