Moderated Using wrong pronouns= violence??

[Ziggurat]

You missed the point

No, I didn't. Rather, I'm pointing out a reality you didn't want pointed out but still couldn't avoid.

The point of the Bobby line is that we already extend a similar courtesy to people.

We frequently do. And there's nothing wrong with extending courtesy regarding pronouns. That was never in dispute. Nobody here claimed otherwise.

What's at issue is what it means if we don't extend that courtesy. And if someone calls a person Robert rather than Bobby, generally no great offense is taken, it's not considered an act of oppression or violence, and a person who did take it that way rather than as a minor annoyance would be widely and properly considered a narcissist.

My follow up regarding violence is to point out how the stakes are higher in the instance of transgender people.

No, the stakes aren't higher for pronouns vs nicknames. Incorrect pronoun use isn't the actual problem they face. And forcing people to use correct pronouns doesn't serve to protect them. You have no evidence of this.

 

[Donal]

HR covers the company's ass. That's it. Everything else is bells and whistles.

And I'm not going down the rabbit hole of DEI vs the bigotry ingrained in our economic system.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Would that it were so. But often it's not. As the saying goes, if you're not part of the solution, there's good money to be made off of prolonging the problem. And HR makes money off the problem.

DEI training doesn't work. There's never been any evidence that it does. Yet HR departments keep doing it. Why? Because it keeps HR employed.

HR would probably love it if they could instruct their way out of personnel problems, but policy statements and instruction only goes so far. At a certain point you just gotta rely on enforcement, hopefully before things escalate to the point of the company getting sued.

I have no trouble believing DEI training is ineffective. A lot of HR training is ineffective. Honestly having to periodically deal with the problems caused by employees being unethical (in a variety of ways) is the price of doing business for large organizations, and while a well running HR department may try to minimize that, it's really not realistic to get that to zero. Otherwise good employees will continue to get fired or leave the company or sue because of this kind of unchecked BS, such is life. At least the lawyers won't go hungry.

With right wingers increasingly wearing their intolerance as badge of pride everywhere they go, I imagine HR departments are going to be busier than ever putting out fires. DEI training at least is there so that when these freaks get fired, HR can point to the exact slide in their training where they were told not to act a certain way.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So now I don't care about kids committing suicide??

Really?? Basically you're saying "we must criminalize the intentional misuse of pronouns, as this will prevent little Joey and Sally from shooting themselves in the head".

Unbelievable. And yes I understand you didn't say anything about criminalizing but this is a logical conclusion of your argument. The best way to prevent something from happening is to make it a crime and that's the logical conclusion of your comment.

New York City and other cities charge fines to bosses and landlords who intentionally use the wrong pronouns, perhaps we should raise that to 5 to 15 years in prison.

When did I mention kids?

Suicides from workplace harassment is a thing. Consistently using the N word or calling women derogatory names is forbidden in most workplace as well. By your argument all that stuff's fine free speech too.

And apart from all that, what is wrong with common courtesy? Someone wants to be addressed in a certain way? Then do so, it costs nothing to be polite.
So yeah, intentionally and consistently belittling someone should be something workplaces combat. And apparently some people are only willing to do so when threatened. Sad, but true.

 

[Ziggurat]

HR would probably love it if they could instruct their way out of personnel problems

Why on earth would you think that? Then they'd be out of a job.

 

[Donal]

That's basically it. DEI is more about the company protecting itself than trying to build a tolerant environment. And consequences do work. That's why we have a legal system.

 

[alfaniner]

I guess I'm old and just don't get it, but in what situation would one use a person's preferred third-person pronouns in front of them?

If you're talking with someone, you use "I" and "you". If you're talking about someone else, yes, those pronouns are in order. But how are they gonna know unless they're told after the fact? Or does it happen often that people discuss a third person when they're right there?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Why on earth would you think that? Then they'd be out of a job.

HR people would probably get some sick satisfaction out of downsizing their own department. Strange folks

 

[Hercules56]

But words can be used to justify violence, right?



Places well known for their love of "others".

Again, you are getting your skivvies in a twist over a blog post of no consequence by someone with no power about being considerate of others. The intent was to inform cis folks about the power of their choice of language. No reasonable person can read that and use it as a legal defense of violence.

No, words can never be used to justify violence.

I think the only possible exception would be if someone threatens immediate violence against another. If you say " I am going to stab you" I think I have the right to prevent that from happening.

 

[Blank]

Pretty much 99% of the issues at workplace start out as innocent slips that could be easily fixed with a quick "oops - sorry", but noo... The Freedom of speech crusaders are always such snowflakes that they just have to start a big show about how their "special" rights to be a**holes get violated and then cry a river when HR gets enough and kicks them to the curb.

Surprise that the same guys are really offended and make a big show if they get called Deliverance Drew or Banjo Bobby or similar and asked how their sis/wife is doing. Thin skinned narcissists the lot of them. (sorry about the redneck-stereotyping here)

 

[ahhell]

But words can be used to justify violence, right?



Places well known for their love of "others".

Again, you are getting your skivvies in a twist over a blog post of no consequence by someone with no power about being considerate of others. The intent was to inform cis folks about the power of their choice of language. No reasonable person can read that and use it as a legal defense of violence.

The site in questions does say:

Choosing to ignore or disrespect someone’s pronouns is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence.

How should someone respond to an act of violence? Saying speech can be considered violence does essentially use words to justify violence as a response to those words.

Obviously this is not a legal defense, but it is essentially "them there is fighting words".

Anyrate, anyone who thinks words can be fairly labeled as violence doesn't understand how violence works.

Aside from that, maybe its been addressed but, why is the pronoun thing even a thing. When am I ever going to call someone he/she while they are in earshot?

 

[Hercules56]

Pretty much 99% of the issues at workplace start out as innocent slips that could be easily fixed with a quick "oops - sorry", but noo... The Freedom of speech crusaders are always such snowflakes that they just have to start a big show about how their "special" rights to be a**holes get violated and then cry a river when HR gets enough and kicks them to the curb.

Surprise that the same guys are really offended and make a big show if they get called Deliverance Drew or Banjo Bobby or similar and asked how their sis/wife is doing. Thin skinned narcissists the lot of them. (sorry about the redneck-stereotyping here)

Do you disagree with the ACLU and their neverending commitment to issues of Free Speech? Remember they defended the Nazis right to march in Illinois.

 

[mumblethrax]

Like I said, neopronouns have been suggested - going back to the 60s from memory - but they have never caught on.

Way, way, longer than that. The history of constructed epicene pronouns goes back to at least the 18th century.

Probably the most successful was "thon", which was coined in 1858. You'll occasionally see it in texts from the late 19th and early 20th centuries (most often not examples of people actually using it, but advocating for its use). But, like all the others, it was ultimately a flash in the pan.

 

[Blank]

Do you disagree with the ACLU and their neverending commitment to issues of Free Speech? Remember they defended the Nazis right to march in Illinois.

Not from the States so not much idea about ACLU antics, but I do hate Illinois Nazis.

But they probably have the right to march and protest as much as anyone else provided they don't do any stupid stuff and keep the march peaceful. Would fire every single Nazi that thought the office is a place to hold the rallies or treat co-workers or clients with disrespect.

Do you think free speech is something you are entitled to any time, everywhere and get some special medal for exercising it in a wrong place at a wrong time?

Free speech means that the government allows you to make a fool outta yourself - they don't really force others to tolerate fools.The fact that the opening link IS NOT a UC Boulder policy or stance has been pointed out several times and yet you use this as a official stance or something to keep the strawman alive. Mind arguing in a honest logical way or give examples where law/government/regulatory body is restricting Free speech or double down more?

 

[Hercules56]

Not from the States so not much idea about ACLU antics, but I do hate Illinois Nazis.

But they probably have the right to march and protest as much as anyone else provided they don't do any stupid stuff and keep the march peaceful. Would fire every single Nazi that thought the office is a place to hold the rallies or treat co-workers or clients with disrespect.

Do you think free speech is something you are entitled to any time, everywhere and get some special medal for exercising it in a wrong place at a wrong time?

Free speech means that the government allows you to make a fool outta yourself - they don't really force others to tolerate fools.The fact that the opening link IS NOT a UC Boulder policy or stance has been pointed out several times and yet you use this as a official stance or something to keep the strawman alive. Mind arguing in a honest logical way or give examples where law/government/regulatory body is restricting Free speech or double down more?

No, free speech does have its limits. Just like freedom of the press.

 

[mumblethrax]

There's considerable narcissism involved in wanting to control how other people refer to you when you aren't even there.

I don't think most people want to be gossiped about, even when they aren't there. And I wouldn't put that down to narcissism, nor would I characterize it as an attempt to control how people refer to you when you aren't there.

For people who have developed object permanence, the obligation to be courteous (to the extent that there is such an obligation) doesn't end when someone leaves the room.

 

[Donal]

No, words can never be used to justify violence.

Then what are you upset about?

I think the only possible exception would be if someone threatens immediate violence against another. If you say " I am going to stab you" I think I have the right to prevent that from happening.

Which we aren't discussing.

 

[lobosrul5]

No, free speech does have its limits. Just like freedom of the press.

Has this student organization at CU-Boulder gone beyond those limits?

 

[d4m10n]

...does it happen often that people discuss a third person when they're right there?

Of course it does.

Alice (to Bob & Charlie): Did you guys get that sort algorithm working?

Bob: Yes, just yesterday.

Charlie: Bob said to check how the code dealt with prime numbers, and by golly he was spot on. After I found the bug, he showed me a workable fix from his github.

Bob: Charlie is being too modest. Most of the actual patch is his work.

 

[Donal]

The site in questions does say:

How should someone respond to an act of violence?

Depends o nthe act. Context matters.

Saying speech can be considered violence does essentially use words to justify violence as a response to those words.

This phrase from a person with no power in a document of no consequence was obviously not meant to be used to defend violent retaliation. It was meant to help the reader be more considerate of others with the use of pronouns. There's no reason to try and silence them.

Obviously this is not a legal defense,

And yet, yo utreat it like it is emant to be.

but it is essentially "them there is fighting words".

No reasonable person would draw that conclusion.

Anyrate, anyone who thinks words can be fairly labeled as violence doesn't understand how violence works.

Some would argue the oppoisite.

Aside from that, maybe its been addressed but, why is the pronoun thing even a thing.

You tell me.

When am I ever going to call someone he/she while they are in earshot?

When they are part of a conversation but not who you are directly addressing?