If you genuinely think the ones you saw could have been avoid just by a conversation, I’d wager the main issue was not an awkward situation but a crucial lack of trust, often coming from a toxic culture.

I saw a lot of situations where something awkward was going in, ranging from bad hygiene to mild harassment.

Dozens of people are witnessing the situation every single day, even if the manager doesn’t step in there’s a flurry of other people with enough power or influence to intervene. That often means that the situation goes on because nobody gives a crap, or the one in fault thinks (right or wrong) that nothing will happen if the warnings/requests are ignored.

That’s just a crappy place to work either way. Quitting won’t be because of the awkward situation, but because it was a symptom of a deeper issue.

I say it because it happened at my previous company: After a new team member joined the company (he was like 6, 7 feet away from me), I from time to time started getting weird smells, but it was occasional and it’s not like I was out on a hunt for the origin of the smell. Eventually we had to work together and wow, the smell was really intense (not sure if only that day or what); I immediately told him about it (it was just the two of us). He started using deodorant (that was the reason) more often after that. Weeks after I was drinking with his team, and they started talking about him and how much he had improved his issue, and I asked them if they had told them. They said no, with the reasons I mentioned above.

So, yes, people is different and you have to hopefully measure a bit what you say depending on the person in front of you, but if society wasn’t so sensitive these last years, it’d be easier for everyone to accept criticism so everyone improves. Also, if it’s something that directly affects me, there is NO way I’m not going to try and change/improve the situation.

There usually are repercussions, with concrete effects on work relationships and productivity (if there aren’t, why even bother ?). In your example, I’d guess people would delay talking to him and this would slow down communication. Keeping these kind of stuff silent usually don’t last long anyway, and it’s so much better to have early enough factual conversations, “we want you to fix X because otherwise it causes Y”, soon enough for the employee to have time left to digest the info and react on it.

But a core part of being polite, is not hruting others through your actions directly or undirectly. ( or at least trying)

In cases where not asking the question puts the other party in a disadvantage or at the risk thereof, I feel one shouldn't be allowed to claim that one was being polite or "doing the right thing".

You were being either too shy, cowardly or selfish. This doesn't mean that you must ask such questions/ venture in those topics. But it certainly does mean, that those that don't, shouldn't be allowed to claim active virtues ( to others or to themselves).

* Also, if one chooses to not inform the other party of the problem, I feel that one shouldn't make them suffer for that choice. Which means at the very least, not trashtalking them behind their backs for it.

The first part is about being good, the second part is about not being actively evil.

The problem is that in some cultures it's perfectly fine to talk about things that in other cultures it's not. The solution to that is to give people a benefit of a doubt and not assume they are trying to be hurtful, even if your first response is to be hurt. We don't seem to be great at that when dealing with people from other cultures, and we're really not great about it with people of the same culture (but the same thing can apply, since people interpret culture differently).

With the addition that we're currently in a zeitgeist of being very sensitive as a society about how people feel about what has happened to them (I would argue to the point that we're ignoring intention far more than makes sense), and it can be very hard to have sensitive conversations without someone being hurt and/or repercussions resulting, even if the intention was good.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/okay-ok-k-workplace-language_...

OK... - "This is exasperating and I'll just accept it"

OK... - "His response was childish; moving on..."

OK? - "What you've just said appears to have no bearing on the question I asked nor the conversation at hand. Please explain how it's relevant or get on-topic."

OK? - "Did you understand? Please provide a response indicating whether you need additional information."

OK! - "I acknowledge your request and am capable and willing to fulfill it. I'm on it. I'll get it done. You can count on me."

In person, you can provide vocal inflection and facial expression to communicate which of these you intend. Over text, you're at the mercy of how the reader is feeling in the moment. Personally, I'll spend time either putting more punctuation around the "OK" to help clarify. Or I'll just go with the sentences that attempt to preclude ambiguity. Apparently (anecdotally), most people don't bother.

OK?

Anything else is reading too much into it. If I send someone an email explaining something and I get an, "OK" back, then I assume they've read it (or will read it) and I'll hear more from them if they have more to share.

When speaking in person, the "OK" itself almost completely superfluous as it's merely a vehicle for inflection and other social cues which carry the real meaning, as you noted.

> I'll just go with the sentences that attempt to preclude ambiguity.

And that's what I'd do 99% of the time, but I was specifically pointing to discussion around "OK"

Boy did I miss that memo, but it makes sense!

I mean, I was chastised for taking a picture with a Buddha even while I did my best to be polite (I knew taking photos was OK but you had to make sure you weren't standing higher than the Buddha, etc.) - to me it seems kind of arbitrary, but I don't think the people offended ("annoyed with another dumb tourist" might be more apt) were being unreasonable.

In my case it was just a move to a different country and the social norms about what was acceptable, etc. are slightly different.

I've always advocated for a "refill the coffee if you find an empty pot" rather than "refill it if you empty it" approach since the latter means you _could_ be wasting a pot of coffee if you happened to be the last to want coffee that day, but I get that people have different views.

In that situation you never refill the pot if you empty it, you empty the grinds or pour in more beans if the the machine asks.

Automated like you mention is still an exception rather than a rule.

Lately I just use a French press.

As for downvoting, I guess people thought you were being dismissive of smaller workplaces? I dunno, I'm just guessing there, since I didn't feel the need to downvote you.

Also at the big companies I've worked at often you have a small room with a self contained team and each of these teams has one of these machines.

on edit: where I'm at = Denmark.

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to expect people to notify a coworker of things that their boss would judge the coworker for; even if it is contrary to the culture of the person doing the notification.

Does that make sense?

We should be able to interact in the best manner of the business and out coworkers. Sometimes doing that may be perceived by others around you as having crossed a line. Sometimes, there isn't a great answer.

What if bringing an office problem forth exposes that the person causing the problem has personal reasons for doing so (a disability they don't want to advertise, for example). The end situation may just be the status quo (neither the company nor the staff really want to impede the person with the disability once it becomes known), but with two people now uncomfortable either with each other, with coworkers, or both. I would say that's often a case that can be helped by being able to talk about sensitive things, but also a case where people may have good reasons for wanting their privacy (people do not always act rationally). The "right" answer is often contextual, and in some cases it may not exist.

This isn't to say that we should just forget it all. It's just that it's hard, and we should be careful before assuming even somewhat obvious statements such as yours (which I agree with) are enough.

See the situation with the now previous Away CEO.

The problem is wanting the notion of politeness to do too much work. Being polite, being nice, is just a moment to moment strategy for avoiding conflict. Unfortunately, niceness has become the most important virtue in American culture.

Being good is much more profound, and niceness is just one of the many tools you can use to achieve it. Sometimes being good entails being harsh. Sometimes it means doing things that will upset others.

In my experience, people who say that they are being harsh for someone's own good are generally just being jerks. On the other hand, people who are actually able to be harsh for someone's own good are generally people who try very hard to be nice.

It's sort of like the saying that luck favors those who don't expect luck.

To be clear: I don't mean to say that I think you are a jerk. I realize that you are just explaining the principle that good and nice are not necessarily the same thing; not saying how you would or wouldn't act in a given situation.

It's basically a philosophical method of being a little less self-centered. It also suggests that while objective offensiveness is possible (calling someone a harsh name, etc.), most of the time offense is taken rather than given.

It is one of my favorite principles from a religion that most who practice said religion almost entirely ignore. Puzzling.

There's nothing puzzling about this. Most people who practice any religion with written principles almost entirely ignore almost all of those principles. The official principles of a religion don't really have anything to do with why people affiliate to one or another.

It is perfectly fine to be super-nice as often as possible. But, the culture is "do not offend" dominate and almost void of "do not take offense".

This imbalance of cultural enforcement is likely a driving factor behind the younger generations view on enforcing standards of political correctness, social justice, etc. If you are offended then you are in the right, always, and without question.

Events where people get offended end up being reported online or in the media. Events where no one gets offended get no coverage, though that mind set is also very common. Additionally, extreme examples of "offensive behavior" are used by poth sides for political propaganda.

Take that with a grain of salt, there's plenty of stuff in the Bible that suggests overlooking offenses (things like Proverbs 19:11) and obviously forgiveness is part of it. But I'm not sure "take no offense" is quite the main component of that creed.

For example suppose that a trans person takes offense at someone refusing to use their preferred pronoun. The issue may not actually be about the importance of the pronoun so much as it is about whether they have the social right to define the pronoun that is associated with them.

I think that the failure to understand this dynamic could be one of the causes of polarization in America. For example:

- Conservatives often criticize "political correctness" by mocking what they perceive to be overreactions to minor slights. However, that may be missing the point if the issue is not the magnitude of the slight but whether someone has the right to take offense at all.

- Anger over removing the Confederate flag may not be about the flag itself so much as it is about asserting that Southerners have a right to be treated with respect.

This seems extremely generous, and doesn’t match my impression of supporters of the confederate flag I have seen or heard about, many of whom live outside the former confederate states and have nothing to do with the South culturally.

There is a demand to be heard/respected involved, but the demand as far as I can tell is for recognition of white racial superiority and white social hegemony as a legitimate political ideology (which goes hand-in-hand with an implicit threat to non-whites), rather than anything about geography per se.

There’s also a strong element of defiance of what is seen as a subversive culture of pluralism and mutual respect, along the lines of: “I know this symbol is offensive to you, but I declare my right to wave it in your face because you can’t stop me.” This kind of militant offensiveness is attractive to the same sorts of people who “roll coal” to stick it to environmentalists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

After weeks of hesitation, once I told him: "Please, if you need to do it, do it in the bathroom". He said "Ok" and that was it.

It is a sensitive topic, just when writing this I have doubts whether to post this message or not.

But those things are just here, and if you act out of kindness towards the person, seeing how may he/she suffer because of that and by having a discussion or drop a few sentences on the subject, you are actually helping the person as well.

I guess it is better to try than to alienate that person in our mind and the longer it takes, the harder it is to start the discussion.

Be rebel! Talk about those things! With kindness.

Not having genuine conversations is part of the game unfortunately. Most orgs are political.

One can drop the metaphors and meet the human beings instead.

People who care about you may be trying to help you understand that you’re violating norms, but feeling limited in how they can communicate it.

It was easier to just throw away the keyboard than to have that conversation with someone. What grown adult needs to be told to wash their hands after they use the toilet? I later learned that almost everyone on the floor knew about this guy and they were all sickened being around him.

for example, the Keyboard scene, being horrified because someone touched your keyboard is not logical behaviour. In fact, the keyboard is probably more disgusting than the toilet paper.

The actions of your employee were not rational. But by validating them you create a mob.

"begin sickned/disguested" becomes a behavior of the in-group. Mocking that guy, overreacting is than encouraged by social validation. These are the same dynamics as bullying because it is a form of bullying.

Plus, this is exacerbated by your team member ( and maybe you later, just by asking) going arround bad-mouthing him.

Imagine if everyone started acting hostile towards you and you had no way to know why?

The guy should wash his hands after pooping, but performing a melodrama behind his back based on a pathological fear of unwashed hands seems extremely unprofessional.

This is acctually a prime example of where mocking might fix the issue so I kinda agree with you. He might think "what a bunch of wuzzies" and star cleaning his hands.

Quite ofent I get to work with my tshirt inside out ... before I get to know my colleagues they don't say a thing which is quite embarrassing when my wife notice back home.

I’m not sure whether you’re proud of this story, but that is an extreme overreaction. What grown adult throws away a keyboard (company property!) rather than having a conversation with someone? Did you also go around removing the doorknobs to all the rooms this person went into?

I'm also guilty. A certain easily-upset micromanager sourced a box of one dollar second hand HP keyboards that are pretty much unusable, so I've been shipping them out with other hardware, forgetting them at customer premises and so on.

Do you have dogs? Better get rid of them too since they track feces into your house in quantities that dwarf those spread by Mr. Poopy Hands.

1 - www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/home/your-phone-and-laptop-probably-wont-make-you-sick-but-you-should-still-clean-them/2019/08/13/99ba1416-b9f5-11e9-bad6-609f75bfd97f_story.html

https://www.center4research.org/bacteria-computer-keyboards-...

(My wife reports that it's not that much better on her side...)

https://www.google.com/search?q=are+bathrooms+more+dirty+tha...

Ultimately washing hands is for the benefit of other people. It just shows conscientiousness.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.urotoday.com/conference-hig...

Well, even just scrubbing the hands under water is better than nothing, if that's an insoluble problem in your organization.

But anyway, even just water can dry out my hands, and I don't want to use any creams. Either they contain alcohol and dry my hands out further or make them too greasy, and cause then to stop producing oils.

I think your just going to have to get used to the fact that there is going to be traces of poop and pee wherever you go. I mean, even if people like me did wash my hands, the spray from flushing the toilet disperses fecal matter and urine throughout the whole room, onto your clothes, on your hair, in your mouth when you breathe.

It's probably a healthy thing, exposing your immune system, anyway.

there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and prolongs lives

At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine.

> you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly?

I don't even think about it. Despite your implication of calamity, nothing happens. (Besides, babies are a lot dirtier than me, drooling and sticking everything in their mouths)

> despite your superior body chemistry, do you not wash your clothes in soap?

Clothes are another matter, they aren't living organisms with evolved mechanisms to survive in a natural environment full of all kinds of microorganisms that could kill you. You need to wash clothes just as you need to take care of any artificial tool.

Naturally, we don't need soap. This is a classic marketing technique, create a problem, “hygiene”, then push a solution, buy my soap. Only the soap creates more problems, but nevermind that. Oh if you're really suffering, buy my hand cream.

> would you refuse antiseptic treatment, or condone a team of surgeons with your unhygienic practice to save your life?

Would you take blood pressure medication when you didn't need it? How about put a cast on your arm for a week after lifting a heavy object just in case the bones are slightly weakened? Just because medicine can cure a problem doesn't mean you should use it all the time.

> there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and prolongs lives

An enormous oversimplification. Obviously it saves lives, but if we lived in a world where we never came in contact with any microorganism that might kill us, our defense systems would be weakened to a point where if we were ever exposed to one, we'd all die.

> At the end of the day, with your accelerated oil producing hands, that became that way because you are constantly stripping them of it, your hands are much more goopy than mine.

my hands are certainly not "goopy", but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you.

> > you are sacrificing everybody's hygiene for your own comfort. what do you do around babies and the elderly?

> I don't even think about it. Despite your implication of calamity, nothing happens. (Besides, babies are a lot dirtier than me, drooling and sticking everything in their mouths)

this sounds like an uneducated statement to say the least. it's not about dirt (a bit of dirt never harmed anyone), it's about bacteria and diseases, and the risks posed to those with developing or weakened immune systems. could you sleep if a baby you had contact with died from MRSA or diarrhoea? if you are consciously assisting the spread of infection and disease then calamity is the least you deserve.

> > despite your superior body chemistry, do you not wash your clothes in soap?

> Clothes are another matter, they aren't living organisms with evolved mechanisms to survive in a natural environment full of all kinds of microorganisms that could kill you. You need to wash clothes just as you need to take care of any artificial tool.

if you admit to willfully using soap on items that protect and insulate an organism then these could by natural extension include skin. also, the reproductive and therefore evolutionary rates of microorganisms far exceed our own - you and your kin would not evolve quickly enough to survive a pandemic.

> Naturally, we don't need soap. This is a classic marketing technique, create a problem, “hygiene”, then push a solution, buy my soap. Only the soap creates more problems, but nevermind that. Oh if you're really suffering, buy my hand cream.

bacterial infection and disease are not a product of unethical marketing. nor are they some imagined, artificial problem. the suggestion that soap is not needed is conflating to the domain of cosmetics, of which it does not belong. I'm not saying soap is the answer to humanity's demise, it just enables us and other species to thrive. the major example being post-sanitation life expectancy.

> > would you refuse antiseptic treatment, or condone a team of surgeons with your unhygienic practice to save your life?

> Would you take blood pressure medication when you didn't need it? How about put a cast on your arm for a week after lifting a heavy object just in case the bones are slightly weakened? Just because medicine can cure a problem doesn't mean you should use it all the time.

firstly, soap is not a medicine so that analogy is safely dismissed. secondly, those are auto-negating or rhetorical questions, so I'm not inclined to answer. mine were life-or-death scenarios, which you chose not to answer. I wonder why that was. I will not assume you would choose death, but instead presume you acknowledge that you would indeed need soap.

also, since you touched on threat perception. it's not about what could happen, it's about what is happening and what is being done to prevent it.

> > there is a reason humans harness sanitation: it saves and prolongs lives

> An enormous oversimplification. Obviously it saves lives, but if we lived in a world where we never came in contact with any microorganism that might kill us, our defense systems would be weakened to a point where if we were ever exposed to one, we'd all die.

soap does not alter our immune systems. everything we are immune to has nothing to do with the availability of soap. it's more about protection and mitigation against the things we are incapable of becoming immune to.

it's absurd you dare include yourself in that "we". you are the minority here. you are alive for two reasons, the first being you are lucky enough to live in an environment where sanitation is available, and secondly because the majority of mankind grasp basic biological concepts and are not living under some anti-goopiness delusion.

there are several instances in pre-sanitation history where we did nearly all die. to say that you do not need soap is simply insane (etymological pun intended :)

It's all relative. What you consider normal, is quite slimy for someone who is not engaged in your activity.

> but if you associate soap with that, then you obviously haven't found the right soap for you.

I just told you, this is not due to soap but to the increased oil production in response to you stripping the oils from your skin. Do you not understand this?

> this sounds like an uneducated statement to say the least. it's not about dirt (a bit of dirt never harmed anyone), it's about bacteria and diseases, and the risks posed to those with developing or weakened immune systems.

Jesus Christ, how did you construe that I thought that dirt caused disease?

> could you sleep if a baby you had contact with died from MRSA or diarrhoea? if you are consciously assisting the spread of infection and disease then calamity is the least you deserve.

You dare blame "MRSA" on someone advocating for less routine and systematic destruction of germs everywhere and anywhere? How do you think the "MR" part of "MRSA" got to be that way, hmm?

> If you admit to willfully using soap on items that protect and insulate an organism then these could by natural extension include skin.

There is a huge difference between washing a tool and washing what is as actually a human organ, namely the skin. The human body is complicated and tuned to a particular environment. Radically changing it by smearing chemicals on it several times a day will have many short term and long term unintended effects.

> also, the reproductive and therefore evolutionary rates of microorganisms far exceed our own - you and your kin would not evolve quickly enough to survive a pandemic.

If that were true how did humanity evolve in the first place?

> bacterial infection and disease are not a product of unethical marketing.nor are they some imagined, artificial problem. the suggestion that soap is not needed is conflating to the domain of cosmetics, of which it does not belong. I'm not saying soap is the answer to humanity's demise, it just enables us and other species to thrive.

Our species thrived quite fine before people engaged in obsessive hand washing. And I wasn't aware other species used soap?

> the major example being post-sanitation life expectancy.

Do I really need to explain to you correlation vs cause and effect? Just because people started washing their hands and started to live longer does not mean that one caused the other.

> firstly, soap is not a medicine so that analogy is safely dismissed.

If soap is meant to prevent disease, namely infections, and blood pressure medication is also meant to prevent disease, namely strokes and heart attacks, then how is not a medicine? What is it, if not, and why are you pushing its use so hard if it isn't?

> secondly, those are auto-negating or rhetorical questions, so I'm not inclined to answer. mine were life-or-death scenarios, which you chose not to answer. I wonder why that was.

Are you insane? You don't think scenarios where you ask if I would choose to live rather than die is not supposed to be taken rhetorically?

> I will not assume you would choose death, but instead presume you acknowledge that you would indeed need soap.

You get that I'm not advocating for the banning of soap use anywhere and everywhere, right?

> soap does not alter our immune systems. everything we are immune to has nothing to do with the availability of soap. it's more about protection and mitigation against the things we are incapable of becoming immune to.

If it only targeted germs that we are incapable of becoming immune to, and had no other effects, that sure, why not? The problem, though, is it reduces our exposure to all germs, and our immune systems do not develop properly in this sort of environment. There are many studies that show a connection between over sanitized environments and allergic reactions due to the immune system going haywire, as well as getting sick easily when they are then exposed to dirtier environments.

> it's absurd you dare include yourself in that "we". you are the minority here.

I am a "we" as in I am in a human being in the human race. You really cut those dividing lines deep, don't you?

> you are alive for two reasons, the first being you are lucky enough to live in an environment where sanitation is available,

Am I asking for a ban on sanitation?

> and secondly because the majority of mankind grasp basic biological concepts and are not living under some anti-goopiness delusion.

Sorry, I don't want my body to overproduce oils all the time and then have to wash those oils away every day to prevent being covered in my own body oils. We've lived like that for tens of thousands of years, it won't kill us all.

> there are several instances in pre-sanitation history where we did nearly all die. to say that you do not need soap is simply insane (etymological pun intended :)

Sanitation isn't wholly and exclusively comprised of hand washing. Me advocating for not doing it, isn't being against sanitation entirely.

most people can distinguish between slimy and not slimy. I bet you can guess what they'd do if they felt that their hands were slimy..

you try to make it sound like a sordid act whereas in fact, it is quite the opposite, and whatever sensation you attribute to it is invalidated by society's expectation.

> I just told you, this is not due to soap but to the increased oil production in response to you stripping the oils from your skin. Do you not understand this?

then find a soap which doesn't affect oil production if that is your preference or requirement. you're not expected to suffer, or sacrifice, or join a cult. just be clean and responsible. or is that too much to expect?

> Jesus Christ, how did you construe that I thought that dirt caused disease?

I didn't, hence "it's not about dirt", and no mention of causation. besides, you can't really cause bacteria, but you can hinder their growth and spread. with soap.

> You dare blame "MRSA" on someone advocating for less routine and systematic destruction of germs everywhere and anywhere? How do you think the "MR" part of "MRSA" got to be that way, hmm?

the arguments around antibiotics (medicines) seem tangential here, let's save that one for another time. I'm talking about preventative measures for the benefit of all. why do you think they have sanitation stations in hospitals, on farms, in kitchens?

> The human body is complicated and tuned to a particular environment.

bacteria are simple organisms and present in virtually every environment.

> Radically changing it by smearing chemicals on it several times a day will have many short term and long term unintended effects.

if you are worried about certain chemicals, or perceive promoting cleanliness and hygienic practice as radical and unintended, then you should re-evaluate your options or seek advice from a pharmacist. there is no excuse.

> If that were true how did humanity evolve in the first place?

by enduring near extinctions, adapting to new environments, and eliminating the weak? human evolution has been a slow process among a relatively small population. my point is that if we all stopped washing our hands it would mean bad news for all of us, faster than the rate of our evolution.

> Our species thrived quite fine before people engaged in obsessive hand washing.

by becoming aware of the dangers of not being clean. did we choose to live in trees or caves with rot? did we scavenge decaying food? did we favour unclean water sources? it doesn't have to be obsessive, just regular and thorough.

> I wasn't aware other species used soap?

I was referring to our veterinary use on animals and resistance use on plants. I'm sure many species are instinctively aware of natural bactericides, salts, etc.

> Do I really need to explain to you correlation vs cause and effect? Just because people started washing their hands and started to live longer does not mean that one caused the other.

I'm no expert, but I would expect that there is a strong case for correlation, and probably a causal relationship, between sanitation and life expectancy.

> If soap is meant to prevent disease, namely infections, and blood pressure medication is also meant to prevent disease, namely strokes and heart attacks, then how is not a medicine? What is it, if not, and why are you pushing its use so hard if it isn't?

again, not a medical expert, but my understanding is that strokes and heart attacks are incidents governed by risk factors, not diseases themselves like CVD or CHD. bad examples aside, soap is used for preventing the spread of harmful bacteria. medicine is used for treatment of an established condition. blood pressure medication is specifically for treating high blood pressure. as a side effect it lowers the risk of heart disease. I'm not against using medicine. I am pushing for the use of soap because my culture deems it acceptable to shake hands, share toilet seats, and eat food, with staph-ridden strangers like you.

> Are you insane? You don't think scenarios where you ask if I would choose to live rather than die is not supposed to be taken rhetorically?

I admit it was a cheap shot. but if it saves lives then is that not more important than your perception of harm?

> You get that I'm not advocating for the banning of soap use anywhere and everywhere, right?

sounds like progress.

> If it only targeted germs that we are incapable of becoming immune to, and had no other effects, that sure, why not? The problem, though, is it reduces our exposure to all germs, and our immune systems do not develop properly in this sort of environment. There are many studies that show a connection between over sanitized environments and allergic reactions due to the immune system going haywire, as well as getting sick easily when they are then exposed to dirtier environments.

washing our hands does not reduce exposure to all germs. if they're not on our hands then they're on the rest of our body anyway. I don't use soap in my eyes or lungs. washing hands has one simple purpose: to prevent spreading bad bacteria through a specific medium. it's simple risk reduction. many diseases and infections have a faecal-oral route, with hands as the main carrier. why on earth wouldn't you wash your hands after using the lavatory? it's bizarre and vile. I'm not concerned with cherry-picked studies on such a complex subject as immunology, just common sense and decency.

> I am a "we" as in I am in a human being in the human race. You really cut those dividing lines deep, don't you?

if something is detrimental to the continuation and progression of a race, it does by its own being not belong.

> Am I asking for a ban on sanitation?

you are advocating for and contributing to the spread of bacteria and disease. am I sounding unreasonable?

> Sorry, I don't want my body to overproduce oils all the time and then have to wash those oils away every day to prevent being covered in my own body oils. We've lived like that for tens of thousands of years, it won't kill us all.

it's the twenty-first century, there really is no excuse. I suspect it's more to do with mentality than physiology.

> Sanitation isn't wholly and exclusively comprised of hand washing. Me advocating for not doing it, isn't being against sanitation entirely.

I never said it was. it's just the most basic form and first line of defense.

p.s. what are your thoughts on toothpaste?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21263894

which elicited a lot of comments about how much they disliked this type of conversation

reading this comment makes we wonder if its not more a function of 'non-violent communication is a tool people use to bring up subjects they would otherwise avoid; there's basically no way to talk about a lot of these subjects in a manner that doesn't bother people; ->-> if these is something you're going to pay costs on if it doesn't get brought up, using the tool of non-violent communications is one way to handle these costs'

See this thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21766903

To be fair, I'd have done the same. That kind of behavior strikes me as a symptom of something else going on and I don't know if I'd want to put myself in their sights.

Well, i guess such conversation would not have a rational background, it would be just a power struggle whether one side could enforce its cultural norms on the other side.

Using one's soft power to enforce specific goals or norms is risky and should be risky, not only because it could turn against the speaker, but also it could turn into oppression of those with less soft power.

So perhaps it is best to reserve that to important issues, while handling trivial ones with tolerance.

A lot of the people working in assembly in that factory were old women, and I became friends with them. After a few months, one of them pulled me aside and she clearly had a question, but seemed nervous about asking it. I invited her to be candid, and she asked "uh, do you use soap when you shower?". She had correctly identified that I didn't use soap, and her question immediately made me realize that everyone who I managed noticed my hygiene and quietly endured it because they were uncomfortable speaking up about it. I was mortified that I had been presenting myself so poorly, blind to the impact on the people around me. I was (and remain) grateful that she worked up the courage to let me know that something I dismissed as beneath notice actually was noticed. I started taking better care of myself and being mindful of how I presented myself to the world, and I quickly noticed that people's facial expressions were different when I was around, and when I showed people how to do different assembly operations, they learned the first time (rather than producing a lot of waste before I had to show them again) as they weren't distracted by my hygiene.

TLDR: One honest question immediately corrected incorrect beliefs that I held for years and that hindered my success.

1. You cannot expect someone to realize something, no matter how obvious it is to you, you don't know how to person was raised and what experiences that person went through, thus you should never expect something obvious for yourself to be obvious for others as well

2. If something bothers me but I don't talk about it, I will resent the problematic person one way or another, and the problem will resurface one day or another (probably not in the way you would expect too).

There's no way to relate to people like that and confrontation being avoided is the only way out

Changing clothes weekly was societal norm before washing machines became common. With washing machines Jevons paradox takes effect - instead of just accepting more free personal time with less time taken by washing clothes, we ramped up societal expectations for clean clothes.

Like, an individual you get a vibe from, I get it, but all people who are house poor should be avoided? I'm not sure I follow.

If you're a professional you ought to have some sort of professional persona that's not so directly tied to your 35 year mortgage

If all your money is tied up in interest payments to where you can't hardly afford a stitch of clothing what fault of it is mine who manages my money differently do I seriously have to see you wearing the same tired old outfit every day for a week and you're in a position to affect my career to boot?

I'm not interested in working with Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey or Elon Musk or Einstein himself I'm interested in working with regular people who know how to shop for value and don't have to piss holding a cell phone or chew loudly with their mouths open

The reason for this is I'm trying to achieve the enlightened state of higher consciousness that comes with practicing my art to its highest form of mastery and with it comes a certain social awareness that requires like-mannered colleagues to realize

No one should have issues with people dressing similarly every day. But wearing the exact same shirt literally every single day without washing it every day becomes noticeable really quickly for hygienic reasons, and that's the part that makes it problematic.