LLMMLL wrote: » 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_ wrote: » He's right... especially in large MNC's, there is a definite push by the likes of HR departments and management to be seen as inclusive and at the forefront (and on the right side) of many social trends and issues. While it will never be written down anywhere that X didn't get promoted because he didn't participate in the office Pride events, it could be noted as "not being a team player". An increasing number of younger workers are now finding themselves in positions of authority in the office and they DO (whether you choose to recognise it or not) notice and take note of such things.
Permabear wrote: » This post had been deleted.
batgoat wrote: » That's utter nonsense. If you don't wear the lanyard nobody cares. If anything, it seems like a handful of users are outraged by a couple of emails and events that you are not required to engage with. I say this as a person who works in a multinational that is heavily involved with PRIDE. By your logic, I would be branded because I wasn't involved.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Ahh yes, because all multinationals behave the same... really? No, they don't. Your opinion is valid for your company, but his is valid for companies he's worked for. Just as in my experience, CSR and the demands from PR/HR tend to push for a group acceptance of certain movements by the general staff, and it does come up in performance reviews to show the temperament of staff.
LLMMLL wrote: » Has non participation in pride events come up at your performance reviews?
batgoat wrote: » I've not seen any particular evidence that people are forced to participate in anything or wear anything against their will. If anything, it seems to be just generalised discomfort that their employer is involved with Pride.
[Deleted User] wrote: » Nope, but then I haven't worked professionally in Ireland for over a decade. I have worked professionally in Australia, and there were corporation based events regarding gay rights, anti-racism, etc all of which had mandatory attendance, with badges or such handed out for employees to wear, along with experts giving speeches or the upper management speaking about what the company has done to provide progress in these areas. And I haven't said that companies were forcing anybody into doing anything outside of company events. I have said that it does come up in performance reviews... which is seen as an indication of being part of a team. I've been a manager abroad, and those considerations were part of the company brief. Were they a black/white yes/no determining factor regarding promotion or dismissal? Nope. Nor was there any suggestion that to refuse to wear the badges/tokens would cause negative reactions from management. I didn't say that there would be. However, in my own experience, companies come in all manner of operational styles, and I'm not so quick as the rest of you, to dismiss other peoples opinions/impressions of their own workplaces.
batgoat wrote: » I don't particularly believe you. The people most adamant of these goings on have spent a proportion of the thread ignoring hate crimes including against one user. This doesn't make you very credible.
Community engagement might come up in a performance review but literally any volunteering, generally during company time will cover that. Eg volunteering in Special Olympics. So not pride specific.
batgoat wrote: » One person claims they were almost forced to go... :P Fell short of being shoved in a van, no doubt!
[Deleted User] wrote: » . However, in my own experience, companies come in all manner of operational styles, and I'm not so quick as the rest of you, to dismiss other peoples opinions/impressions of their own workplaces.
LLMMLL wrote: » So if a gay person is attacked and homophobic language is used and they perceive it is a homophobic attack, you are sceptical and need evidence that the person actually hates gay people to decide if it’s a homophobic attack.
However, if a person perceives that their career may be hampered if they don’t participate in gay pride events you are perfectly willing to accept this with not a hint of scepticism?
Deleted User wrote: » No. That the aggressor actually believes the victim to be gay. Coupled with the language and the attack itself, then I would consider it to be an homophobic attack. Otherwise its an attack for other reasons, whatever they might be. Have I shown a hint of scepticism against your (and others) belief that it doesn't affect their career? No, I haven't. I haven't said such either way. I've said it's possible that it would affect their career within the company, but I haven't said it definitely would. I'm keeping an open mind to the whole thing. I've seen the mandatory requirements to attend such events, that's all.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » This is just beyond ridiculous. In a nutshell you are saying homophobia isnt really homophobia.
Deleted User wrote: » Oh, and batgoat... I'm still waiting for where I ignored a hate crime. You were talking about credibility, after all. Cough up or withdraw the remark. (Yes, I've seen that you liked Joeytheparrot' post since I answered you)
Deleted User wrote: » You're not listening. fággot is not the same as the N word or a host of other insults usually used for specific purposes. fággot is not used only towards gay people. It can be used against any male to suggest that they are gay, regardless of their actual orientation. It's a word used to show massive lack of respect in a very masculine culture. I've seen/heard the word used in so many situations without there being a gay person nearby. EdIt: Ok. I see the difference. Any use of Gay related insults or references while being aggressive is homophobia regardless of the actual situation. I hadn't realised it was such an umbrella term to cover so much. And I'm not disputing that. What I said originally is different to what you're seeking to argue here. Except we are talking about the experience of gmisk here, not the attack in Portlaoise, and the example provided didn't suggest any of that kind of behavior, or that he was with another gay person. Instead, the attackers were shouting fággot, and attacking him. So, how did the attackers know he was gay? Why did you, and other posters assume they knew he was gay? How? You're female and I'm male. You kinda missed the whole period of growing up and living in a male culture as a male. You seem to believe that your understanding is somehow special, but others can't come close. You objected to what I wrote about understanding Gay experiences from a similar perspective, but you understand them... and you also understand perfectly heterosexual male culture. I'm not seeking to insult you, but... really? You don't see the conflict here? You present yourself as understanding essentially everything, but object when others seek to present their own understanding. Been in many fights as a male? I'm done arguing this point.
batgoat wrote: » Here's you diminishing hate speech and then disputing that gmisk ever experienced an attack motivated by homophobic.
You seemed to think my credibility was impacted my post count but you apparently put plenty of weight on it.
Creative83 wrote: » Do you believe that every single time a gay person gets battered it's homophobic? Because if you take that point of view then you are extremely naive
[Deleted User] wrote: » Hardly. I'm stating about what I consider to be a homophobic attack. That the attacker believes the person they are attacking is gay, and that is part, or all of the reason they're attacking them. I've made no other declarations about what homophobia entails beyond that. By your logic, any time a gay person is attacked, then it is homophobia. The gay person could be attacked randomly for any number of other reasons, but in your eyes, it remains homophobia.
gmisk wrote: » In my incident I said I was walking home with my partner and two lads with their faces covered shouted f@ggot at me multiple times didn't ask for a wallet phone nothing else... And then slashed me in the face with a Stanley knife. Do you consider this a homophobic attack?
Or "unfortunate" which is what another poster said it was.
gmisk wrote: » Or "unfortunate" which is what another poster said it was.
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.
Deleted User wrote: » Hardly. I'm stating about what I consider to be a homophobic attack. That the attacker believes the person they are attacking is gay, and that is part, or all of the reason they're attacking them. I've made no other declarations about what homophobia entails beyond that. By your logic, any time a gay person is attacked, then it is homophobia. The gay person could be attacked randomly for any number of other reasons, but in your eyes, it remains homophobia.
One eyed Jack wrote: » And I apologized to you personally for using the term because you explained respectfully why you found it offensive. That should have been the end of the matter and yet you bring it up again when I wasn't even involved in the conversation. I explained that my intent in using the term was never to cause offence, but I would still describe what happened to you as unfortunate, because it was, unfortunate.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f0fd26a34d4ac2a9eff521bc9eaed40a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
