nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gay Pride at work

paw patrol

I understand why people in the LGBT want or feel the need for Pride and that's cool.

So what's my gripe....

I work in a bank, the bank has reasonable policies on discrimination and respecting others etc....which I agree with.

I go to work and create systems that allows the bank to function.
Why then does the bank need to decorate my office with rainbow flags and posters, spam my inbox with GO PRIDE style pep talk emails, invite us to a range of events during the week and more....?

Why? It's a bank. Is it too much for me to want to go to work , punch the clock and go home with my thinking of social matters being imposed upon?
Why does sexuality get such promotion in a bank , there are many noble campaigns , none get this coverage or close to it.

My workplace isn't alone ...I know it's happening in other companies like insurance companies and American multinationals eg, facebook, google

One such company (i've a friend there) has now a sign-up where you can pledge to be an LGBT ally and receive a special lanyard to wear "with pride" ( You can see what they did there??? ) around the office. The flip side of this is that it has created a culture where those without the lanyard are being asked why not?
Of course it's in an ever so polite and around about way...like "did you see the email on the lanyard" etc...

LGBT and their allies are a small section of society , why must their views be imposed on me at work. Christmas doesn't get such PR in my job.

I'm fairly neutral and happy to live and let live (on most matters) but this constant barrage at work makes me resent LGBT (the campaign rather than the individual people) a little.

I did ask at work and I got weird looks from HR and a bland meaningless reply about equality and diversity etc....
I think I am now guilty of wrong-think and possibly a second charge of using an outdated version of newspeak.:rolleyes: in the eyes of HR.

Strikes me as a corporate **** off in virtue signalling
Yes I did say Virtue Signalling. happy?

Is it wrong of me to want to just go to work in peace. No campaigns , promotions of any kind?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

batgoat

ELM327 wrote: »

Clearly you are unfamiliar with analogy.
I did not go to the pride parade this year, despite almost enforced attendance by the company.

I don't believe that attendance was "almost enforced". I'm in a pretty large company that has plenty of involvement in pride, I'm a big supporter of LGBT rights but didn't get involved in office. Nobody pressured anyone to get involved. Tbh, you sound like you're the one with the victim complex...

TheValeyard

Is this going to be the new good Friday thread?

How Soon Is Now

Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: »

Is this going to be the new good Friday thread?

It's somewhere between Arthur s day and good Friday.

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

So we’re in agreement that the vast majority of straight men do not understand the gay experience? I’m happy enough with that.

Though I still think your Chinese experience give you at best a limited idea of what it would be like to be gay bashed.

I really don't get your objection or need to argue the point. I never suggested that most straight men would understand. I objected to the belief that no straight men could understand. While we are not going to be gay, we can have experienced anger, hatred, bigotry, etc in the same forms that gay people experience, and therefore can draw parallels.

So Irish people use anti-black insults against blacks. Chinese people use anti-foreigner insults against foreigners. But when someone uses anti-gay insults it’s likely that it’s nothing to do with gay people......ok.

No. To repeat the original point, the insult of fággot can be used against straight men without the belief that they are actually gay. Ireland was traditionally a very masculine culture and casting suggestions of being gay on other men was seen as a dire insult.

Ok. I get it. You disagree. Fine.

Annasopra

Rory28 wrote: »

In my own opinion a homophobic attack is when someone is assaulted purely for the reason of them being gay. Gay bashings or Pride parades that get attacked by nazis. Along those lines. The scumbags who attacked didn't do it because they were gay they did because they are violent thugs.

Why do you see the need to differentiate and downplay/minimise the homophobia?

pjohnson

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why do you see the need to differentiate and downplay/minimise the homophobia?

You were banging this drum aimlessly in the other thread until you got it locked.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why do you see the need to differentiate and downplay/minimise the homophobia?

How is he doing anything different from you or anyone else on this thread? He stated what he believed constituted as a homophobic attack. You did the same earlier, as did I.

I don't see him as trying to downplay homophobia but rather having a different idea of what it entails. And I agree with him:

"In my own opinion a homophobic attack is when someone is assaulted purely for the reason of them being gay"

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

How is he doing anything different from you or anyone else on this thread? He stated what he believed constituted as a homophobic attack. You did the same earlier, as did I.

I don't see him as trying to downplay homophobia but rather having a different idea of what it entails. And I agree with him:

"In my own opinion a homophobic attack is when someone is assaulted purely for the reason of them being gay"

Why though? Why is the homophobia in the attack downplayed and irrelevant?

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why though? Why is the homophobia in the attack downplayed and irrelevant?

You perceive there to be homophobia involved. We don't. There was no evidence provided that the attack was motivated by either hatred or fear of homosexuals. At least, using insults (which I've heard in other situations) doesn't seem like solid evidence to me.

Homophobia should never be downplayed or considered irrelevant. The difference between us is what is considered homophobia.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

You perceive there to be homophobia involved. We don't. There was no evidence provided that the attack was motivated by either hatred or fear of homosexuals. At least, using insults (which I've heard in other situations) doesn't seem like solid evidence to me.

Homophobia should never be downplayed or considered irrelevant. The difference between us is what is considered homophobia.

Thats ridiculous. How can you deny there is homophobia involved when homophobic language is used.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Thats ridiculous. How can you deny there is homophobia involved when homophobic language is used.

I've been denying it for almost two pages now. Not going to repeat myself. Just read back.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

I've been denying it for almost two pages now. Not going to repeat myself. Just read back.

Yes and its completely silly. Talk about trumpian alternative facts.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes and its completely silly. Talk about trumpian alternative facts.

Seriously? You're throwing trump at me? And what alternative facts? oh! Because I have an opinion different than yours....

I just love the way your opinion counts so much more as fact, and how dismissive you are of other peoples opinions.

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seriously? You're throwing trump at me? And what alternative facts? oh! Because I have an opinion different than yours....

I just love the way your opinion counts so much more as fact, and how dismissive you are of other peoples opinions.

Cmon surely you know thats how all these discussions go.

nozzferrahhtoo

Rory28 wrote: »

In my own opinion a homophobic attack is when someone is assaulted purely for the reason of them being gay.

Deleted User wrote: »

In my own opinion a homophobic attack is when someone is assaulted purely for the reason of them being gay

Anecdote is not evidence, but as was pointed out above we are not talking about fact here, but opinion. So I wonder if the value of anecdote increases slightly when it is being used to support an opinion rather than establish a fact.

Anyway I have seen attacks in my own life that were motivated by homophobia and had NOTHING to do with he victim of the attack being gay at all. I would still consider it a homophobic attack. So I am not sure I can agree with your criteria for "homophobic attack" here. Maybe my anecdotes will inspire a minor modification of your definition and leave you guys above slightly less opposed to each other as you are now. We will see below. One can but try

I will preface that however by saying I am also not sure I would go to the other extreme of assuming homophobia purely because homophobic language is used. I agree that language is often used purely because it is seen as derogatory and the person using it is putting ZERO consideration into the etymology or meaning of the term. When we call someone a Bastard for example I doubt we do so while having any knowledge, hunches, theories, concerns or interest in their actual lineage or the marital status of their parents. When using the word Fgot too I do not think everyone using it is considering the sexuality of the target. They just know it to be a derogatory and aggressive word. So they reach for it in the moment. We can of course confront separately the homophobia that led to that word being considered derogatory, which is a useful conversation to have, but I doubt ANY of it is in the mind of the person using it "in the moment". They just know the status a given word has, and it serves a purpose in that moment.

Anyway to the anecdotes.

The first of these involved a situation where a guy.... the victim to be.... was merely walking along the road. A guy in a small group of youths happened to look at him for some extended period of time. His mates started slagging him off for being "into" the victim. So to respond to this the taunted guy attacked the victim. His mates soon joined in.

So in this case the attack was entirely motivated by homophobia, but had nothing to do with the person being assaulted "purely for the reason of them being gay". No one in the scenario for one moment appeared to think the victim was homosexual at all. It was irrelevant. But that this was an attack born of homophobia could not be clearer to me. It was the homophobia of the assailant at the thought of, for one moment, being considered gay himself. So to prove he was not, he attacked the victim. This is not an anecdote that is covered by your definition above.

A similar anecdote occurred for me when I saw a random passer by being attacked by a group of youths in the vicinity of the George. It was abundantly clear to everyone that the victim was not homosexual or in any way connected to the George. They were coming from one end of the road, past it. The youths however showed up, started screaming about fggts and how they should burn and die, and then attacked. Here they were contriving to make an attack on homosexuality, not a homosexual. Who or what the victim was was irrelevant entirely. The LOCATION of the attack was the concern of the youths. They wanted to attack homosexuality, and doing an act of violence THERE was their way to do it seemingly.

Both of these would be homophobic attacks to me. NEITHER of them however fits the definition you have offered. I think defining "homophobic attack" in terms of the victim, rather than in terms of the general motivations of the attackers....... which might have nothing at all to do with the actual chosen victim.......... is likely a much more coherent approach linguistically and functionally. But I repeat, a definition based on what WORDS were used during the attack is similarly dysfunctional to me. So I think I appear to come down in the middle of the two so far expressed sides of this?

Whether this brings you guys a little closer together, or merely makes me an enemy of all of you, remains to be seen

Diplomacy is a thankless job

Annasopra

In the UK legally a hate crime is based on the victims perceptions

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

I dont have a problem with that definition.

batgoat

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In the UK legally a hate crime is based on the victims perceptions

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

I dont have a problem with that definition.

The fact people are so quick to diminish the language used by assailants and even went as far as being pretty nasty in relation to one user who was physically attacked. It's pretty telling of their view.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In the UK legally a hate crime is based on the victims perceptions

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

I dont have a problem with that definition.

Hopefully then, those grooming gangs who specifically targeted only white girls have a hate crime conviction coming their way.

You never mentioned age in your little rant, do you also see someone targeted because of their age as a form prejudice and also a hate crime?

LLMMLL

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Hopefully then, those grooming gangs who specifically targeted only white girls have a hate crime conviction coming their way.

You never mentioned age in your little rant, do you also see someone targeted because of their age as a form prejudice and also a hate crime?

I think the users on this site who talk about the grooming gangs in the UK have zero concern for the victims.

Why? Because they only ever seem to raise it in threads about feminism and now in threads about gay people, and try and use it as a stick to bash those who express concern about womens or gays rights.

Frankly it’s bizarre in the extreme to raise these gangs in relation to gay rights.

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think the users on this site who talk about the grooming gangs in the UK have zero concern for the victims.

Why? Because they only ever seem to raise it in threads about feminism and now in threads about gay people, and try and use it as a stick to bash those who express concern about womens or gays rights.

Frankly it’s bizarre in the extreme to raise these gangs in relation to gay rights.

You seemed to have missed the dozens of threads on Islam in Europe which is where most of the objections to grooming gangs come up. In fact, do a search on grooming gangs and you'll see a huge variety of threads which object to their existence.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You seemed to have missed the dozens of threads on Islam in Europe which is where most of the objections to grooming gangs come up. In fact, do a search on grooming gangs and you'll see a huge variety of threads which object to their existence.

Oh yeah I forgot to include threads filled with barely concealed racists

Just curious. Do you think it’s relevant to a thread on gay rights?

ELM327

Deleted User wrote: »

Seriously? You're throwing trump at me? And what alternative facts? oh! Because I have an opinion different than yours....

I just love the way your opinion counts so much more as fact, and how dismissive you are of other peoples opinions.

That's the left for you though.
You (and I) shouldn't have been surprised.

[Deleted User]

LLMMLL wrote: »

Oh yeah I forgot to include threads filled with barely concealed racists

Every thread on boards gets all sorts of posters. Having issues with Islam isn't solely about being racist, since IMO some concerns are valid. You might think otherwise, but that's still your opinion, and not a sign of racism/bigotry.

The point remains that grooming gangs are still being brought up in far more threads about Islam than threads on gay people.

Just curious. Do you think it’s relevant to a thread on gay rights?

Nope, not particularly.

WoolyJumper

In my office Paddy's day decorations, easter decorations, valentines decorations.....even world cup decorations go up. There are always emails about different events going on. Charities looking for money, soccer tournaments. Plenty of crap I have no interest in. I just delete the emails that aren't relevant to me. It's all in an effort to make the work environment a little bit better but no one forces you to participate.

LGBT pride week is evolving too, its becoming more like a "holiday" for everyone. Which is great to see. You do have to be gay to participate and equally you don't have to participate if you don't want too. Ignore the emails, enjoy the bit of colour around the office. It will be gone again in a few days. It also goes a long way for people like myself to say that this is an environment where you can be open about who you are and equally to others who may not be so enthusiastic about LGBT people that this isn't the place for those opinions.

Anyone who has ever started a new job knows how intimidating it can be. Whatever about worrying about the new job you have to do, you also worry about how you are going to fit in with your to team/colleagues. This is an even bigger worry for LGBT people. Every new people you meet means coming out all over again. You don't know how they might react or whether they will be accepting. It just takes one person to have a problem with it to ruin your work experience. Even worse when that person is your manager. Celebrating LGBT pride goes a long way to conteract that. So just delete the email and appreciate that it means a lot to your fellow colleagues.

kunst nugget

Grooming gangs? Has Louise O’Neill been shoehorned into the thread yet?

LLMMLL

kunst nugget wrote: »

Grooming gangs? Has Louise O’Neill been shoehorned into the thread yet?

I think she actually was mentioned earlier.

_Kaiser_

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

In the UK legally a hate crime is based on the victims perceptions

"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."

I dont have a problem with that definition.

Of course you don't... you're a mod of the LGBT forum. It'd be odd if you did.

But it's an over-reactive nonsense definition... it ignores facts, intent and context in favour of "feelings" and (potentially incorrect) perceptions.. and then slaps criminal charges against it.

Such charges are too serious and damaging to be based on such criteria IMO

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

LLMMLL

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And much like Orwell, this is a work of complete fiction. I’m sure lots of people have been passed over for promotion for not participating in Pride.

_Kaiser_

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I find it's the same with any of these "crusades" to be honest. It's not enough to be tolerant and accepting anymore... unless you're proactively advocating for whatever the "cause" is, then you're against it.

It's hugely ironic really that those who shout the loudest on such issues are often the most intolerant and aggressive themselves.. but as I've said already in the last few days (as these topics continue to go around and around nowadays), I believe that for many of these people the actual cause or issue is secondary to the very real NEED to be seen as (allegedly anyway!) progressive, liberal and accepting.

It seems in our increasingly social media influenced world, the need for validation is ever more important for those who spend their days following tweets and Facebook posts, but it's also dangerous as most of this stuff comes from the US which is a very different society and with very different cultural and historical issues that just don't translate into everyday life elsewhere.. no matter how much some try to shoe-horn them in.