Comment by danharaj
7 years ago
In other words, people here are more concerned with a phenomenon that is measurably rare relative to the downright epidemic that people are seeking to counteract. I think that says a lot about one's values.
7 years ago
In other words, people here are more concerned with a phenomenon that is measurably rare relative to the downright epidemic that people are seeking to counteract. I think that says a lot about one's values.
Whether a phenomenon is rare has a lot to do with how common it is. People getting shafted by kangaroo courts is rare when kangaroo courts are rare. What happens when you make kangaroo courts common?
What you have is an epidemic of powerful employees abusing their position to take advantage of junior employees.
What seems to be suggested to fight it are tools that would be extremely effective against other junior employees (even if the allegations are untrue), but only middlingly effective against the real problem of powerful employees.
That will understandably lead to push back from junior employees who fear abuse. Offer solutions which would primarily work against powerful employees and would be ineffective against other junior employees and I think there would be much more support.
How rare false accusations are is completely irrelevant. If the goal is justice, then due process is non-negotiable. Period.
The goal is not justice. The goal is to limit the damage done by misbehaving employees, as cheap as possible.
No justice, no peace
In my experience "cry-bullying" is not as rare as you make it out to be.
It's very much a "sexual harassment sucks for them, but that solution could affect me, a guy!" mentality
Fuck you got mine transposed