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I think I am now guilty of wrong-think and possibly a second charge of using an outdated version of newspeak.:rolleyes: in the eyes of HR.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

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, I do. I missed the part earlier where you said they didn't ask or demand anything else from you.

My apologies.

I have never, ever, said any attack of any kind was unfortunate, or any similar language.

All attacks are horrible and should be dealt with harshly.

Just out of interest if they had asked for a wallet or a phone after calling me a f@ggot, then slashing my face, would you not consider it homophobic?

I agree all attacks should be dealt with harshly, I think having to argue what happened to me was homophobic is pretty horrendous also.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No. I have never said that any time a gay person is attacked that that is homophobia. You are now completely distorting what I said.

Process of elimination. I stated a couple of times what I believed a homophobic attack entailed... and you responded with "ridiculous"... So, it's hardly me distorting what you have said. Since you've barely said anything except for "ridiculous" and a broad definition of homophobia pasted into the thread earlier.

What I have said is that if a gay person is attacked and there is homophobic language used during the attack then it is in my view a homophobic attack. In ways we are not actually disagreeing on that because you acknowledge that part of why a person gets attacked may be homophobic and in this case it is a homophobic attack. To insist on specifically delving into the perpetrators beliefs I find unneccessary. I mean the use of homophobic language already suggests an inherent belief.

Whereas I believe intent to be core to everything. It distinguishes between a racist, bigoted, homophobic, etc attack, and gives us insight into the circumstances of the situation. Or simply because they had history previously. Perhaps our victim killed the attackers pet hamster, or tortured him in school. I don't know. But I do see it as important to know...

[Deleted User]

gmisk wrote: »

I appreciated the apology yet you didn't remove or change your posts.

Then you double down and still call it "unfortunate" .

TBH I'd consider it dishonest to go back and change posts a good stint after they're written.

gmisk wrote: »

Just out of interest if they had asked for a wallet or a phone after calling me a f@ggot, then slashing my face, would you not consider it homophobic?

Honestly, I'm not sure. As I've said previously, I've heard the usage of the word f@ggot in situations where there was no gay people present or involved. For me, I'd wonder if you had some kind of history with them, since their faces were covered, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility. Or simply that it was wrong place, wrong time. (although I'd be leaning more towards a personal connection/relationship with the attackers. )

Were they ever caught?

I think having to argue what happened to me was homophobic is pretty horrendous also.

I don't. If you weren't willing to discuss it, then you shouldn't have mentioned it on "After hours". Go to the "Personal Issues" forum for that kind of acceptance.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH I'd consider it dishonest to go back and change posts a good stint after they're written.

Honestly, I'm not sure. As I've said previously, I've heard the usage of the word f@ggot in situations where there was no gay people present or involved. For me, I'd wonder if you had some kind of history with them, since their faces were covered, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility. Or simply that it was wrong place, wrong time. (although I'd be leaning more towards a personal connection/relationship with the attackers. )

Were they ever caught?

I don't. If you weren't willing to discuss it, then you shouldn't have mentioned it on "After hours". Go to the "Personal Issues" forum for that kind of acceptance.

We have already pointed this out. There doesnt have to be gay people involved to be a homophobic attack. Heterosexual people can be targets and victims of homophobic attacks too where the perpetrator believes them to be gay. To be honest I cant understand why you would lack any sympathy with gmisk on this and argue that it is not horrendous having to repeatedly highlight his own experiences were homophobic.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For me, I'd wonder if you had some kind of history with them, since their faces were covered, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility. Or simply that it was wrong place, wrong time. (although I'd be leaning more towards a personal connection/relationship with the attackers. )

Were they ever caught?

I don't. If you weren't willing to discuss it, then you shouldn't have mentioned it on "After hours". Go to the "Personal Issues" forum for that kind of acceptance.

A personal connection...nope, we were left by a taxi driver at the wrong end of road after he got a bit lost. It was 130 in the morning. They were never caught.
I am not looking for acceptance simply saying how I feel.

gmisk

[Deleted User] wrote: »

TBH I'd consider it dishonest to go back and change posts a good stint after they're written.

Honestly, I'm not sure. As I've said previously, I've heard the usage of the word f@ggot in situations where there was no gay people present or involved. For me, I'd wonder if you had some kind of history with them, since their faces were covered, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility. Or simply that it was wrong place, wrong time. (although I'd be leaning more towards a personal connection/relationship with the attackers. )

Were they ever caught?

I don't. If you weren't willing to discuss it, then you shouldn't have mentioned it on "After hours". Go to the "Personal Issues" forum for that kind of acceptance.

I am clearly willing to discuss it.... That's why I have been, I am in no way looking for acceptance simply stating my POV.

[Deleted User]

gmisk wrote: »

There was no history or personal connection we were left by taxi driver at wrong end of street at 130 in the morning.
Nope no one ever caught.
I also posted how the Gardaí dealt with it poorly with one Gardai stating it wasnt a homophobic attack then having to apologise when he heard full story.

I am clearly willing to discuss it.... That's why I have been, I am in no way looking for acceptance simply stating my POV.

I've nothing more to add beyond what I've already said. I am sorry it happened to you.

One eyed Jack

gmisk wrote: »

I appreciated the apology yet you didn't remove or change your posts.

Then you double down and still call it "unfortunate" .

I didn't remove them because I saw no reason to remove them, and to expect I should do is frankly taking the piss. It wasn't doubling down on anything, it was providing context for what I had said which you had unfairly posted out of context. Context matters, and in the context of what you posted, I would have seen it the same way regardless, because as I later pointed out, I don't care what the motivation for the attack was, it shouldn't have happened in the first place. I would say the same of anyone who was attacked - the perpetrators motivation is irrelevant, they had no right to attack regardless of what motivates them.

If we are to categorise crimes based on identifying what it was about the victim which motivated their attackers, then it would be supporting the notion that a woman could be attacked for wearing a dress that was too revealing - her fault, she is responsible for her attackers being motivated to attack her. That's about as unreasonable as your expectation that I should modify my use of language because it offends you. That's not going to happen.

joeguevara

As a CEO I have no problem anything pride related in our office and actively encourage it if it allows someone express themselves and maybe achieve some personal milestones.

No ifs, no buts, no nothing end of. I wish we were at the stage where pride didn’t have to exist but to people who moan about a flag or two or badges or anything then, you have little to complain about.

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

Honestly, I'm not sure. As I've said previously, I've heard the usage of the word f@ggot in situations where there was no gay people present or involved.

I've heard the N word out of context in certain situations doesn't make it any less of a racist slur.

The word f@ggot is a deeply loaded homophobic slur and everybody on this thread knows it.

JackTaylorFan

Anyways, on topic...

Not a huge fan of pride myself - at least not what it has become. But I really don't see how a few rainbow flags or whatever around the office affect your life in the slightest. And yeah, nobody is forcing you to wear a lanyard either.

Jesus, talk about snowflakes.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

We have already pointed this out. There doesnt have to be gay people involved to be a homophobic attack. Heterosexual people can be targets and victims of homophobic attacks too where the perpetrator believes them to be gay.

Which is what I've said right from the beginning. Which you responded by saying it was ridiculous, since you believed any use of gay insults was homophobic regardless of what the attacker believed. no?

To be honest I cant understand why you would lack any sympathy with gmisk on this and argue that it is not horrendous having to repeatedly highlight his own experiences were homophobic.

I really don't get the leaps of "logic" many of you seem to make about my feelings on the matter. I dealt with was posted to the thread. I didn't state any lack of sympathy, criticism or disbelief about his contribution.

As for it being horrendous to repeatedly highlight his experiences, during the last few pages of discussion, I have been talking to other posters. Not him.

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is what I've said right from the beginning. Which you responded by saying it was ridiculous, since you believed any use of gay insults was homophobic regardless of what the attacker believed. no?

If the motivation is homophobic regardless of the victims' actual orientation, it's a homophobic attack. Not even a debate.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is what I've said right from the beginning. Which you responded by saying it was ridiculous, since you believed any use of gay insults was homophobic regardless of what the attacker believed. no?
.

Yes. Of course. Homophobic language used during an attack means it is a homophobic attack.

[Deleted User]

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

If the motivation is homophobic regardless of the victims' actual orientation, it's a homophobic attack. Not even a debate.

Where are you getting this from? Bloody hell. Stick with what was actually written.

I said that it is the belief of the attacker that the victim is gay that suggests it is a homophobic attack. I didn't go off on a tangent talking about heterosexual people being insulted. I said that I have heard/seen such insults being applied in other situations. that's it.

I'm not debating about whether that is or is not homophobia, because it's nothing to do with what was previously posted.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes. Of course. Homophobic language used during an attack means it is a homophobic attack.

So, you're still saying at an attack by someone who doesn't believe the victim is gay, but uses gay insults, the attacker/attack is homophobic. Belief in the victim being gay is key here for me. That's it.

And I disagree. Time for you to say "ridiculous" again.

I'm done. I've had two pages of this, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Accept my opinion or don't.

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

I said that it is the belief of the attacker that the victim is gay that suggests it is a homophobic attack.

Belief that the victim of homophobic abuse was gay or homophobic loaded language --> homophobic motivation for abuse = homophobic hate crime.

But thanks for playing.

Won't reply to you again on this subject.

[Deleted User]

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Won't reply to you again on this subject.

That's a relief.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Where are you getting this from? Bloody hell. Stick with what was actually written.

I said that it is the belief of the attacker that the victim is gay that suggests it is a homophobic attack. I didn't go off on a tangent talking about heterosexual people being insulted. I said that I have heard/seen such insults being applied in other situations. that's it.

I'm not debating about whether that is or is not homophobia, because it's nothing to do with what was previously posted.

I dont get it.

Perpetrator uses homophobic language during attack. Attack is homophobic. I really dont know why theres any argument over that.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you're still saying at an attack by someone who doesn't believe the victim is gay, but uses gay insults, the attacker/attack is homophobic. Belief in the victim being gay is key here for me. That's it.

And I disagree. Time for you to say "ridiculous" again.

I'm done. I've had two pages of this, and I'm tired of repeating myself. Accept my opinion or don't.

Yes. I am saying saying homophobic language used during an attack means its a homophobic attack.

It actually makes no sense to claim that someone uses homophobic language but isnt homophobic. I don't accept your opinion because your opinion doesnt make sense.

Call Me Jimmy

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Yes. I am saying saying homophobic language used during an attack means its a homophobic attack.

It actually makes no sense to claim that someone uses homophobic language but isnt homophobic. I don't accept your opinion because your opinion doesnt make sense.

But that person could be racist too, but just because they haven't said ****** it's not a racist attack. If a white guy is attacked and called a ******, by your logic that's a racist attack.

Sweetemotion

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont get it.

Perpetrator uses homophobic language during attack. Attack is homophobic. I really dont know why theres any argument over that.

If I'm called a feckin cu-t or a bit-h during an attack it does not make that an attack against women. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand.

JackTaylorFan

Sweetemotion wrote: »

If I'm called a feckin cu-t or a bit-h during an attack it does not make that an attack against women. I don't know why you find that so hard to understand.

Those words are not loaded words aimed at minorities, but okay...

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I dont get it.

Perpetrator uses homophobic language during attack. Attack is homophobic. I really dont know why theres any argument over that.

It doesn't matter. I'm tired of all this circling.

Sweetemotion

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Those words are not loaded words aimed at minorities, but okay...

Ahh, so only slur words against minorities are bad.

JackTaylorFan

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Ahh, so only slur words against minorities are bad.

It's about the power behind those words - used to dehumanize LGBT people in a way other words just don't. And you don't understand that because, how could you, unless you experienced it on a daily basis most your life. Would you say those same words, bitch and C**t, hold the same power as the word N***er? Because I can't imagine anyone with a sense of decency arguing on good faith would say they would.

[Deleted User]

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's about the power behind those words - used to dehumanize LGBT people in a way other words just don't. And you don't understand that because, how could you, unless you experienced it on a daily basis most your life. Would you say those same words, bitch and C**t, hold the same power as the word N***er? Because I can't imagine anyone with a sense of decency arguing on good faith would say they would.

Try saying C**t to your mother, and you might be surprised at the rather strong reaction you receive. :rolleyes:

JackTaylorFan

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a relief.

Deleted User wrote: »

Try saying C**t to your mother, and you might be surprised at the rather strong reaction you receive. :rolleyes:

Can't get enough, can you?

Can't blame you, really.

But as I said, I'm done with you.

Bye

[Deleted User]

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

Can't get enough, can you?

Can't blame you, really.

But as I said, I'm done with you.

Bye

Um, you said you wouldn't reply to me. Not that I wouldn't...

Ok. Can you really be done with me now? Pretty please with sprinkles on top?

Sweetemotion

JackTaylorFan wrote: »

It's about the power behind those words - used to dehumanize LGBT people in a way other words just don't. And you don't understand that because, how could you, unless you experienced it on a daily basis most your life. Would you say those same words, bitch and C**t, hold the same power as the word N***er? Because I can't imagine anyone with a sense of decency arguing on good faith would say they would.

The same could be said for words like ginger, fat and ugly. I get it, you like to be a victim and feel special just because you like men but 99% of the population couldn't care less and just want to get on with their own lives without the drama of yours.