It is easier to criticize people if you did not picked up on them nor mocked nor humiliated them previously. Because a.) they will have more trust to what you say b.) they will not assume you are not just humiliating them again c.) they will not be predispose to see you as a jerk.
Or freely leave until you find a place that's cool.
You talk of vague "inclusivity", and hyperbolic "say anything I want"; but the post specifically referred to "Calling someone a 'princess' for liking salads" - when are we going to be inclusive of differing opinions and forms of expression? Seems a very specific interpretational framework is being mandated here.
Using rough language versus running off to HR when offended - I know who I'd prefer working with.
This is also why I originally said it depends on the context. You can say it to a work buddy who you hang out with after hours. You can't say it to someone from another team who you don't know very well. Use your head.
If you retreat when pushed, they'll just keep pushing. The issue here isn't whether you offend someone, it's who should be sided with when it goes to HR.
If she pushes back and humiliates you back, would you be cool with it?
But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.
HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.
I meant would you be ok if she really humiliated you. As you said, offense is semantic. Pushing back won't be comfortable to you. If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
> If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
false choice. I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated". Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?
I would find the princess salad comment hostile, unless there is context to mitigate that (we are good friends and in mutually teasing relationship).
Meaning, I would see that as one of those situations when I need to respond more aggressively next time otherwise I risk to be picked on regularly. Not sure if "humiliating" is the right word, but princess is not the image I want to maintain in front of colleges or anyone. Someone not to be picked on is much more practical image.
"I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated".
I am less likely to come with the answer right away, but I would attempt to figure out answer ready for next time you pick on me. Most likely, I would just tell "go fuck off" or something else rude with the tone of voice that is as deep and unfriendly as can be. Other then that, I am not sure, I don't know you nor the whole situation, so it is hard to come up with something.
Not a path for someone who considers it important to look like polite person all the time, but you gotta give up something. I think that this is where many women make mistake - they see aggressive response as something wrong and end up being constantly picked on.
"Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?"
That is part of the thing, right? You don't stick up with anything like that, you are mainstream and know that you are accepted by colleges. That gives you advantage in this bullshit.
But mostly, I prefer more formal workplaces that are above this elementary school stuff.
You make a lot of assumptions..
Yes, in fact anyone living in the west is privileged. Since we are talking in the context of software engineers, we're probably better off than most. Who are you talking about?
> get a paycheck, do their job, and not be discriminated
What "discrimination"? Being called a princess? or being shamed/fired for calling someone a princess?
It doesn't quite fit that someone "just" wants to collect their paycheck, yet rocks the boat on such a minor issue.
> inclusive and professional behavior
Are just words, without substance. Are tattoos unprofessional? or would discriminating against people with them not be inclusive?
great. I'm not sure I asked your opinion on the matter.
> no one got fired for calling someone a princess
I said "shamed/fired", and we're talking about HR, who are generally there to protect the company from disrepute, including firing people. The US is well know for liberal and at-will termination.
> Some people can collect their paychecks without having to be offended
That isn't the point - I'm calling into question your narrative: 'If you can choose jobs for their "coolness" factor', you are suggesting there are people who cannot choose their jobs for 'coolness', because there are more important things they are choosing for that reduce the number of jobs available to them; I am suggesting "being called a princess" is as superficial as "coolness".
> if they have a fucking swatiska
This is a tangent isn't it? The point is, those words aren't always consistent as attitudes on what is 'professional' change, and have changed, over time.
What constitutes 'unprofessional' is a matter of opinion, you are flipping this around to suggest that if something (might be) considered unprofessional,. I should not so it - but if everyone did this nothing would change. TLDR; calling something professional etc is an appeal to (supposed) popular opinion, not an argument.
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.