About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 - 8:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An example of the mediocre dictating to their betters is diversity and sensitivity training that one is forced to undertake in North America with large companies.
I attended these classes and was shown different scenarios on video of what was inappropriate behavior.
The subject then turned to jokes in the context of racism and sexism etc.
It turned out that you could be reprimanded and ultimately fired for telling “offensive” jokes or making “offensive” comments if overheard in your lunch hour.
What was “offensive” was completely subjective. Pretty much anything that someone was offended by could be offensive, it may just have been the tone. And then there are the people who aren’t really offended but feign offense because they know they are supposed to be offended.
So no pictures scantily clad women in your work cubicle, no jokes, if a woman walks by in the office make sure it was only a glance and not a leer.
The problem with this is that people don’t really follow this too closely so the Christian has pictures of jesus up in her cubicle, an Indian had pictures of some other eastern jackass in her cubicle. The philipinos and veitnamese have there own little cliques and do as they please as non of the rest of the inmates would say anything (could be racist).
So I see the better types taking down their pictures and changing their screen savers to scenes of waterfalls and forests.
The busy-body awkward overly sensitive types wind up dictating the standards as reasonable people tend to ignore what they do.
As with money, bad driving out the good. Pettiness rewarded and tolerance becomes your vice. Become like they are unless you alone are the victim.
Dobbing people in on their speech habits, dictating behaviour and tastes all smack of Nazism to me and that is what is happening with the politicization of the workplace.
Many companies have someone in HR that handles any complaints. Usually a clipped haired lesbian type. Who said those people in University couldn’t get jobs? What chance did you have these people who hated your guts in University anyway?
“Frau Goegbels, zer woz ein man und er hat in zein cubicle ein photo von ein semi nakenden fraulein.”
“Zend him off zum re-education zentrum and if er ist nicht gerehabilitated wir wollen him nicht hier arbeiten haben.”

Post 1

Wednesday, September 3, 2003 - 11:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, it is rude to have pics of naked women in your cubicle, it is rude to make crude jokes on the job, and it is rather rude to stare at the secretary's cleavage or her swaying arse.

Is rudeness reason to let the touchy-feelies get in the way? No, not really.

Post 2

Thursday, September 4, 2003 - 5:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This wasn't naked but just swimsuits. The women though still had their bare chested men in their cubicles BECAUSE NON OF THE MEN COMPLAINED.
I find pictures of degenerate rock musicians offensive but somehow I don't think I would get a hearing.

Post 3

Thursday, September 4, 2003 - 6:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, you wouldn't. The universe is benevolent, but what makes you think that modern society is anything but malevolent?

Then again, I keep my cubicle bare of anything personal. My coworkers don't need or deserve to know about my personal life.

Post 4

Thursday, September 4, 2003 - 6:57amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If it is an employer directive that is within their rights to try and impose silly rules and certainly rule out anything rule or offensive by his standards but it is the politicization of the workplace that I object to.
Oh and you know something else that is offensive - photos of their ugly family members - ban them I say.

Post 5

Thursday, September 4, 2003 - 8:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"The universe is benevolent, but what makes you think that modern society is anything but malevolent? "

Matthew: What makes you believe that the universe is anything but neutral? If the universe is benevolent doesn't this imply a supernatural "intention"? Society can be malevolent because there is a collective intention.

Post 6

Thursday, September 4, 2003 - 12:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Supernatural intention, Samerica? Yeah, Cthulhu's not so bad a guy after all; you just have to get used to the stink and the stink.

Bad jokes aside, read Glenn Lamont's article on the subject at http://solohq.com/Articles/Lamont/Reality_Our_Objective,_Benevolent_Friend.shtml

You're right about society's malevolence: society can be inimical to the individual due both to its institutions (this means you, Mr. President!) and the intentions of other individuals.

Post 7

Friday, September 5, 2003 - 12:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Matthew: Thanks for the reference to "Reality: Our Objective, Benevolent Friend by Glenn Lamont, which I have reread." I'll ponder on it. It appears that their context of "benevolent" is different from the usual. For the time being I'll consider the universe to be neutral; and even my denial that there is neither benevolence nor malevolence implies that there could be an "intention" one way or another. The universe just "is" ... without any modifiers.

Post 8

Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 4:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm not a mean person. But that isn't to say that I'm without a touch of meanness lurking in my psychic shadow. How else could I explain the fact that I burst out laughing with joy at Harlan Ellison's description of workshop students:

"Today, colleges are not permitted to discuss 'failure' as a life possibility. Not to upset the ego-drenched little parvenus surfeited with their 21st Century self-pity, pointless rebellion, need to deconstruct and ridicule, not to mention their rodent-like feeling that everything and anything they want, they deserve, and they don't need to work to get it. It should just come to them, sans discomfort."
---------


How I wish I'd had more teachers who thought like this:

"I fully understand why [that school] would never have me back...that I 'scare' potential money-units (aka 'students') away, that they're affrighted of me. I bask in that knowledge. I know how to pull the plow, how to do that job, how to make it as rough and gritty and as close to the reality of the toughest job in the world as I can when I teach... I only wish [the instructors I'd taught had] retained their passion! To instruct otherwise is to cheat, to take pay under false pretenses, to succor the talentless and time-wasting and self-indulgent, and to short-change the ones who look on the job as Art, as a Way of Life, as a responsibility to themselves, their talent, and the rest of the human race."

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well I would have sanctioned it, Steve, but I'm stingy with my Red Checks.  Still and all, nice thoughts.

Russell Madden's thoughts are subtle:
For some businesses, it is money. After all, our culture informs us with sickening regularity that those involved in business are corrupt, unworthy, and exploitative. At best, they are the equivalent of herd or pack animals, a convenient means to supply the populace with their "needs" and desires. What does it matter then whether such beasts of burden obtain dollars tainted by the coercive and stained hands of the State? As Ellison points out, he scares away the "money-units." No different in principle than the managers at Wal-Mart who feared that a cashier who "offended" a college student purchasing junk with her food stamps might take her stolen lucre elsewhere.

It is true, though that the repenting Harlequin Ellison is himself a causal factor.  As a teenager, he was published in the Letters columns and then went pro.  He helped a generation break free of the bonds of plot and language.  Now at our age, he laments being devoured by the revolution. 

Reading the Noyeke complaint, I had to ask myself why Noyeke did not complain to HR?  Myself, I am not so easily offended and prefer not to be offensive in a corporate setting.  So, I would never complain about Jesus in a cubicle.  In fact, such a complaint would not get any consideration, and rightfully so.  I tend to agree with the intent of such harrassment rules, non-objective though they are, and must be.

What I see is a trend (one of many, admittedly) toward "vulcanization" of the human race.  We want to see each other as intellects, not bodies.  It doesn't matter if you are a hot dish with 40-inch melons or an old geezer in wheelchair.  What counts is your mind.   

I'm all for that.
100%
Dobbing people in on their speech habits, dictating behaviour and tastes all smack of Nazism to me and that is what is happening with the politicization of the workplace.
Many companies have someone in HR that handles any complaints. Usually a clipped haired lesbian type. Who said those people in University couldn’t get jobs? What chance did you have these people who hated your guts in University anyway?



Ok, Godwin's Law says that discussion ends as soon as anyone says "Hitler" or "Nazi."  Also, I warrant that this guy thinks that the women who would not date him in college must have been lesbians.  Personally, I like lesbians.  Not only are they hot, they are so centerist: women with the brains of men.  It's why I like working with gays: men with the brains of women.  I believe that in the not-so-far future, Earth will be a planet of sterile female worker bees.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/14, 6:32pm)


Post 10

Sunday, December 14, 2008 - 7:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael, has anyone ever said you can be rather strange? :-)

Post 11

Monday, December 15, 2008 - 2:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Survey: Many would take Internet over sex

Nearly half of the women questioned by Harris Interactive said they'd be willing to forgo sex for two weeks, rather than give up their Internet access, according to a study released Monday by Intel, which commissioned the survey.

While 46 percent of the women surveyed were willing to engage in abstinence versus losing their Internet, only 30 percent of the men surveyed were willing to do likewise.

The U.S. survey, which queried 2,119 adults last month, found that the gap grew even wider for both men and woman who were 18 to 34 years old. For woman, the percentage of those willing to skip the sheets in favor of the Web rose to 49 percent, while it climbed to 39 percent for men.

And for women 35 to 44 years old, the figure jumped to 52 percent.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/12/15/internet.sex.survey/index.html

  

[ Spock ]

  

 Live long and prosper!

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Either-Or

 

Image:Saavik TWoK.jpg     

 

Which would you rather be, given that you will be surrounded by 1000 others just like you?

 

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/15, 3:06pm)


Post 12

Wednesday, November 23 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

This article from 2003 popped up and I enjoyed it all over again.  Really fine writing doesn't go bad with time. 

 

I love that concept of pandering as a redistribution of virtue. 

 

Because all of our acts flow from ideas and because our minds have both emotions as well as ideas, there can be striking similarities to the motives and to the natures of acts as widely different as an economic policy derived from a Marxist perspective, and a teacher who righteously insists on rewarding children who failed equal to those who succeeded.



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.