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