Being easily offended used to be a character flaw. Now it’s a job description.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
7 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
😆
Sadly true.
I wonder: what would the legal status be of a job description that said the successful candidate “must not be easily offended”? Suppose one added “especially by political incorrect remarks that 10 years ago would not have been”?
Of course, the modern HR department is more likely to reject a candidate that lacks that quality. Up The Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits by Robert Townsend explains that, as new CEO, he turned around a failing company by (among other things) firing the entire HR department and not replacing them.
Bah. It’s a tactic and nothing more. If you can’t argue rationally for your position, throw a tantrum. It’s a linear extrapolation of political correctness. Normals originally agreed to behave and talk in a “politically correct” (no N word!!!) manner because it hurt other people’s feelings and it was simply bad manners to do that. That effect has been codified (thanks media!) into doing whatever the cultural marxists want, up to and including giving up your job and promotions to those “more needy” – aka victims of your rudeness. Except the penalties have now been upped from being thought a bore to physical attack. The solution is a “free speech” movement. It’s not caring if snowflakes and crybullies kick and scream. Real mothers (and there are fewer and fewer of those these days) know you don’t give in to the child. You give them a “time out” ignor them and when they decide they want to be part of a real workable society they can behave like adults.
Niall. ‘HR’, a topic dear to my heart. They should be fired in the sense of witches on a bonfire. Slaves to every passing fad and generally not the sort of people one would want to employ in any capacity.
What a wonderful slogan for a T-shirt. I wonder how many people it would, hopefully, offend?
Niall,
Of no effect, even if incorporated into the contract, it would be void for being an attempt to contract out of the statutory right not to be subjected to harassment under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits harassment, but only that related to protected characteristics. There is however, a sort of safety valve under S26 (4):
Other harassment is a matter for what is reasonably expected in the job.