Assertion with no explanation works great right up until you are wrong. If you changed the situation slightly the person saying "we don't do that here" would sound awful. Turning the clock back a couple decades for example,

"My pronouns are he/him."

The authority figure, thinking that trans issues de-legitimize feminism: "We don't do that here."

Or two decades before that:

"My boss is harassing me, I'd like to complain."

The authority figure, thinking that dealing with harassment claims is worse for team cohesion than taking them seriously: "We don't do that here."

Both of the examples you mentioned seem to me like the best possible outcomes:

The trans person or harassment victim immediately realize that the authority figure is untrustworthy and they have to escape or escalate.

If the authority figure went on to publicly agree, but privately misgender the trans person, or to publicly agree to investigate the harassment while privately hiding the evidence, this would be far more hurtful and dangerous to the victims.

A trans person in 2002 doesn't have the options of escape or escalation, because the culture was the same at every company, and up to the top of their current one. Everyone will either privately or explicitly treat them the same way. The only opportunity they'd have is if someone opened a tiny window of hope by dialoguing, instead of pushing their own preconceived notions on them like everybody else would do.

Hi, trans person here. I agree with you entirely. If anti-trans language is a team norm, I can easily check for support at the top, and then if I don't have it, I can leave. Is this ideal? No. Does it work perfectly fine given that I understand there is a baseline level of transphobia in my society? Yes.

Would a manager every say, "no, we don't support you?"

No, he would say something clever and unarguable, stated in terms of popular truths. In fact everybody on both sides of the discussion would do that.

>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful.

But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.

Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:

A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"

The point is not to debate. The point is that "no" or "we don't do that" is an answer in and of itself.

You're comparing two things that are actually quite different. In your example, the other person thinks that you are being honest, and is mistakenly trying to help you overcome your unlikely sequence of obstacles. In the example you're comparing it to, they are trying to confuse you out of your principles by showing off their verbal skills. Here is an example that I think gets at what you're going for:

"Quit making fun of me for my big nose."

"Hey, that's a legitimate form of humor dating back to the third century BC, when Prodigious wrote..."

"That doesn't have anything to do with my feelings, could you just stop?"

"Facts don't care about your feelings."

And so on...

>Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them.

Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.

> Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up.

Perhaps you could try the phrase "we don't do that here"

This was a follow up to the original transgression, you have to be clear of what you are shutting down, before you shut it down. Again the two statements I said are much clearer and don't single out the recipient.

"It is hurtful when you do X" doesn't single out the recipient?

It does not single them out in opposition to the group. Say "we don't do that here" puts the transgressor on one side and the "we" on the other side. Saying "when you do" is not putting the transgressor on a side, but rather placing the onus on them.

My statements don't put the transgressor in opposition to the group, is what I should have said. But I think that thats actually the intention of this author and I don't agree with it.

> Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

Yes. This is a bit tautological because 'justification' is a word that connotes normativity, perhaps unlike 'explain' or 'describe'... but justifying yourself to someone else effectively invites them to negotiate your decision because it's a tacit admission that it matters (to you, or perhaps according to a shared social norm) that your decision is one they'd approve of in some sense.

However:

> For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:

> A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"

Trying to address someone's express concerns is not debating them. Don't tell somebody a fake story about what you want or why and then get upset when they honor your words!

""It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again.""

"I didn't mean to be hurtful. Why would someone be hurt by that? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..." And so on, and so on.

From the article:

"But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated. This is when I pull out “we don’t do that here.” It is a conversation ender. If you are the newcomer and someone who has been around a long time says “we don’t do that here”, it is hard to argue. This sentence doesn’t push my morality on anyone. If they want to do whatever it is elsewhere, I’m not telling them not to. I’m just cluing them into the local culture and values. If I deliver this sentence well it carries no more emotional weight than saying, “in Japan, people drive on the left.” “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals."

In situations like that, there is no need to engage. The transgressor is being defensive of their actions and I could easily see the same response to saying "we don't do that here"

"Don't do what? Why wouldn't we make jokes and have fun? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..."

At this point in the conversation, the best course, (in my opinion), is just to move on. It's hard to argue when someone clearly communicates what you did wrong, but people still do it all the time.

Way more effective to let them figure it out slowly with the time they need after the gentle boundary /standard is set.

> There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything

This is healthier than demanding compliance. It's how tech was built in the first place. A "vocal segment" (debatable) that advocates conversation is better than a group that demands compliance.

> It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?"

now, now, now. comparing colleagues to children for curiosity could be seen as "hurtful". Would you like to be told to "keep [your] mouth shut" for that?

That sounds pretty good until you've had the same discussion 37 times. Having the same discussion for the 38th time does not feel like a conversation; it feels a denial of service attack.

"We don't do that here" actually seems like a great way to express this. Discussion is not verboten in general; this is just not the place for it.

"We don't do that here" usually doesn't mean "not now" or "not in this setting." It usually means "not ever while you are employed at this company."

Even if it’s not a hassle to have the conversation 37 times, that 38th one could be huge drama!

For most people, a short debate is sufficient. But you will spend almost all of your time with that tiny percent of people who rules-lawyer their way through life: Pointing out the lack of written clarity, complaining about 'hidden rules', writing a letter to object, appealing to your boss, appealing to boss's boss, lodging a formal complaint with leadership, getting actual lawyers involved, and on and on and on.

I am suddenly reminded of the sealion Wondermark (http://wondermark.com/1k62/).

Anyway, "tech" was absolutely not built with group conversations, discussions, and debates. Debates are just ways to show off how smart you are. Tech was mostly built by people who went and did things, and if you didn't like what they were doing, you could either comply or leave. Which they discovered was a great way to get things done.

So then they expanded that to every other possible realm which is why you have to "fit the culture" to work in tech. And why we're having this discussion.

but these innovators were rejecting the broader norms of the time. On the whole, renegades were rewarded by the market.

there was definitely a lot of back and forth innovation.

I see your point though and perhaps debate is the wrong term, more like freedom to blaze your own path and challenge strongly help positions.

> Hard disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with? I mostly just shared how I'd feel if these techniques were used on me...

But every community has their rules. Just because they're cultural rules doesn't make them anymore debatable.

You: Break user space. Linus Torvalds: We don't do that here. You: I feel excluded.

Good? If you want to do that shit, do it elsewhere. Don't come back. That's all the statement means: This is my standard as a leader and I don't have time to educate you. If you disagree, do it elsewhere.