Progressive Ideology

[Peter Brown]

You can't concoct hundreds of situations where a relationship is started between two peers in a company, and power dynamics plays out over that relationship? And after that relationship is over?

You want to avoid these issues, it's cold turkey.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company? Look, I agree with MDlax that when people spend time together, 'things' are bound to happen no matter what rules we have in force; that's why really intelligent people make the mistake knowing full well it is wrong. The better rule is to try your best to never date anyone inside the same company you work for.

That's indeed a good personal rule. Certainly what I would normally advise my son or daughter.

But here's a scenario. Company recruits my son, he accepts offer, and they ask him if he knows anyone else who would be interested in coming to New Zealand (and now Shanghai). He says, how about my girlfriend? They interview and hire her, they move to NZ, working in different areas, but side by side much of the time. Company then asks the two of them to move to Shanghai, help open a new office, grow the business. He's a kid who didn't want to go with his lax buddies to NYC as it was 'too big', claustrophobic...she persuades him to go look, he loves it and they both move. He's now running the fastest growing part of a now $300mm valuation business, a year and a half later, age 26. She's managing a different functional part of the business, same region. Both working their tails off, but also getting to see a part of the world they'd never imagined being part of their life journey.

Oh yeah, the company was founded by a boyfriend (CEO), now 25, and girlfriend (COO) while still in HS in NZ...they remained boyfriend and girlfriend up until recently; that's gonna be interesting ...CEO was a college class grad year with my son at HU (though CEO finished in 3 years with BS and MA degrees, while running the co, Stanford B-school, raised $30mm on $200mm val, Tiger Global, etc). My son was busy playing lax...the slacker!

Point is, this stuff is much more complicated than a simple 'rule' covers. I have difficulty calling relationships that are actually meaningful, loving relationships as something "wrong". Fraught with potential problems, yes, but "wrong" I'd reserve for actual abuse of power situations, harassment, assault, etc.

Yours is an interesting situation to say the least. I would need to get advice from some very intelligent HR folks; even they might get stumped. I can be persuaded on both sides of that coin, therefore all I can say is I have no idea. I agree with your last paragraph obviously.

[MDlaxfan76]

You can't concoct hundreds of situations where a relationship is started between two peers in a company, and power dynamics plays out over that relationship? And after that relationship is over?

You want to avoid these issues, it's cold turkey.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say. If you date 'peer to peer' and over time one becomes more powerful in the company? Look, I agree with MDlax that when people spend time together, 'things' are bound to happen no matter what rules we have in force; that's why really intelligent people make the mistake knowing full well it is wrong. The better rule is to try your best to never date anyone inside the same company you work for.

That's indeed a good personal rule. Certainly what I would normally advise my son or daughter.

But here's a scenario. Company recruits my son, he accepts offer, and they ask him if he knows anyone else who would be interested in coming to New Zealand (and now Shanghai). He says, how about my girlfriend? They interview and hire her, they move to NZ, working in different areas, but side by side much of the time. Company then asks the two of them to move to Shanghai, help open a new office, grow the business. He's a kid who didn't want to go with his lax buddies to NYC as it was 'too big', claustrophobic...she persuades him to go look, he loves it and they both move. He's now running the fastest growing part of a now $300mm valuation business, a year and a half later, age 26. She's managing a different functional part of the business, same region. Both working their tails off, but also getting to see a part of the world they'd never imagined being part of their life journey.

Oh yeah, the company was founded by a boyfriend (CEO), now 25, and girlfriend (COO) while still in HS in NZ...they remained boyfriend and girlfriend up until recently; that's gonna be interesting ...CEO was a college class grad year with my son at HU (though CEO finished in 3 years with BS and MA degrees, while running the co, Stanford B-school, raised $30mm on $200mm val, Tiger Global, etc). My son was busy playing lax...the slacker!

Point is, this stuff is much more complicated than a simple 'rule' covers. I have difficulty calling relationships that are actually meaningful, loving relationships as something "wrong". Fraught with potential problems, yes, but "wrong" I'd reserve for actual abuse of power situations, harassment, assault, etc.

Yours is an interesting situation to say the least. I would need to get advice from some very intelligent HR folks; even they might get stumped. I can be persuaded on both sides of that coin, therefore all I can say is I have no idea. I agree with your last paragraph obviously.

Yes, which is why one approach is to be very upfront about relationships, gaining explicit approval.
Same for married couples obviously.

My wife and I have run businesses together for 30 years. In this one, she's the CEO...I'm a co-founder, COO.
Investors and other employees know upfront.
There's always the risk in any relationship, including married folks, that the relationship dissolves.
Goes for any 'partners' having nothing to do with sex or love.

Hiding a relationship, which these total zero tolerance 'rules' encourage, is a problem.
But it's what many nascent relationships do.
My advice would be to get to HR post haste and get it cleared.

[kramerica.inc]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

Make the prohibition global, makes a lot more sense, fairer. However, the enforcement is akin to a law prohibiting bumble bees from crossing state lines. It is a nightmare for the employer - practically - it is a don't get caught rule, mostly ignored by individuals and likely to negatively impact the bottom line in my experience. Two of the best most productive employees I have ever had, were married to each other (common law). They worked in different parts of the company. Never a real problem with either. Shame if a company has a rule that would prohibit employing both.

These kinds of rules disrespect "innocent people" in an attempt to address a problem or set of problems that may lead to issues among a small subset of "immoral" individuals. These rules are just an attempt to keep management from having to address actual hard issues when situations arise.

As for Peanut Butters outrage, I'll save mine for an occasion when there is actual claimed abuse, not some made up by an outside observer, what could have been that didn't actually take place.

Even McDonald's knows balance of power and fratrizination is wrong:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/mcdonal ... lainternal

But tell me againJHU, how Katie Hill was the one wronged?

The board concluded that the relationship between Easterbrook and the employee was short term and consensual, according to the newspaper. However, it also raised questions about his judgment in the board’s view, one person familiar with the matter told the Journal

[youthathletics]

Put this cigar up your Pu.. before I smoke it. Bill raised the bar so high, others simply can not compete. Katie Hill certainly tried.

[Trinity]

The Presidential Toadstool ring a bell? We know far too much about the Friends of Epstein.

[Peter Brown]

But tell me againJHU, how Katie Hill was the one wronged?

If you want to know how unserious most Democrats are about the issues they scream the loudest about, go to Katie Hill's twitter page today and check out her 'comeback' video. Absolutely zero contrition about her actions (ie: power dynamic abuse) ; the vid is simply a DNC-paid advert to beg people to tune into the impeachment circus. I can't think of one policy where Dem leaders are actually organically serious. Health care should be that one topic, but even there the majority of Dem leaders are beholden to drug companies' cash.

Don't treat these people seriously.

[jhu72]

So today, a boss and a subordinate get married. What is the appropriate societal response? Stoning? Neutering one, both? Death? This Brave New World.

The bare fact you make light of what for most is an awful, life-altering, no-way-out, imbalanced power-dynamic sexual relationship should (but likely will not) make you stop and reset. For the few who get 'married' out of the equation, countless more can never forget the terrible choices they were forced to take.

Oh the outrage.

I’ll remember to quote you when you come up with the next BS thing you’re complaining about.

One of the first things I was taught by my first boss - “Don’t $_it where you eat.” It was appropriate then and it’s appropriate now.

The no dating rule should apply across the board and not just between management and staff. Too many dynamics can occur within and after a relationship that can negatively affect an workplace and not just the two people directly involved.

Make the prohibition global, makes a lot more sense, fairer. However, the enforcement is akin to a law prohibiting bumble bees from crossing state lines. It is a nightmare for the employer - practically - it is a don't get caught rule, mostly ignored by individuals and likely to negatively impact the bottom line in my experience. Two of the best most productive employees I have ever had, were married to each other (common law). They worked in different parts of the company. Never a real problem with either. Shame if a company has a rule that would prohibit employing both.

These kinds of rules disrespect "innocent people" in an attempt to address a problem or set of problems that may lead to issues among a small subset of "immoral" individuals. These rules are just an attempt to keep management from having to address actual hard issues when situations arise.

As for Peanut Butters outrage, I'll save mine for an occasion when there is actual claimed abuse, not some made up by an outside observer, what could have been that didn't actually take place.

Even McDonald's knows balance of power and fratrizination is wrong:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/08/mcdonal ... lainternal

But tell me againJHU, how Katie Hill was the one wronged?

The board concluded that the relationship between Easterbrook and the employee was short term and consensual, according to the newspaper. However, it also raised questions about his judgment in the board’s view, one person familiar with the matter told the Journal

So tell me again how its ok for the President of the United States to grab a woman's sex without asking. He has shown great, the mostest, the biglyest contrition right peanut butters.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Put this cigar up your Pu.. before I smoke it. Bill raised the bar so high, others simply can not compete. Katie Hill certainly tried.

They were asking for it...

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

interesting diversity initiative in CA: https://www.axios.com/californias-women ... 835a1.html

[youthathletics]

interesting diversity initiative in CA: https://www.axios.com/californias-women ... 835a1.html

[kramerica.inc]

We've got plenty of illiberal liberals around here.

https://www.economist.com/open-future/2 ... liberalism

Free speech is carelessly tossed to one side in order to silence views and people that liberals label as intolerant. In a shocking turnaround, the American Civil Liberties Union has recently abandoned its liberal, even-handed attitude to which free-speech cases it will defend. Its new guidelines, titled “Conflicts Between Competing Values or Priorities”, explicitly endorses the view that free speech can harm “marginalised” groups. “Speech that denigrates such groups can inflict serious harms,” it says, “and is intended to, and often will, impede progress toward equality.”

Sounds like pretty much everything a certain person around here posts.

Always railing against the multitude of "racist Trump supporters" and oppressed groups, from behind the walls of his gated community...

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

interesting point there- it can be read to imply that pure free speech can conflict with equality.

that's a tough rock & hard place to be in between.

or, is it saying the ACLU is pro-free speech. just their brand.

[holmes435]

"The paradox of tolerance states that if a society is tolerant without limit, its ability to be tolerant is eventually seized or destroyed by the intolerant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[jhu72]

ACLU is pro free speech. It is their brand. No question that both ends of the spectrum are trying to shut down free speech, if you mean by that, speech can be reacted to violently. Lots of snowflake-ism on both ends, where the claim is made that "you are trying to limit my free speech", when all that has happened is we aren't going to agree and one side or the other escalates. Free speech is often, not so free, and I have the bumps and bruises on my body (from the 60's) to prove it.

[runrussellrun]

ACLU is pro free speech. It is their brand. No question that both ends of the spectrum are trying to shut down free speech, if you mean by that, speech can be reacted to violently. Lots of snowflake-ism on both ends, where the claim is made that "you are trying to limit my free speech", when all that has happened is we aren't going to agree and one side or the other escalates. Free speech is often, not so free, and I have the bumps and bruises on my body (from the 60's) to prove it.

now this we gotta know about......

what circumstance brought you to physical violence ?

Were you protesting something ? (hopefully not Vietnam/MIC , because today you DO support it. Funny, dat )

[kramerica.inc]

Freedom of speech is allowed by law.
Freedom of consequences is not.
Whether that be consequences by law OR society.
As this article points out, the left just seems to have a habit of branding what is and is not "proper" for society. And that is generally disagreeing with their cause of the moment.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

im just happy that we are having a civilized, intellectual conversation...

my point again was that the Economist seems to say these two ideas can conflict. do they? might be impossible to answer.

regardless, let's assume they do- then where does the ACLU land- which is at the expense of the other?

[holmes435]

Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?

Fox is incorrect in dismissing the fact that far-right wing people are using freedom of speech as a trojan horse to get their word out or incite retaliation. You have people like Westboro Baptist, Milo Yiannopoulos, Unite the Right, etc etc

Fox is correct that restricting free speech can indeed lead to authoritarianism, but unlimited free speech can also lead to authoritarianism.

She seems to be picking up on far left liberals and smearing everyone else with their actions while doing the opposite on the right by dismissing alt-right actions.

There is also a difference in attacking ideas vs. actual limiting freedom of speech. While those far left liberals often go overboard on labeling people, especially on cutting edge cultural norms, they are attempting to do what society does as a whole with actions or speech it doesn't like: to ostracize the offenders.

What also happens a lot today are that people get accurately labeled as something detestable by society, then they lash out claiming they are offended and that others don't tolerate them. This event is the cycle that goes back to the beginning of this post where they use that persecution to increase their exposure.

[ChairmanOfTheBoard]

Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?

i think that's the same as what the Economist is saying- sometimes speech needs to take a back seat to other causes- this one being equality. it's not absolute; we all know that.

question then is whose ideas/speech are really the bad ones?

im less concerned with ideas than with actual speech. after all, how to regulate what people are thinking?

[kramerica.inc]

Freedom of speech is the ideal. But freedom of speech can lead to very bad people very bad ideas gaining traction (especially with the invention of the internet), and they use just a little bit of power as a lever to springboard into leadership. It's up to society to stop those ideas from spreading without limiting free speech. The question is, how do we accomplish that?

i think that's the same as what the Economist is saying- sometimes speech needs to take a back seat to other causes- this one being equality. it's not absolute; we all know that.

question then is whose ideas/speech are really the bad ones?

im less concerned with ideas than with actual speech. after all, how to regulate what people are thinking?

I'll take a swipe to keep the covo going.

I think the starting point is - asking - where do these ideas (that turn into unpopular speech) have the potential most impact and/or harm to others?

At a government-run (or sponsored) workplace or school? Certainly. I think everyone has the right to work/learn safely and not be persecuted.

In government administration? Of course. IMO, no one should be denied a basic right or something guaranteed to the general public because they say something unpopular or hold an unpopular belief.

During protests? This is where it gets tricky. I think the level of tolerence for free speech should be much higher during protests, But the tolerence for inciting and violence much lower. How is that possible? If people are formally protesting, whatever it is, their right to free speech should be unencumbered. Many problems occur when people protest another formal protest. How can you not allow protesting a protest if there is truly "free speech?" No clue!

At private businesses? Another tricky one, IMO. I feel like store owners/business owners have the right to run their businesses however they want. That means creating a business and culture however they deem fit and/or performing/providing/denying the work however they deem fit. But just because they can employ, hire and run a company how they see fit, doesn't mean they shouldn't be free from societal backlash (i.e: boycott or market forces) if their actions are deemed unacceptable/undesirable by society. Additionally, if you take gov't money/loans/subsidies or work on government contracts etc. for said business, you are now subject to the government requirements for culture etc. that I hinted at above...