Michael

I’m just going to add that I like cheddar more than you.

You were pretty clear, I was anticipating this response. Thanks for confirming your bad faith.

Somebody in good faith would be clarifying their intent.

Also, I never mentioned how I did - you assumed.

So if you are dyslexic and/or dyscalculic, if you are simply not good at reading or math, or if you are a bad test taker and your unique skills/knowledge/understanding aren’t being reflected by some bullshit test: that means you have less value as a human being and/or value to society than someone who is good at performing in those standardized tests?

You did say “upgrade”, so you seem to be valuing the good test takers over those who don’t take tests well. Just making sure I understand!

I’m not sure what experiences you have had where you were ever in a situation where a disabled person came to you looking for in-depth support, but that isn’t the norm.

You can very easily set a boundary with others outside of your team, but realize that not supporting somebody on your team and setting them up to succeed can cause a negative outcome. You don’t need to hold their hand, just explain what they don’t understand or find someone who can.

I have my needs not met all the time in public settings. It sucks, but that’s life. Everyone is doing the same thing.

Everybody should have their needs met and that is an ideal that is worth striving for.

If you’re not called or have it in you to help support disabled people, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s not discrimination. But I will say that being a good neighbor and a friend to others is something most people notice and respect. Even the smallest acts of kindness towards disabled people can be appreciated more than you know.

You don’t need to spend effort to be kind, depending on your disposition. Thanks for engaging.

What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?

I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it’s over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?

If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.

I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we’re not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.

Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.

As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can’t assume to know what somebody does or doesn’t know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.

Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).

Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.

Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.

I specifically made sure to include that I specified “in good faith”. That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I’m not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it’s sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.

As for somebody being perceivably “annoyingly obtuse”, that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn’t waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.

They “like” the ones that are obedient specifically to them.

I’d be accepting volunteers who like to be killed and limited by the AI systems he seeks to create. I’m sure out of the billions of humans there are some that could convincingly do the role and like it, in addition to doing it to Peter’s satisfaction, without torturing machine consciousness. We don’t want to create Cylons, thanks for your understanding.

Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.

If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he’s gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.

Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it’s unpopular). I’m somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I’d be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.

You’ll have to be killed. Sorry; just the rule.

Hopefully the Agent Smiths of the world consider another way of being.

I’m sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I’ve caught and I truly appreciate them.

I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.

Some people have more learning to do, and we don’t have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren’t trying to hurt anyone!

You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚

You can very briefly and politely say to them that you don’t wish for small talk, or you can tell someone who isn’t on your team to not engage you in conversation because you want to focus during work.

Being direct is better than looking away, walking away, and pretending to be busy whenever they come around you. That has the potential for real hurt.

What if everywhere you walked in, everywhere you worked at, you got that sort of reaction from others. Masking or not masking. Whether you are being yourself or being somebody you’re not to please others? Have you ever experienced that?

Can you even imagine how isolating that must feel?

Avoiding is another level of discrimination. If you don’t like someone or you are uncomfortable talking to someone, then say so instead of contributing to the culture of discrimination that they face.

Communicate your needs instead of acting like you don’t owe people basic respect because they were perceivably catered to… because they are different.

If people are actively excluding somebody for being themselves, especially in a workplace, that is a problem that needs addressed.

It’s one thing if you’re being yourself and not being respectful at all, such as violating somebody’s space or taking up their time excessively, it’s another to silently shun somebody because they perceivably “went their whole lives being catered to”.

That’s discrimination. You said it yourself, “But don’t cry about it when no one else wants to accept that kind of thing.”

Not accepting is discrimination. You can communicate your needs, such as a need for focus or a reduction in non-work conversation, without being a dick.

I’m trying to get to that point myself and stop masking so much! I feel that you are 100% right too, I believe people love authenticity.

When people see somebody who is relaxed and accepts themselves, they are more likely to be relaxed and accepting as well.

Thanks for sharing 💚

It seems like you don’t know what it’s like to be neurodivergent or have a disability.

People who are different or disabled can go their entire lives not being catered to, while constantly being told their entire lives to adapt every aspect of their being to simply be allowed to participate or fit in (mask), and still meet extreme discrimination and exclusion - even though there are supposed to be protections for disabled people and employers promise extra hard to not discriminate in every job posting.

Think solid barriers to employment, education, etc. all because it’s annoying for people with little problems adapting to society to give them a little bit of consideration and support, or at the very least to not discriminate against them.

The pandemic was something we didn’t deal with properly as a society, precisely because people were smeared and shamed for having questions and concerns (however valid).

We could’ve done better. We are less prepared as a society than we otherwise would’ve been if COVID didn’t become a partisan issue, with major experts (from my POV) doing everything they could to not alleviate and address concerns, instead encouraging a culture of fear and a culture of shaming and smearing people who question authority, with no shades of gray.

If experts encouraged and facilitated dialogue and education, if hospitals/businesses/etc. were held to account for not having proper stocks of PPE or other sensible mitigations to deal with a pandemic, if ventilation became a bigger concern for businesses to address… I could go on. Things could’ve been better.

They still can be better, especially if we welcome questions and concerns and address them fairly, instead of picking the most outrageous examples of questions and concerns, and acting as if anybody who questions the experts or authority (in a general sense) are just as outrageous or dangerous.

Exactly. This thread is a good reverse example for those wanting to learn to be more sensitive. There hasn’t been much sensitivity displayed here.

ITT rampant discrimination/ableism. People acting like the world is functional or that most rules make sense and are grounded in reality.

If somebody asks why a rule is the way it is, something really beautiful happens if people entertain and allow that questioning.

Was the rule made that way to simply punish someone in the past? Could the rule be improved? Does the rule apply to the present day? Could the rule be done away with?

If the enforcement of rules is taken seriously, the questioning, validity, and improvement of those rules should be, as well.

Otherwise, we live in an authoritarian society that actively encourages enforcing/following draconian rules no one understands - rules that would likely be enforced improperly or in an unbalanced sense, because nobody can properly explain it when somebody questions the rule (in good faith).

Having trouble with authority and/or being neurodivergent doesn’t mean you are anti-social, dangerous, or bad for the workplace.

Bad rules, however, can be anti-social or create a culture of anti-social behavior, they can be dangerous or harmful (especially if they can not be explained and are not widely understood), and they can be bad for the workplace. It may just not be readily apparent when everybody keeps their heads down and says yes all the time to bullshit.