Hacker News Reader

Comment by coldpie | Hacker News Reader

> People in the real world will treat you like crap, no matter what.

Why should we accept this?

Sincere question: why should you not accept it?

>Any person capable of angering you becomes your master; he can anger you only when you permit yourself to be disturbed by him.

-Epictetus

To answer your question, we should accept it because that is the way reality is fundamentally. Go ahead and try to eternally fight to erase all darkness so that there is only light. Spoiler alert: it's impossible. If there were no darkness there would be no such thing as light because light implies the presence of darkness and darkness implies light.

I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else. While I agree it's a lofty goal, I don't think we have to voluntarily shackle ourselves to a life of hard knocks.

> Go ahead and try to eternally fight to erase all darkness so that there is only light.

I will, thanks! Why do you think people try to impede me?

>I sincerely believe our society would be improved if people could live how they want, provided they harm no one else.

That may be but an insult is not harmful unless you accept it personally. When you accept an insult you are the one hurting yourself.

That works for many people, but I'm willing to hold people to a lower standard than that.

Don't you think they'd find it insulting that you are holding them to a lower standard?

Good point, I've been phrasing that poorly. Maybe something like I don't think people should be required to walk around with a shell of emotional armor to participate in modern society.

I'd call it emotional strength rather than emotional armor. In any case I wholeheartedly agree with standing up for people who are having a hard time. But simply censoring and covering up the darkness will only cause it to fester and grow stronger while the emotional strength of the supposed victim atrophies.

This reminds me of a passage from MLK's Letter From a Birmingham Jail:

>Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal . . ." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?

Because there's a thing called the first amendment.

Go on. How does the first amendment protect you from me and my associates shunning you for your offensive speech?

Because the first amendment gives me the right to say or write anything. This is a fundamental right in a democracy.

And under the same amendment, my associates and I are free to shun you for your speech. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the US constitution applies to private citizens. It does not. It specifies what the US government is allowed to do. I'm not an agent of any US government, so it does not apply to me.

We shouldn't and don't. In fact, if someone is making you feel unsafe at work (especially if it's because of your gender, race, etc), HR has a responsibility to address it.

> HR has a responsibility to address it

HR has the responsibility to protect the firm from legal dangers, so don't be surprised if their solution involves the plaintiff being fired.

> HR has the responsibility to protect the firm from legal dangers, so don't be surprised if their solution involves the plaintiff being fired.

Retaliation in response to a complaint exacerbates, rather than mitigates, the legal danger to the firm.

Please define "unsafe" --- because I feel plenty unsafe as work due to my race and gender, and I feel that going to HR would only exacerbate this risk. If I may be so bold, I don't think, however, you would consider the danger I feel, the eggshells I have to walk on, real problems. I feel like only members of certain groups get to use the "unsafe" card, and as a proponent of equal treatment and fair rules, this feeling bothers me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com