Netflix's Five Second Rule (#MeToo)

>is-independent-a-legit-source.png
no.

also how does this belong on Jow Forums? try /b/ or Jow Forums

We failed women's greatest shit test of all, asking for equal rights without equal responsibility.

Pandering to weak people instead of enabling the strong.
If you're one of those guys that melts like a snowflake if someone at work makes a joke that hurts your fee fees I guarantee you aren't a 80th percentile worker.

You guys are so dumb. If you actually read the article you'd realize that there is no "ban". The statement was one in a giant sexual harassment training (which have been around for decades) that merely gave an example of something that could be "considered creepy" in the workplace (you'd see this if you actually read the article). This article is just as much clickbait as anything. It took one solitary excerpt out of context, spiced up the language to include the word "ban" and then tricked a bunch of red pilled faggots like you into sperging out over it and circle jerking about muh masculinity being under attack. I'm absolutely against any sort of ban and would be on the front lines arguing with you guys if that were the case but being easily tricked into raging over click bait because you're too dumb and eager to sperg out over your own victimhood to actually read is the opposite of helpful. You're actually doing the same exact thing you complain about SJW's doing.

Not so fast pisano

>The statement was one in a giant sexual harassment training (which have been around for decades) that merely gave an example of something that could be "considered creepy" in the workplace (you'd see this if you actually read the article).
That still isn't any better, as it's inadvertently instilling an example, or cue, that's arbitrary, unreasonable, and impossible to enforce, let alone address. And, much like sexual misconduct itself, it typically, and disproportionately, targets a specific demographic.

Nothing some burqas won't fix, apparently.

>That still isn't any better, as it's inadvertently instilling an example, or cue, that's arbitrary, unreasonable, and impossible to enforce, let alone address
Its purpose was not to enforce but to merely give someone who may not have considered it an example of an act in the workplace that could be interpreted or misconstrued as creepy. Regardless of whether or not you think its unreasonable is it unreasonable to bring up the reality to your employees that sometimes innocuous interactions can rub people the wrong way? Would you rather nobody talk about it and just let the chips fall where they may? You're also not addressing the fact that the composition of the article is purposefully inflammatory, completely misquotes the actual words of the sexual harassment training and is specifically designed to get people angry through subtle misinformation. The fact that the article also mentions the fact that the mention of the 5-second rule has turned into an office joke kind of completely works against this narrative you're trying to spin of some kind of "instilled" tension in the office where people can't look at each other for more than 5 seconds. I think you and the people reading this article are taking this event a hundred times more seriously than the people who actually work at Netflix and attended this training.

>And, much like sexual misconduct itself, it typically, and disproportionately, targets a specific demographic.
Men participate in sexual misconduct at the workplace more than women. Regardless of how "unfair" you think that is its the reality. I don't see why we have to pretend reality isn't what it is simply because it offends your sensibilities and makes you feel victimized.

>Its purpose was not to enforce but to merely give someone who may not have considered it an example of an act in the workplace that could be interpreted or misconstrued as creepy.
And the impact of that opens the doors for potentials of abuse of power and environmental hostility.

>Regardless of whether or not you think its unreasonable is it unreasonable to bring up the reality to your employees that sometimes innocuous interactions can rub people the wrong way?
Is it wrong to do that if it results in other people getting hurt instead.

>Would you rather nobody talk about it and just let the chips fall where they may?
If that can be got away with.

>You're also not addressing the fact that the composition of the article is purposefully inflammatory, completely misquotes the actual words of the sexual harassment training and is specifically designed to get people angry through subtle misinformation.
That's interpretative, projecting, and simply fallacious.

>The fact that the article also mentions the fact that the mention of the 5-second rule has turned into an office joke kind of completely works against this narrative you're trying to spin of some kind of "instilled" tension in the office where people can't look at each other for more than 5 seconds.
Because that's the impact of mentioning either rule or example. Even if they didn't intend it, much like racism, impact means more than intent.

>I think you and the people reading this article are taking this event a hundred times more seriously than the people who actually work at Netflix and attended this training.
Because it's a serious issue. Serious issues need to be taken seriously. Same with racism, misconduct, school shootings, etc.

2/2
>Men participate in sexual misconduct at the workplace more than women.
And opening up a catalyst for women to commit another crime more than men doesn't solve the issue. As is focusing on who commits the crime, rather than the crime itself, completely misses the point, and is the complete wrong approach to it.

>Regardless of how "unfair" you think that is its the reality.
What you believe is reality isn't what reality actually is.

>I don't see why we have to pretend reality isn't what it is simply because it offends your sensibilities and makes you feel victimized.
Again, your personal beliefs to what reality is, is the complete opposite of the actual world we live in.

>What is wrong with our society?

The Left/Cultural Marxism

honestly it kind of is this hard to work with women.the ones i work with are moody, they're irrational, they're lazy, they're irresponsible, and generally uncomfortable to be around. the customers are just as bad, and i lose money because women don't want my help, or would rather have another woman help them. in so many words, a girl and this gay that i work with said that guys are creepy and even having a normal conversation with a woman is out of the question, unless you're cute. we're living in a society where women can't even be civil with men they don't deem attractive, while at the same time bitching and moaning about men being judgemental and oppressive. god forbid an average looking dude who works with a woman has to get to know her, wants to talk about a common interest in a strictly platonic way, or gives off vibes that women think are "creepy". it seems like men and women really shouldn't be working with each other, even if they are fucking.

1. Explain to me how discussing potential situations that makes people uncomfortable "opens the doors" for potential abuse or results in people getting hurt.

2. It is not "interpretative" that the article is purposefully misleading. Its an objective fact that they added the word "banned" to an out of context phrase. It doesn't take a genius to take a guess as to why they would do that.

3. Men commit more acts of sexual violence/harassment than women. It is an objective, statistical fact. That isn't up for debate. So instead of being a smart ass and trying to pretend like I'm just making up reality on my own how about you actually stop grandstanding and give one real world example of how or why bringing up examples of ways people make each other uncomfortable in the workplace in a sexual harassment seminar is a "catalyst" for women to commit more crime.

Seriously, give one actual piece of evidence or logic to support that absolutely retarded hypothesis and I'll hand over the keys to this debate.

this.
they are children that we for some reason treat as adults

>Explain to me how discussing potential situations that makes people uncomfortable "opens the doors" for potential abuse or results in people getting hurt.
The same way letting Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists discuss their views only opens up to further violence towards their targeted groups. In theory, that doesn't happen. In practise, as with the news since mid-2010s, has proven otherwise. And you also risk the whole "but as long we're just simply discussing it" to facilitate a lot of hate and prejudice to certain demographics. Male or female. Black or white.

>It is not "interpretative" that the article is purposefully misleading.
There needs to be explicity to those "misleads" in the article for that to be true. Since there aren't any, assumptions and reads into that article as "misleading" is purely interpretative and up to ambiguity.

>Its an objective fact that they added the word "banned" to an out of context phrase.
Point out said "objective fact."

>It doesn't take a genius to take a guess as to why they would do that.
It still takes a moron, and a bigot, to draw tangible, solid conclusions from non-explicit, ambiguous writing.

>Men commit more acts of sexual violence/harassment than women.
Focusing on the demographics involve delegitimises the issue at hand and misses the point completely. Which, in turn, harms the victims involved.

>2/2
>It is an objective, statistical fact.
People always think their views are objective and factual.

>So instead of being a smart ass
Ad hominem.

>pretend like I'm just making up reality on my own
Everyone always thinks their views and perceptions are objective reality. Similar to how everyone often thinks they're the good guy, even if they commit horrific acts (sometimes violent). Which is common in mob mentalities, as is preceded with people's attempts to "address" issues of misconduct and abuse, but often only use it as a means to justify their own prejudices and acts of violence; or enforcing their own standards onto the world (ex.: performative wokeness). Something that's often the most morally bankrupt; often to the point to delegitimise any attempts to address serious issues like abuse, misconduct, assault, etc.

>how about you actually stop grandstanding
Ad hominem.

>give one real world example of how or why bringing up examples of ways people make each other uncomfortable in the workplace in a sexual harassment seminar is a "catalyst" for women to commit more crime.
1). Also other men looking to jump on the bandwagon and attempting to justify their own attempts at crimes and violence against others.

>Seriously, give one actual piece of evidence or logic to support that absolutely retarded hypothesis and I'll hand over the keys to this debate.
>and I'll hand over the keys to this debate.
That is severely pathetic, and kills whatever dignity and self-respect you had. >:/

Absolutely this

>Explain to me how discussing potential situations that makes people uncomfortable "opens the doors" for potential abuse or results in people getting hurt.
Interpersonal communication is an extremely intricate channel of exchanging information. This extends beyond simple spoken words, but also body language and voice tone. Subtle nods of a person's head while listening, for example, can encourage somebody to keep speaking during a conversation.

The problem with training exercises like these is that they arise out of a disproportionate response to unprofessional behavior in the workplace. It is thoroughly unreasonable to ask somebody to police their thousands of subtle body gestures, inflections and intonations that can occur in a single thirty second conversation. It is also possible to use these training exercises as a weapon of spite by petty coworkers because of how serious HR takes these complaints.

>Men commit more acts of sexual violence/harassment than women. It is an objective, statistical fact.
This is only half true. Sexual violence and harassment (as perpetrated by women) is under-reported by men because both acts are extremely emasculating. Not one single man wants to file a police or HR report after something like a rape, because at best they'll be seen as weak and at worst humiliated.

Attached: 1520106498717.png (488x361, 115K)

>>Would you rather nobody talk about it and just let the chips fall where they may?
>If that can be got away with.

The whole #MeToo thing speaks pretty clearly to the fact that apparently it can’t.

True story: my girlfriend just quit her job today because her boss would constantly make sexual jokes, belittle her opinions for her gender, and make constant inappropriate comments.

Apparently what we’re doing isn’t working.

Going to *more* extreme examples:
She’s a victim/survivor of childhood abuse (sexual and physical)
As a 8 year old, she walked her self to the police station to report it. The cops didn’t take it seriously and turned the other eye because of how well connected and known her dad was.

Fast forward a couple of years, her mom takes it to court and also sues for sole custody

Her dad knows the judge and skates saying it was a story her bipolar mother created to poison her mind. So she loses.

So she now has to spend the next 8 years flying between the two.

Fast forward more then a decade, the statue of limitations has passed, and she’s refused all along to ever go back to court because she still remembers the shame, humiliation, and disillusionment she felt as a child when a bunch of corrupt assholes told her that she and her mother were full of bullshit and that there was nothing they could do, and all she wants in her life is to forget that shit ever happened and move past it.

Meanwhile she still has bones that never healed well and ache, ciggarette burns, night terrors, anxiety attacks, an aversion towards men, drawers full of anxiety meds,

While this assholes still a “respected” member of the community.

Clearly, keeping quiet and sweeping it under the rug was not working.

If you’re going to make up extremist examples based in “what if”, there’s plenty of pretty fucked up, real, and way more extreme examples that go in the opposite direction. That ain’t a legit reason to do nothing.

>If you’re going to make up extremist examples based in “what if”, there’s plenty of pretty fucked up, real, and way more extreme examples that go in the opposite direction. That ain’t a legit reason to do nothing.
Nor is using what happened to her to justify your own prejudices. That can easily make things worse, and make you the bad guy, not him. Many extreme acts of cruelty and violence, and extremism as a concept, tend to be motivated by a wrong someone has done to another. But it's still morally bankrupt and bigoted to adhere to, and turns you into the abuser and villain instead. As it's taking advantage of a sensitive, horrific act that happened to someone you know and care about it, and using it to justify, and front your own malice, savagery, brutality, acts of violence, and dehumanisation. And people who do that are very easily worse than any abuser, rapist, or murderer they've felt wronged by.

>dumb roastie got BTFO and not coddled by the system for once

There is justice in this world.

>prejudices.
What exactly are those “prejudices”? Who am I “prejudiced”against?

Rapists and pedophiles? That implies that they never did anything wrong. So are you saying you are supportive of them? If not, why the heck should I not be biased against them. That’s not called prejudice. that’s called judgement based on the facts the matter. I don’t judge before they acted. They acted, and I then judge them based off that.

Men? I’m a dude to begin with. Dudes can be pigs, but so can women. Hell I’ve been straight up molested by a girl before (not as a child, but I’ve had a girl literally shove her hand down my pants to grab me while I was trying to keep her off). Truth is, it didn’t bug me that much because I had years, height, and a few inches on her so I never felt threatened and it just became a “funny story”, but it just goes to show that sexual harassments an equal opportunity thing (though that does also highlight a bit how its somewhat imbalanced due to the physical and cultural inequality that exists between the sexes.)

I have a question for you:
I’ll assume that you agree that rape is wrong so let’s leave that aside for now.
Now, do you believe sexual harassment is wrong?

Do not say “yes but X is worse”
Do not say “yes but that doesn’t mean you should blah blah blah”
Do not say “Yes but...”

Yes or No.

Is it wrong?

Because that is the central crux of this shit.

If it is wrong, then. You have to take steps to address it.

Why? Because using you own metaphor from earlier, “the doors for potential abuse of power and environmental hostility” are *already* wide open

If you keep ignoring, it will only become something worse, and there’s plenty of people speaking up to that

>don’t
>front your own malice, savagery, brutality, acts of violence, and dehumanization

Since when is “respect other people’s personal space” any of that.

Fuck dude, I think PC is pretty fucking bullshit in this day and age, but there ain’t nothing wrong with being respectful. That goes double when things are going *beyond* respectful and go in to a violent, brutal, and malicious territory that happens when an individual gets raped, coerced, or harassed when someone else abuses their position of power.

If people want to make a sexual joke, eh.. kinda sketch, but whatever. Just keep it out of the work place if you want to keep your job because that’s called professionalism.

But when that shit slides, and it leads to people doing *more* shit, because at that point they don’t even know where the boundaries are any more, and even if they do, they think they can act with impunity because they feel everyone’s so apathetic about it no one will call them out?

That’s when you know shits fuckin corrupt

I actually have the exact same problem eith cops in emerald for the exact same reason.

Waaaaaay too often do I see police officers blow by me at 60 on a 40 limit, swerve to take random ass turns with no signals, fucking park in handicapped spots and red marked lanes to pick up lunch, to believe there’s any real accountability, respect for the law, or fear of repraisals that goes on there.

As I’m writing this shit I’m realizing what this boils down to for you and why you’re so vehement about it:

You’re willing to let 50% of the population suffer potential abuse and misconduct, just so your own ass doesn’t feel uncomfortable due to his own potential social ineptitude.

As long as you’re not the one bullied, it’s ok for others to be taken advantage of.

Kinda cowardly bro.

While working on new workplace harassment policy it was strongly suggested when men speak to women they should look down and not in the eyes. It almost made it into the policy handbook. The only thing that killed the suggestion was how to handle female customers by male staff and it was determined customer facing staff should look the customer in the eye. The alternative was for the male staff to cast their eyes downward or, not allow male staff to deal with female customers or prohibit males to interact with customers all together.

>What exactly are those “prejudices”? Who am I “prejudiced”against?
To whom you don't like. Even rapists and paedophiles.

>That implies that they never did anything wrong.
1). Whataboutism.
2). Them doing wrong is not justification for you doing wrong.

>So are you saying you are supportive of them?
It's the right thing to do.

>that’s called judgement based on the facts the matter.
That's still prejudice, bigotry, and how both of the two commonly form in people.

>I don’t judge before they acted. They acted, and I then judge them based off that.
Again, that's prejudice and bigotry, and very common forms of them. Even people who are flat-out bigoted towards certain races, cultures, sexes, or individuals feel the same way about them.

>Now, do you believe sexual harassment is wrong? Is it wrong?
They are wrong. But what your doing, what your attitudes are, and what your prejudices are, are also wrong.

>You have to take steps to address it.
You do, but enacting abuse towards perpetrators of it doesn't do that. And is only excuse to do further abuse and cruelties to *someone.* Regardless of what they did or didn't do.

>If you keep ignoring, it will only become something worse
Punishing them unfairly can also make it worse than any sort of ignorance combined.

>and there’s plenty of people speaking up to that
And the way they do it is also wrong and immoral.

>That’s when you know shits fuckin corrupt
Some of it is. And some of it is easily going that way.

>You’re willing to let 50% of the population suffer potential abuse and misconduct
That would be the ethical choice, though. Letting some suffer if it means saving others from the same fate.

>prejudice
I don’t think you know what that word means...

>an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
>preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

Latin prefix “pre-“
>before
Latin root “judicium”
>judgement

I’m not judging them *before* their actions. I’m judging them *based* on their already done actions. They committed a crime/immoral/unethical behavior and therefore I am using that to shape my judgement of them.

I am not judging them on the crimes/actions of *others* as a race/class/collective. I am judging them on *their own* individual actions that go against a basic moral and ethical code that has been pretty standard for at least the last 50+ years under most codified laws.

>You do, but enacting abuse towards perpetrators of it doesn't do that. And is only excuse to do further abuse and cruelties to *someone.*

Remember, you’re the one who is advocating doing nothing, doing noting means that they are free to abuse others, to harass others, to rape others.

Which is worse than bullying.

>the ethical choice
I’m not sure you under stand what that means again...

I’ll break it down
>10% of the population being bullied/defamed
Vs
>50% of the population being harassed/Coerced/raped

Just from the numbers: 10% < 50%

In terms of severity:
Bullying = harassment
Defamation =< coercement
Nothing on the other side really matched up with rape.

And as we established above, rape is not only a moral issue, it is also legal one, which squarely and directly makes it an ethical matter, and a weighty one at that since it’s directly outlawed.

The ethical calculation doesn’t seem to balance in your favor there.

There’s more reason to act than not, and “but it *could be* abused doesn’t really seem like a good excuse when the other side already *is* being abused in a more severe way than possible on the other end.