Mitt Romney's photo op with a Vietnam veteran.

[Jonathan]

The guy at your workplace can go straight to hell, and should probably take your boss along for the ride for that matter. It's their job to make sure you have a safe place to work and not just sit in the back and sign paychecks once a week. I hope you can find a better place to be and better people to be with. Also your coworkers and every able bodied person occupying the place who didn't step up to help you are useless human beings.*

These are two very different scenarios. What happened to you was awful and terrible. If the same thing happened to Watson I'd say it was awful and terrible too. I don't see it as the same thing, and neither does Watson. And hopefully elevatorgate thread part 2 can draw to an agonizing close?

This next election is going to be tough. I used to joke about having to choose between two disingenuous pandering caricatures but these guys don't seem to be even trying to portray themselves as anything else.


PS it sounds like this applies:
"A hostile work environment exists when an employee experiences workplace harassment and fears going to work because of the offensive, intimidating, or oppressive atmosphere generated by the harasser.

A hostile work environment may also be created when management acts in a manner designed to make an employee quit in retaliation for some action. For example, if an employee reported safety violations at work, was injured, attempted to join a union, or in some way caused trouble for the management, then their response might be to harass and pressure the employee to quit. Actions that could be taken in furtherance of this might include inappropriate disciplinary procedures, reduced hours or wages, unreasonable scheduling or workload or similar things. The company's behavior in lieu of termination avoids the need to pay unemployment benefits.

The anti-discrimination statutes governing hostile work environment are not a general civility code. Thus, federal law does not prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not extremely serious. Rather, the conduct must be so objectively offensive as to alter the conditions of the individual's employment. The conditions of employment are altered only if the harassment culminates in a tangible employment action or are sufficiently severe or pervasive."

[Solumina]

But that's just it, you think they are separate but they are not. The reason why that guy acted Tue way he did is exactly the same reason why people reacted the way they did to guys being asked to not approach women the way that Rebecca was approached, that reason being that men feel entitled to women's attention.

Also that bit about harassment in the workplace is about as useful as OSHA safety regulations. They are great on paper but get broken all of the time and usually the people who most need the protection they are supposed to provide are unable to risk pursuing a claim because their employer and their harasser are the ones with all of the power.

[AshleyO]

One time, at this one place I used to work at, a bunch of temps were brought in to work 10 dollars an hour. Unfortunately, the company made them work over 24 hours straight and threatened them all that if they left, they would not get paid for their time. OSHA be damned.

If fact; THIS example up here is exactly why I do not enjoy or think nicely about capitalism and how it perpetuates itself. It's also examples such as this that get me from point zero neutral with a libertarian to all out "I want to wage bloody fucking war with you" in less than a sentence.

Luckily, I'm starting to accept that there are people out there that are just far too broken to reach and aren't worth engaging in.

[Jonathan]

Suddenly realized there is no way this will go anywhere good.

[AshleyO]

On YOUR terms maybe.

[Jonathan]

Haha, in my privileged white male opinion it would have resulted in a shitstorm to make the last 2.5 threads look tame after I considered it, and completely destroy what remains of this one..

I do agree with you, libertarians can be extremely frustrating. Especially ones that are actively working against their own interests. It makes a twisted sort of sense if you're actually on top to want to keep your advantage, but the people who are lower middle class at best trying to protect the people actively screwing them over is mind boggling.

[Saya]

Originally Posted by AshleyO

On YOUR terms maybe.

In a way I'm thankful because I'm writing a paper on post-colonialism (who are wrong, obviously, because white men say so. What do those academics of colour know?) and how our racist hegemony controls the language and discourse we use to a point that we're often forced to speak on racism's terms. Try and create a new discourse though and its ignored and discarded by those who do not want to hear.

[CuckooTuli]

Originally Posted by Alan

I was cool; you should know by now how I speak. It is now that I'm actually pissed, because there's nothing I hate more in forums than people whining about HOW one says shit instead of WHAT that shit is.

Ad hominem. I never whined that you should be nicer to people - I simply pointed out the factual inaccuracy of saying that anyone who disagrees with you is incapable of understanding politics. If that's just "how you talk", cool and noted and everything; but let's not pretend we're having this conversation 'cause I'm delicate little flower who couldn't handle all your big bad truth, huh?

[Alan]

It's obvious you don't know what an ad hominem is as I never made an argument basing your persona as a premise for it. But good job in trying to make your vocabulary sound smarter than it is; you gotta start somewhere, right?

[Versus]

She said she understands you and disagrees.

I don't think she believes that's the only reason you would like Romney, she just doesn't agree with that reason.

[Alan]

And I asked where one draws the line about not thinking in tones of gray and instead got a reply whining about how I said shit.
You already got it. Should I also not like MLK because he wasn't cool with gay people? People always say 'that's different' when confronted with their boundary of double standards, and it's a copout.

[Versus]

I'm not sure if you're asking me for my input, so I appologize if your question was rhetorical.

To use that example, I would understand if you didn't. As far as I know, he didn't actively shit on gay people so he obviously hadn't crossed my boundaries. But I say that as a heterosexual; It's not for me to decide if he crossed the line for a gay man, or anyone else.

What's important to you is what's important to you. Nobody can arbitrarily tell you where to draw the line.

[Versus]

Ugh. I say that, but thinking about it is really difficult; I tell people they're fucking disgusting if they don't draw that line in some instances.

[Alan]

Because the point isn't to draw some absolutist line, because wherever it is drawn it will be a hypocrisy to that on the other side. It just fits the mentality of "it doesn't concern me so I don't give a shit", and that's what s done in this thread.
How about instead of making shit into black and white (because Tuli literally had a point of contention against seeing things in tones of gray) issues are critically assessed from within? Is critical theory a lost art? Is the only reason one should oppose or accept something is simply because of the proximity to one's own preferences? You yourself are seeing the big problem in that, as you wrote something leading to it and immediately commented back because it's just not that simple.

[Jonathan]

Issues are a simple matter of either disregarding things from a standpoint of privilege because you don't have a personal stake in the matter, or some Other interjecting opinions on something they can't possibly understand.

[Alan]

I know Jonathan's comment reeks with irony (or maybe it's on purpose and it's sarcasm), but it's right here.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Alan

Because the point isn't to draw some absolutist line, because wherever it is drawn it will be a hypocrisy to that on the other side. It just fits the mentality of "it doesn't concern me so I don't give a shit", and that's what s done in this thread.
How about instead of making shit into black and white (because Tuli literally had a point of contention against seeing things in tones of gray) issues are critically assessed from within? Is critical theory a lost art? Is the only reason one should oppose or accept something is simply because of the proximity to one's own preferences? You yourself are seeing the big problem in that, as you wrote something leading to it and immediately commented back because it's just not that simple.

Alan, her point of contention was using forming an opinion of Romney from his stances relative to others. I know she used language that suggests otherwise, but I really don't think she has a problem basing conclusions from looking at things relatively as well as individually.

[Versus]

Also, would you mind if you explained something else to me?

[Alan]

My problem with Tuli isn't what she thought about Romney, it's that she told me to clam down when I wasn't angry just because of how I speak, which she had no problem doing again and failing miserably trying to use a two dollar word.
Everything else is because I want to keep emphasizing the fact that if they think of politics as a thing about sides, then I'm going to find the line in which their 'side' becomes hypocritical.
What did you want to ask me besides that?

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Alan

which she had no problem doing again

Now I'm pissed that I didn't even see that until you pointed it out again. "But" is a really powerful trojan horse in this kind of social language.

Everything else is because I want to keep emphasizing the fact that if they think of politics as a thing about sides, then I'm going to find the line in which their 'side' becomes hypocritical. What did you want to ask me besides that?

Hrm, disregard. I reread the thread and some of your posts. I agree with you and I also suspect I know what you would say, so thank you for that.

As a small aside, I don't think Ape Descendant is blind. In this instance, she said fuck Romney and everything he's about because he's anti-gay and anti-woman. To counter that, I can also think of an instance where she had the same sentiment for someone who is largely a giant twat, despite the fact this guy is a proponent of gay rights within the LGBT community. There's obviously a space for give and take in those opinions and I think she doesn't realize it. I empathize with her, but I'm really wary about speaking for her, so I won't.

[Versus]

Also, I'm amused by Jonathan's last post, too. Both because he's implying that I'm guilty of that, and because it seems incredibly ironic.

[Jonathan]

It was more of a generalized post than a hit at anyone in particular. If it is wrong to shrug off things as "someone else's problem", while at the same time being told it is wrong to have a (white) opinion on an issue that literally is someone else's problem, then we're pretty much backed into a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario. There's not much to do at that point other than say gee that sucks, good luck I guess.

[Versus]

EDIT: One sec.

[Jonathan]

*possibly irrelevant depending on edit*

[Versus]

I'm not sure I understood you when you said you're told it's wrong to "shrug something off as someone else's problem," but I think I get you, now. Would a good example be if you were to react neutrally to something you recognize as a problem for somebody else?