Counsler
1. I support gay marriages.
2. I support gay rights.
3. I have gay friends.
4. I support all equal rights and all equal opportunity rights.
5. I do not discriminate against anyone. And if I do it's probably because that person has pissed me off in some way.
I tend think I was on the page with you insofar as you're not actually a hater. But maybe I didn't leave that apparent.
However ....
I wasn't as disruptive as you would think I was
In form I don't doubt that for a moment. But what I'm getting after is the kind of disruption that comes from negativity; it's not, despite inadequate expressions (do we expect anything better--realistically--from American commerce and industry?) about gays
per se. It may seem like that because of the unnecessary attention gay issues have gotten for the last 13 years or so (I'm starting with the Oregon 1990 election cycle, which inspired the 1992 Colorado Amendment proposal, and things went downhill from there). But that's why I say to go to work and try the same kind of talk with heterosexual issues; the result will be at least the same.
But Im still wondering why gay people can debate gay politics but I can't. If I got into a conversation with them, then I can't do that.
Well, I'm not about to suggest a lack of creativity because I admit it's tough to pull off, but the essential point has to do with
divisive rhetoric. It's not the politics in and of themselves, but that one side of it is condemning. The heterosexual experiment, unfortunately, might get you fired, though.
So basically don't talk to the gay people. Even though they're a wacky bunch.
And if I don't suggest a lack of creativity
here, it's only because I don't know what makes up the talk. If someone showed up at my workplace and talked about security at Neighbors throwing the hetero chick out for getting topless, well, sexual orientations aside, that's generally inappropriate talk for the workplace. But if he comes in and talks about going dancing with his boyfriend, it is possible to be critical: "Did Joey wear the white leisure suit again? I keep telling him he looks
terrible in white polyester ...."
Think of the question, "Why do criminals have rights?" In my day, this question was misdirected; the real question was, "Why do suspects have rights?" Well, nobody really cared until a couple of cops beat the crap out of an innocent Hispanic man apparently for the convenience of it; hence the Miranda Act, which has set many a hideous criminal free. If the cops hadn't transgressed, the situation wouldn't look like it does; if the cops had
done their jobs, the situation wouldn't look like this.
Likewise, "Why do gays have more rights?" is a misdirected notion. People are marking gains without considering the starting points. It's like an honest homophobe walking up to a gay and asking him questions; for the gay it's a strange experience because when you're used to people being arrested, beaten to death, and called subhuman for being like you, it tends to wear on your patience.
So what's to stop a gay coworker from getting offended and taking it to work?
Well, I don't know how it is in your neck of the woods, but a false claim like that would have brought fire and brimstone to the claimant where I last worked.
So in the theoretic, is there just a misunderstanding in the colloquial? Is he merely hallucinating that you said it at all? There are factors to consider, for no policy works as a blanket. But if you think he misunderstood well-intended humor, it's your fence to mend. If he's hallucinating entirely, tear him apart for being a liar, not for being gay.
So really there is no right or wrong place.
I'll look back to the faults of situational assessments drawn while angry, frustrated, or otherwise upset. I know heterosexuals who are similarly sinister; in fact, I know more of them and at a greater proportion than I do homosexuals who are like that. What I hope to point out with that, actually, is that it might be a human thing merely manifesting itself around gay issues.
I can't be PC all the time, but I can try.
As hokey as it sounds, don't think of it as PC; think of it as respect. Would you look at a picture of your grandmother on her wedding day and tell her to her face that you would have f--ked her if you'd known her then? Would you call her a c--ksucking whore for
any reason? It's merely a convention of respect that you conduct yourself around certain people differently than you do others; of course, that's the noble interpretation.
I can think of two people for whom I used to stem my anti-military invective. One was an old Navy fart who could and would have me fired; the other was a reasonably nice guy and I had no complaints with him. Why would I want to bug him with my villainization of the military? Do you know how hard it was to not tell people I worked with that I could not actively support the troops in Afghanistan because they were volunteers tromping off on a distasteful and ill-founded war? It's a hard position to explain that while you would hope they come home safe you don't think they should be there in the first place.
But a number of considerations struck me:
- Is my invective the most effective route?
- Do these people warrant my invective?
- Is there anything I'm forgetting before I open my mouth?
And, sure, I'm respecting people's stupidity to a certain degree, but it's part of a respectful give-and-take that, when performed honestly, makes society's wheels turn. In the end, it comes down to what's important to me: Should I stake (something) merely to annoy these people while not actually affecting the situation?
It's a losing proposition. And the best way to avoid losing a fight is not to pick one.
I don't see this happening
Yet what happens if the company decides to actually apply its policy firmly and handle the transgressors? Exactly that. It won't happen because companies have enough common sense to bend unless they see potential for greater harm than permissiveness would invite.
And yes ... they would be dismissed for harassment.
No, no, no, and no. Read above.
Context: rhetorical propositions. Apparently I should have put the juxtaposition in the same paragraph.
Did I even say that? It doesn't sound like something I would say.
Pre-emptive strike in defense of relevance. Perhaps I've been spending too much time in the War Room listening to the Pekes and the Pollicles.
The more important point is that you seem to be discriminating between discriminations.
Did you think that I was actualy against gays in general, Tiassa?
I pretty much tend to think I was on the page with you insofar as that was concerned. I would hope my habit indicates that I'm more profane and less patient when I actually believe myself in the presence of a genuine raving homophobe.
:m:,
Tiassa
