> eg the past decade has seen us remove “that” as a qualifier, and the word literally has become interchangeable with figuratively
The latter didn’t happen just in the last decade, and the former hasn’t happened at all.
But no, I can pretty confidently say that the English language still has capitalization and punctuation in it, it’s mostly just on Twitter and in AI-related blog posts where people write like this.
respectfully, after knowing and working with many ex googlers; i don’t think google are the operators and cloud experts they once were and thought themselves to be.
When you focus on equity over equality everyone loses. There's a lot more minority groups in this country today. Why do african Americans get special treatment in 2023 over say ukrainians, afghanis or syrians?
There's a lot of poor and uneducated minority groups, but the idea that reverse racism solves anything is just outdated.
I think it’s pretty obvious that there’s racial inequity in the US and we need to work on it. But being punitive is not going to help long run.
I remember a classmate of mine who was ranked maybe 30th in my class and was African American. Both parents were doctors who immigrated to the US from the Caribbean in the 70s, she got a car on her 15th birthday, tutors, and lots of advantages. She was accepted to a great college above 20+ other people. It’s impossible to know the exact reasons why but she said she thought her race helped her and her application coaches had her focus on that in her admission essays.
It’s bad that people were rejected based on their race for hundreds of years and I’m not sure how we fix that. Admitting rich kids based on their race is not nearly as bad as refusing people based on their race, but there has to be a better way.
My minority view is that the post-war Amendments are about slavery not diversity and that the only non-color blind provisions in it relate to remediating the effects of slavery, so it really should only apply to descendants of slaves. This was politically unacceptable for most of the time since the Civil War so the pretext of diversity was created, or it was treated as a commercial issue in the case of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
We got tied into knots trying to find away around it and it just hasn't worked as intended.
>Why do african Americans get special treatment in 2023 over say ukrainians, afghanis or syrians?
There are unique historical factors there in terms of the Constitution which I can elaborate on if anyone cares, but I think the article is right that this is where the public is now. I think people will say "oh what a shame" publicly and then not be bothered in private.
… but you have to ask - why can’t this person find a job? Surely not every employer is non-inclusive. There’s smells of a partial story all through this.
As another trans person that's been in a similar position before, it's really frustrating how many loops I've gone through where the moment I'd get to some part where it wasn't voice only anymore, you could just hear the tone shift and get rejected shortly after.
Combine that with the current tech market being on a downswing and it's not unreasonable that this would take a while to find a new place.
I've met more than one hiring manager who tacitly refuses to hire anyone who is transgendered. Of course this is only revealed in confidence, and they'll deny it if asked.
The reason is typically one or more of:
- they don't want the rest of the team to have to walk on eggshells regarding pronouns and so on, or
- they don't want to have to deal with any fallout from female employees getting pissed about males using their bathroom, or
- they've had a bad experience hiring a transgender previously (typically due to the previous two reasons) and don't want to repeat it with another.
Kind of sucks for the transgendered applicants, but understandable I suppose, given the circumstances these days.
> Kind of sucks for the transgendered applicants, but understandable I suppose, given the circumstances these days.
Yikes. That's true in exactly the same way that segregation kinda sucked for the black kids, but was understandable given the circumstances of the postbellum south.
Discrimination against a minority solely for the social conveniences of the majority is a terrible sin. Haven't we had this fight a thousand times already? Why do it again?
Thank you for this comment, I was just about to rage and you eloquently expressed a great reply!
In addition I was about to add:
How about the manager not use their internal prejudices to influence their decision and hide behind a thin veil of “what about my employees” and actually let their employees LEARN how to correctly interact with transgendered, queer, ethnically diverse co-workers and possibly come out of their cotton-wool lined shells.
What if you had an employee who was horrified at their coworkers' eternal damnation and worked tirelessly to save their souls? Seems like that might cause friction as well. Seems like we might have a standard answer for that sort of friction that works for most environments.
The bulk of which, frankly, is just "don't be an asshole". But at the margins, we back that up with "at the very least, don't discriminate and refuse to hire the trans/christians/muslims/whatever, that's just awful".
> This isn't really a comparable issue that comes up with employees who have particular religious beliefs
Ah yes, because we all know the famous bible verse "Thou shalt misgender transgender individuals because the lord thy god thinks they are icky".
There aren't religious beliefs around transgenderism, only bigotry using religion as a shroud. And, it's an old trick. We seen slave owners use religion to justify slavery. Religion was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. It was used to "keep women in the home". It's been used to fight against gay rights.
You really want us to believe that a deity will punish some christian for referring to someone as "they" when they think they are a "him"?
If you've ever wondered why the young folk are leaving religion, this is it.
The parent didn't say the hypothetical employee objected to transgenderism on religious grounds. Plenty of atheists object to transgenderism too.
As a broader point, there seems to be this strange argumentative move I see where contemporary Western progressives assume that their particular ethical stances are universal, or that only Abrahamic religionists disagree with them.
Indeed, I found it quite an eye-opener to learn what the left-wing radical feminists think about this whole topic of gender, and their reasons for doing so.
I mean, this kind of "fight" is basically what society is about, and it is unfortunately always hard earned to get anywhere, but i'm also honestly not sure there is a way around this.
The principle you give is essentially limitless - your "social convenience" part is doing all the work here - but you can't just define away the things you like but the majority doesn't currently accept [1] as "social convenience" whether the causes happen to be "good" or not.
Because everyone who is part of a group that is discriminated against thinks they are in the right and that the majority doesn't accept them for, essentially, social convenience reasons.
And people in the majority don't see it as social convenience reasons.
If the two "sides" didn't have this disagreement, the minority wouldn't be discriminated against in the first place!
You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately, without any work, and people shouldn't fight about it, but they would if people agreed they were the right things in the first place.
You can't just pre-define people as wrong and then say "why are they fighting about things when they are so wrong, and are always so wrong about these things"?
Humans as a group are slow to accept, and fairly wary of acceptance of new social things - it's incredibly rare for significant social change to take less than a generation to take hold overall, or to gain acceptance across all living generations simultaneously.
There are lots of reasons for this, most (AFAIK) to do with our survival over the long term.
That sucks, for sure, in the short term. But i'm not sure what the better answer is.
I certainly wish there was a way to ensure society reaches a reasonable fixpoint on good ideas faster, if for no other reason than the obvious pain to people living it, but if there is, we haven't found it so far, and attempts to reach faster fixpoints have not .. always led to good paths, and attempts to legislate away resistance has never worked ...
[1] I honestly don't know if being inclusive of transgender folks falls into the category of what the majority of folks accept or not, i'm just presuming it doesn't based on your statement. The surveys i see seem .. complex and varying
IE https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...
> You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately
I... don't think that's at all what I'm saying. Upthread commenter was saying that refusing to hire trans people "kind of sucks for them, but is understandable" in a pretty clear oh-well-what-you-gonna-do-about-it frame.
I think that's bad. And the reason it's bad is it's the same logic deployed to serve horrific goals.
I don't think you're saying that it's OK to refuse to hire trans people either. Are you?
Basically: sure, you and your reactionary gender normative compatriots are more than welcome to "fight about it". That's what you're doing right now. Just don't take it to the point where you're trying to exclude people from your workplaces. Because that's fucking awful.
"I don't think you're saying that it's OK to refuse to hire trans people either. Are you?"
No, of course not. But there is a difference between whether it is "okay" in some moral sense, and whether society deems it "okay", and whether it's normal/possible/desirable/etc for that to take time to change.
Replace "trans people" with something you hate in your arguments, and you can see that they apply equally well.
"sure, you and your reactionary gender normative compatriots"
Please don't assume you know anything about my view. I was careful not to express a view, but here you label me with one, in a fairly pejorative way.
That is not okay, in any way, shape, or form. If you want to know my view, then ask. You'd apparently be surprised to learn that i have spent lots of time and energy trying to help trans folks.
You really do keep missing the point, and appear very focused on how you feel about this particular thing.
Other people feel equally powerful but opposite. You do simply define them as wrong. They do the same thing to you!
Your logic is actually the logic deployed to serve horrific ends, and i'm really not sure why you don't see it.
You claim you are not defining others as wrong, but you are in fact doing it, right here:
"Just don't take it to the point where you're trying to exclude people from your workplaces. Because that's fucking awful."
See here you've defined people who exclude trans people as wrong (again, i happen to agree if you really must know). I presume it is fairly fundamental to your beliefs, based on how hard you argue here.
But take people who believe the complete opposite of you - militantly (i don't care whether it's about trans people or anything else). That logic you just use applies equally well to that horrific end. Do you think these militantly opposite people should be excluded from their workplace? Do they get to think that you should be excluded because they think you are fucking awful? If not, why?
Because your logic applies equally well there - because, as i said, it is the logic you are using that leads to a horrific end.
Most people i talk with about excluding militantly transphobic people say "yes, i'm okay with"
Which I agree with, but not simply because i define the other side as wrong.
Now, as for what will happen, in practice, society will, over time, likely decide it's okay to not hire people who are transphobic, the same way society is okay not hiring all sorts of people that society does not agree with. Because that's what society is - a community and grouping, and a society always defines the acceptability bounds for the group.
But changing those bounds takes time, and always takes time.
In the meantime, society is not sure where it stands, and will be okay with lots of things it will not be okay with in the future. That is, again, normal, and IMHO, hard to avoid. Even if it is pretty horrific for those involved. As mentioned, it doesn't seem like we've ever been able to successfully avoid it.
> That is not okay, in any way, shape, or form. If you want to know my view, then ask. You'd apparently be surprised to learn that i have spent lots of time and energy trying to help trans folks.
It was a turn of phrase, and I apologize. The point was to poke fun at the rhetoric.
And now I've read that through about three times... and I genuinely can't see what your point is? You say you don't want trans people fired or excluded, but you're going to the mattresses to point out that someone who feels like like you do is... wrong? No, you don't say I'm wrong.
You're just making a meta point that I should recognize that my personal moral compass isn't the only one in the world? Like I don't already know that? How would you suggest I argue this point? Upthread, you're straight up celebrating society being able to "fight about" these issues. But only in defense of the other side?
Coming back: I still can't understand how you're deploying the abstractions above in defense of refusing to hire someone because they're trans. I mean... OK! You're right. Morality is complicated. But... is this really what you want to be defending? There are times where we need to pick sides, right?
It read to me like he was just commenting on your frustration that the law and all our norms don't instantaneously proscribe all possible forms of discrimination, that there isn't a plausible generalizable principle of "just don't discriminate", even if it's easy to anticipate that we shouldn't allow discrimination against e.g. trans people.
> there isn't a plausible generalizable principle of "just don't discriminate"
You'd at least agree that there ought to be an extremely high bar for "do not hire" exclusions like this, no?
It seems like both of you are interpreting what I wrote above in a senselessly absolutist way, which seems deeply uncharitable. I'm all for debating moral ethics in the abstract. I'm just a little horrified to see two major thought leaders on this site engaging in this particular direction.
Absolutely. I assume he would too. I don't have an opinion about what you wrote, but I make a habit of reading all of Berlin's comments, and it seemed like you two were just communicating at cross purposes. I'm not judging or anything.
> Now, as for what will happen, in practice, society will, over time, likely decide it's okay to not hire people who are transphobic, the same way society is okay not hiring all sorts of people that society does not agree with
I hope you're right, but I also worry you're giving "society" too much credit. In many countries, trans people are executed. There are very few where they have the same protections and status that they do in, say, Canada, and there is still a ton of transphobia in Canada (the U.S. is certainly quite far behind Canada in policy)
While it's nice the tech is more progressive with regards to inclusivity than many other male-dominated industries, this thread is living proof that even in a community which has been shaped by the zeitgeist of Silicon Valley (and the accompanying progressive lean of its historically LGBTQ-heavy constituency), there is still tons of transphobia.
Conceptually, this isn't really an accurate depiction. Many who are critical of the belief system of gender identity are also very much against the imposition of gender norms, and will argue against transgenderism on that basis.
I’ve heard of managers who are so inclusive of trans women that they talk down to them and give them menial clerical tasks (as an engineer) as if they were cis women.
It's a common enough sentiment here and on reddit when the topic comes up. But if Blind is any indication, it's possible more people would trash a resume that lists pronouns before just... using it to inform how they address the candidate
As is the case with many anti-discrimination policies, often the actual result can be the opposite of what was intended.
Many employees are not comfortable with the accommodations for trans colleagues required of them by their employer (and by our current legal environment). Those employees don't really have a means to have their concerns addressed: it is either comply or quit/get fired. A way around that is to simply avoid hiring trans people.
That you do not understand those concerns does mean they are not understandable.
While it’s unrealistic to believe that every bad thing that happens to you is because of discrimination, being part of a commonly discriminated group has an effect of making everything harder.
Lots of people struggle to find a job. Now imagine if on top of that, some additional percentage of jobs are off the table to begin with.
In a way, this reminds me of climate change. You can’t usually point to any one event and definitively say “this was caused by discimination,” but you’re quite aware it’s happening overall.
San Francisco and Seattle aren't exactly hotbeds of intolerance. The large-scale studies on discrimination in tech companies did find slight gender discrimination, in favor of women: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3672484
My company has a goal of 35% women in executive position. The thing is that we are working in the industry, you know, factories and machines. This environment does not attract women, we barely have women engineers.
That means that any women in engineering willing to take responsibility is fast tracked to management.
This was the same at my previous employers.
Anecdotal story time, when I was a young student in France, I believed that discrimination was mostly a thing from the past, I believed that in 2000, being black wouldn't affect hiring decisions that much and wouldn't make it much harder to find a job.
Then two very good friends of mine graduated, they were both black, they were both French citizens from the French islands, they both graduated as electronics engineers within the top 10% of their class, they were well-spoken, and pretty much serious model students. The average time to find a class for people who graduated in their major was less than 2 months. One of my friend found a job in 6 months, the other in 5 months. Both of them had a starting salary that was more than 40% lower than the average salary of the other students in my university graduating in the same major.
That's when I discovered that discrimination still exists and that it has tremendous impact. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that being transgendered makes finding a job significantly harder.
Many manager are reluctant of hiring members of certain minority groups, as they are afraid of the potential HR issues; as far too many people play the discrimination card when they are involved in any kind of conflict or face disciplinary action. Sometimes measure to prevent discrimination can do the opposite.
Probably because they sound absolutely insufferable to work with.
Who demands extensive requirements docs in <100 person startups? Who organizes ERGs in that context? Who spends all their time obsessing over process, planning, and identity instead of actually building stuff?
According to the article she was actually moving up the ranks and getting promoted, so it sounds like the company did in fact think she was doing something right.
Honestly, while I believe a lot of the perspective shared, there always seems to be a huge lack of objective assessment of options for these folks.
In tech there are many incredibly high paying jobs - taking control over your situation has a low bar.
if you don’t like your manager, taking the view that if you escalate a formal complaint to HR (in doing so lose all trust you manager and HR may have in you), you’ll be vindicated and live on happily ever after… it’s a fairytale. Go work somewhere that makes you happy. Leave toxic environments - it’s not your job to fix them/right wrongs.
There are certainly real victims in these environments.
There are also in my personal experience a lot of people who make noise/complain about immaterial incidents in the hope of claiming some group control over their situation or with some sense of justice around fixing things. This thrashing can create a toxic environment for those around in itself.
> if you don’t like your manager, taking the view that if you escalate a formal complaint to HR (in doing so lose all trust you manager and HR may have in you), you’ll be vindicated and live on happily ever after… it’s a fairytale. Go work somewhere that makes you happy. Leave toxic environments - it’s not your job to fix them/right wrongs.
Know where it's not a fairytale? Unionized workplaces. Source: I know several people who work at such places—raising all sorts of issues and having them addressed reasonably-fairly is downright normal at them, and a manager trying to retaliate for that kind of thing is likely in for a bad time.
My first job was at a unionized workplace. I ended up doing more work to cover the guy that was loafing around under the protection of the union. Who protects you from the protectors? Rational or not, since that time, I am suspicious of the personal work ethic of those arguing for unions.
It's true, you never have to wonder about the work ethic of the unskilled and de-unionized worker. They have so little job security these days you can practically get the whip out on the poor, desperate little plebs.
I get your point, but it sounds like you forgot where you were commenting. Most of the people here work in tech and are very-high earners. Your overwhelmingly-non-unionized audience are hardly “poor, desperate little plebs.”
I think the reality is that lazy people and bullies tend to end up in the same organizations (and are with some regularity the same people). The places that I've seen the least of both was in a privately owned company.
I didn't know better and after experiencing the consequences of my father loafing through life, I was determined to work hard. I was 18 and working my way through college (couldn't get loans or family aid). I grew up in right-to-work states, but went to college in a union state, so I wasn't really familiar with the dynamics.
Why would you cover for someone who wasn't doing their job? Unions don't make it impossible to fire a bad employee, they just require normal things like documentation and giving the employee a chance to improve.
If I started doing someone else's work making it impossible for the bad employee's boss to know there was a problem that's not really a issue with unions.
I've been in three different unions and never saw anything like that happen.
Mostly I saw things like rampant sexual harassment and nepotism at every level. Anyone who so much as squeaked about things being wrong saw management and the union reps team up to screw the person for fucking with the status quo. Heck, at my last job like that, they were cousins/roommates.
Unionized workplaces can be just as toxic as any other workplace.
> Anyone who so much as squeaked about things being wrong saw management and the union reps team up to screw the person for fucking with the status quo...
Unionized workplaces can be just as toxic as any other workplace.
This is true, but unlike any other workplace, if your union is filled with corruption and nepotism you can vote to change your union leadership or even to disband it entirely and replace it with a new union under entirely different leadership, operating under new rules written to specifically address the problems with your old union.
Unions at least give you the option of improving the situation if the vast majority of union workers agree that there's a huge problem.
Face prison and death? No thank you, no job has ever been worth that.
Thinking that you're going to fix deep corruption via democratic process... You realize that this doesn't work in mainstream politics either, right? Only in the movies.
I don't think most worker's unions are filled with Mafia members these days so you probably wouldn't have to worry about prison/death.
As for corruption, a strong democracy is highly effective against it which is why corrupt states try so hard to weaken or eliminate Democracy where they can. Democracy is absolutely a threat to corruption.
The US does seem to have slipped some (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index) and there's no surprise that there have been some very worrying efforts to weaken our democracy recently. Most Americans think our democracy is in danger. This would probably be a good time to fight for a stronger democracy so that we're better able to deal with corruption.
"Cut and run" doesn't work if you're on a visa, if you've already had to do that once or twice in the last couple years, or if you don't have enough of an emergency fund. It also doesn't work if you're not a tech worker - remember that discrimination affects HR reps and program managers and mechanical engineers and fabrication technicians and research scientists just as much as it affects SWEs.
Yeah, as someone who has been in one of these situations before and was unable to speak out, I am incredibly grateful for those of my coworkers that did speak out.
One of the reasons people in power can behave so terribly towards specific groups is because they can't "just leave" like you suggest. You think the bully's going to choose the strongest person as a victim?
I try to pay the favor forward by speaking out and supporting folks who are treated badly by shitty leadership whenever I can.
One other thing that is great for your mental health in any job, is treating it as a job and nothing else. Something you do for 40h per week to get a salary to pay your bills.
You're not there to make the world a better place, to belong to a family, to improve anything. Just do your job and go back to your life at the end of the day. When you're off work, do your best to forget about it. In fact, always prepare yourself for interviews, so leaving your current job it is easier when the time comes, and it always comes.
This detachment always served as protection from toxic workplaces, and I worked in a few of them. Don't let anyone fool you that it will harm your career, the only thing that will harm your career is not putting effort to learn skills that are in demand.
> You're not there to make the world a better place, to belong to a family, to improve anything. Just do your job and go back to your life at the end of the day.
Speak for yourself. I do want to make the world a better place and I'm fortunate enough to have a job where I do that. It's rewarding; my life has purpose during working hours.
> Speak for yourself. I do want to make the world a better place and I'm fortunate enough to have a job where I do that. It's rewarding; my life has purpose during working hours.
That's your problem, not mine. God forbid I'm ever in such a situation.
I'm dealing with this at my currently. It is a fairly large org and has good people and not so great people like any large enough group will have. What they don't have in my estimation is someone who actually knows how to engage with individual contributors in a meaningful way so struggles with issues of communication and direction, again, not atypical. I've invested into building an internal "meet up" for dev+adjacent folks to hold a weekly tech talk session, and am slowly building trust in what was a relatively low-trust environment. I do all this and some more within approximately the normal amount of working hours as if I weren't doing this with some very careful scheduling. My philosophy is that if we need to be here then might as well find a way to enjoy it and get something more than a paycheck. The effort is also slowly paying of in getting the attention of recruiting and hr, in that they are trying to learn how to engage with technology more effectively. It is slow growing but has been a joyful experience getting people to come out of their shell and give their, sometimes first, presentation at a meet up.
Be the change you want to be. Everyone just says "leave" but what if you have no where to go, and inversely, if everyone is just leaving, then there is no incentive for organizations to change.
You can argue its "futile" but the truth is, its not, these things compound, the more people do it, the less it can be swept up and hidden away. Real change is thousands and thousands of people doing small things to increment in a better direction. Its not always easy, but its the right thing to do. Thats how as a society can do better.
The idea of shifting it to "some other person" is why I think we have some of the issues today with reform and general societal polarization: everyone wants someone else to fix the problems
I don't think it's futile to try to change an organization within, but depending on the level of toxicity a lot of times leaving (and giving opportunities to others who want to leave and are still there) does more good than spinning your wheels someplace.
People should absolutely call out toxic work environments as just that. What's lacking is legislation protecting employee rights. Your approach is to cut and run, but ultimately people need to raise their voice for legislation to exist.
Yeah, tech is fortunate enough (for now… note how company ”gratefulness” to employees seems to be dependent on stock price) to the point that most everyone in the industry can switch jobs land on their feet and be better off.
I guarantee you that will change in about 10 years, if not sooner.
Ironically, as a collective bargaining unit we have the most negotiating power right now — when we don’t need it.
It seems foreign to us in the US, but being an employee should be no different than a tenant at a nice apartment building: both types of corporations extract value from the individual. Both find a way to make profit. However, as a tenant you have some legal rights (Europeans would still laugh at them in comparison). As a tenant you’re legally entitled to some basic day-to-day guarantees (though maybe not always in practice): a light breaks, plumber is needed, common areas kept in order, tenant disputes? A landlord has to fix that. I’m not saying a corporation needs to hold our hand, but it absolutely should be responsible for providing a comfortable environment, work-life balance, etc.
It’s really not too crazy to demand the bare minimum from our jobs, considering how much of our lives are spent working on them.
In this case, HR wasn't the problem. They were helping and tried to improve the situation. The problem is that there's only so much HR can do when the top executive chose to completely disregard them.
I'm biased, my wife works in HR but I've heard multiple stories from her where she helped solve problems by acting as an intermediate and deescalating the situation.
One of the major impetus of HR is to comply with laws regarding discrimination and ensure that the company doesn't engage in behaviours that would result in them being either liable or having a PR problem. This means solving those kind of issues and that sometimes involve batting for the employee with the executive team because they know that it's in the best interest of the company.
In this specific case, OP is a manager and passing up the chains issues that have been signaled to her. In a well functioning organization, this is absolutely the correct response and it's part and parcel of a manager's job. Involving HR early with a clear solution to deescalate and improve the situation (as described by the first case from OP) is great because this is what's best for the company. If the employee had transferred to the new team there would have been no basis for a lawsuit.
If you have a good relationship with an HR person, and trust them enough to ask for informal advice, some positive action can follow. If you want to go the formal route, if you use words and phrases that sound like a lawsuit in the making, expect an action to your disadvantage. HR is there to protect the company, not you. An obviously disgruntled employee crying foul is immediately perceived as a threat to the company, regardless of whether they're objectively right or not.
OP is a manager, good managers look out for their subordinates and surface issues so that they can be solved. Ideally before they become thorny legal issues. From this write up, it looks that OP did exactly this. At the beginning, she surfaced issues with two employees that could cause problems down the line for the company, she highlighted potential issues with documentations, requirements and test cases that would be problematic with the FDA (in any highly regulated environment like medical devices, making sure that the company is compliant is crucial and definitely the responsibility of any project manager).
I mean it depends. If you document your communications thoroughly and the company is sufficiently sloppy, then backlash from HR could set you up for a lucrative lawsuit.
I saw some CA employment lawyer [1] on youtube, and something he says a lot on his talks is "Don't call me if your manager is mean or not following some legal requirements, instead, here's how to best document and complain about it so it'll look good for you if they ever retaliate against you. Once they retaliate, then you should call me."
I did. You can mince words, but it's still blaming the victim. Telling people who get bullied in the workplace to just accept it and to get a new job is insane.
There is a difference between saying a victim, rather than the perpetrator, is to blame for the abuse (actual victim blaming) and saying the victim had the power to avoid it.
If I go to a dangerous part of town and get mugged, it's perfectly reasonable to ask how I could have avoided being mugged. That does not mean I am to blame, or that the mugger should not be arrested.
Do you also think women should not be allowed to wear revealing clothes, lest they get raped? I hope not. People deserve to be themselves without getting raped, or bullied.
> Do you also think women should not be allowed to wear revealing clothes, lest they get raped?
No. Nor have I said anything like that.
> People deserve to be themselves without getting raped, or bullied.
Sure, but we don't live in a world where such things can be completely prevented. Therefore, every person has a responsibility to take reasonable precautions for their own safety and well-being.
Derailing conversations about what people can or should have done to avoid being victimized with accusations of "victim blaming" is actually quite infantilizing and perpetuates vulnerability.
It's called an analogy. If you'd think for a few minutes you'd see the two situations are pretty similar. Of course one is far more extreme than the other, but both put the blame on the victim. Stop victim blaming.
Acknowledging that a person has agency and responsibility for their own well being is simply not the same thing as blaming them when they are victimized by other people.
Until you understand that, there can be no meaningful discussion. If you continue making accusations and demands, expect to be flagged.
Incorrect. You still just don't like it, and will not accept that it is an accurate statement about your comment. You are not entitled to have others entertain your bad narratives.
You know you had a perfect opportunity to try to convince me, right? Show me how "don't victim blame" is a productive statement that isn't meant to just immediately shut down the discussion. Show me how it leads to more questions and more discussion instead of silence. But instead, just restating your opinion as if it is objective, unquestionable fact.
As a trained pilot, flight planning is a huge part of your job.
Navigation is also a big part of the job. if you assumed you had to turn off parts of your nav equipment to avoid detection, then visual reference (ie flying the path to visually memorise/familirise yourself with wayppoints) would be something you'd certainly do - and a flightsim would be perfect for this.
reply