Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Star_Jammer]

Incidents of employees taking offense at comments regarding the four subjects I listed would be less likely if the subjects were not discussed. Whether or not it's likely to happen doesn't apply.

And incidents of offense would be even closer to 0 if they didn't talk at all!

I'm not judging them on the subjects they discuss, rather their ability to converse in a work environment without touching on the listed subjects. If the subjects don't relate to the job I'd think they'd be easily avoided. That is, unless someone just doesn't care whether they're offensive to their coworkers.

Wow, so you want people to only talk about their job while at their job?

I do not want to live in your world.

And if merely hearing a conversation about religion offends some third party, jeez...IDK...grow up?

(I think you should have said "If people didn't preach their politics/religion at work", but that's just me)

[jetengine]

Reboots themselves are fine. Dc just lacks the foresight to plam them correctly and editors refuse to veto stuff if its not in the plan. The only example of them attempting to veto stuff was N52 but because they hadnt planned it well (foresight) no one knew what the hell was going on.

Lets not mention that some of the reboots were hastily decided on. Zero Hour was literally "Lets anniversary COIE lol" and Flashpoint was "This is just a filler arc so we can move"

[DrNewGod]

Reboots themselves are fine. Dc just lacks the foresight to plam them correctly and editors refuse to veto stuff if its not in the plan. The only example of them attempting to veto stuff was N52 but because they hadnt planned it well (foresight) no one knew what the hell was going on.

Lets not mention that some of the reboots were hastily decided on. Zero Hour was literally "Lets anniversary COIE lol" and Flashpoint was "This is just a filler arc so we can move"

Except they didn't reboot Batman or.GL.

[jetengine]

Except they didn't reboot Batman or.GL.

Which was even worse

[ed2962]

Reboots themselves are fine. Dc just lacks the foresight to plam them correctly and editors refuse to veto stuff if its not in the plan. The only example of them attempting to veto stuff was N52 but because they hadnt planned it well (foresight) no one knew what the hell was going on.

Lets not mention that some of the reboots were hastily decided on. Zero Hour was literally "Lets anniversary COIE lol" and Flashpoint was "This is just a filler arc so we can move"

"Flashpoint" was supposed to just be a random Flash story but at the 11th hour, they decided to make it into a continuity revamp.

[Jack Dracula]

And incidents of offense would be even closer to 0 if they didn't talk at all!

True, however that isn't what I suggested.

Wow, so you want people to only talk about their job while at their job?

Again, that isn't what I suggested.
Is it unreasonable for an employer to expect that while their employees are at work being paid for their time that their time be used productively?
Another thing to consider is that when an employee is distracted their productivity suffers. They make mistakes which can create more work for the others, so one upset empolyee can make the entire group less productive.

I do not want to live in your world

It's not my world, it's THE world and we all have to endure it. Some people make that more difficult by not caring whether their offensive.

And if merely hearing a conversation about religion offends some third party, jeez...IDK...grow up?

(I think you should have said "If people didn't preach their politics/religion at work", but that's just me)

Being able to think about what you're saying out loud and considering others feelings are characteristics one would associate with being a grown-up. The opposite is normally associated with children.
Preaching and talking are close enough to the same.

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent, I don't disagree, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to behave differently when they're at their job than they would otherwise.
Most people would diapprove of someone swearing out loud in a church during services or using graphic references in a Kindergarden class. Is it wrong to expect the same level of self control at your job?

[Star_Jammer]

True, however that isn't what I suggested.

I know what you suggested. I'm suggesting to take it even further, since we're pipe-dreaming.

Again, that isn't what I suggested.
Is it unreasonable for an employer to expect that while their employees are at work being paid for their time that their time be used productively?
Another thing to consider is that when an employee is distracted their productivity suffers. They make mistakes which can create more work for the others, so one upset empolyee can make the entire group less productive.

You assume all jobs require 100% job-related focus at all times (without any "downtime"), or that talking about non-work related subjects while working (aka multi-tasking) isn't a thing...

You also failed to mention if these times are "on the clock" or "off".

It's not my world, it's THE world and we all have to endure it. Some people make that more difficult by not caring whether their offensive.

You misunderstood me: I do not want to live in your world where what people are allowed to talk about is policed as heavily as you're suggesting.

Being able to think about what you're saying out loud and considering others feelings are characteristics one would associate with being a grown-up. The opposite is normally associated with children.
Preaching and talking are close enough to the same.

Being able to excuse oneself from a discussion they do not wish to partake in can also be considered a very adult thing to do.

And hearing a conversation about religion is very different than being preached to about it. You've been somewhat vague in how and where these conversations happen, so I'm making a few assumptions...and basically asking you to clarify yourself better.

I understand where you're coming from and to an extent, I don't disagree, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to behave differently when they're at their job than they would otherwise.
Most people would diapprove of someone swearing out loud in a church during services or using graphic references in a Kindergarden class. Is it wrong to expect the same level of self control at your job?

People (in general) already do act differently at their jobs than "otherwise". Just not necessarily the differently that you want.

Swearing out loud (depending on the volume) could be considered disruptive for reasons other than the words used. Likewise, I'm sure preaching the gospel very loudly at work would as well.

And I'm fine showing kindergartners "more graphic" things than we do (you used a very vague phrase, so don't go off the deep end with that); I think we coddle young children educationally in a lot of wrong ways. But I'm neither a parent nor a teacher, so my opinion doesn't hold much weight.

[Jack Dracula]

I know what you suggested. I'm suggesting to take it even further, since we're pipe-dreaming.

I'm not sure why you'd want to take it further given your comments so far. Again, I'm not suggesting it.

You assume all jobs require 100% job-related focus at all times (without any "downtime"), or that talking about non-work related subjects while working (aka multi-tasking) isn't a thing...

You also failed to mention if these times are "on the clock" or "off".

I didn't assume either of those things. I stated that avoiding four specific subjects would make the HR Depts job easier.

You misunderstood me: I do not want to live in your world where what people are allowed to talk about is policed as heavily as you're suggesting.

I didn't suggest employees be heavily "policed". I suggested they assume a minimal adult level of responsibility for what they say in the workplace. Is it wrong to expect adults to behave like adults when they're being paid to do an adult-level job?

Being able to excuse oneself from a discussion they do not wish to partake in can also be considered a very adult thing to do.

And hearing a conversation about religion is very different than being preached to about it. You've been somewhat vague in how and where these conversations happen, so I'm making a few assumptions...and basically asking you to clarify yourself better.

So the onus should be on the people within hearing distance of the offender to get up and leave? Why shouldn't the offender be expected to simply be conscious of what they're saying in the workplace and take their coworkers feelings into account? I'll add that productivity suffers when people are expected to leave their stations until the offensive person has decided they're done talking. Again, this is a job where people would reasonably be expected to be working while they're being paid.

People (in general) already do act differently at their jobs than "otherwise". Just not necessarily the differently that you want.

I agree because it supports my point about the four specific subjects.

Swearing out loud (depending on the volume) could be considered disruptive for reasons other than the words used. Likewise, I'm sure preaching the gospel very loudly at work would as well.

I agree with you there too. I'd hope that someone would have enough self control to not do either of those things. Unless their job atmosphere would allow it. I've worked in places where people swear loudly and did it right along with them.

And I'm fine showing kindergartners "more graphic" things than we do (you used a very vague phrase, so don't go off the deep end with that); I think we coddle young children educationally in a lot of wrong ways. But I'm neither a parent nor a teacher, so my opinion doesn't hold much weight.

Thanks for honestly admitting you're neither a parent or teacher. I'm a parent and I think your opinion may change if you ever become one too.

[Star_Jammer]

I'm not sure why you'd want to take it further given your comments so far. Again, I'm not suggesting it.

I'm being facetious, of course.

I didn't assume either of those things. I stated that avoiding four specific subjects would make the HR Depts job easier.

And there's many more subjects that could be included. And we've already determined that you don't like people talking about non-work things in the workplace anyhow.

I didn't suggest employees be heavily "policed". I suggested they assume a minimal adult level of responsibility for what they say in the workplace. Is it wrong to expect adults to behave like adults when they're being paid to do an adult-level job?

How is talking about religion "not behaving like an adult"?

So the onus should be on the people within hearing distance of the offender to get up and leave? Why shouldn't the offender be expected to simply be conscious of what they're saying in the workplace and take their coworkers feelings into account? I'll add that productivity suffers when people are expected to leave their stations until the offensive person has decided they're done talking. Again, this is a job where people would reasonably be expected to be working while they're being paid.

Yes, if a small group of people in the workplace break-room talking about their religion (example mine, since you've been highly non-specific) offends an outside party so much, I think the onus is on the outside party to remove their self from the situation (or hell, just ignore it).

If a person(s) is preaching to an individual about a religion, then the person(s) are in the wrong.

I agree because it supports my point about the four specific subjects.

No, you think that talking about religion makes them "non adult like" and you question their mental faculties for feeling the need to do so. I doubt there's some epidemic of religious talk at work that's sweeping the nation.

I agree with you there too. I'd hope that someone would have enough self control to not do either of those things. Unless their job atmosphere would allow it. I've worked in places where people swear loudly and did it right along with them.

So, swearing (and loudly) isn't inherently offensive, but talking about religion is?

Look...I'm talking to you as 100% atheist. But even I can accept the fact that a lot of people are religious and that, sometimes, when a co-worker is in the hospital with a serious injury, people at work like to form prayer circles and pass around posts on Facebook asking for prayer. Am I offended that people find solace in such a thing as religion? No, because I can understand that religion can be a very personal, spiritual, and good thing for many people. And I have excused myself from a few prayer circles, just because I wanted to go on about my day. I had a few odd stares as I left, but I wasn't pressured or inquired about it.

So long as people aren't being preachy with their religion, or otherwise harming people, it's no different than them talking about their babies/family. Hell, I find "baby talk" more annoying, because they always want to show off all the pictures and Facebook posts and "Ooooh and awww" about little hair bows and "Listen to what little Jimmy said". LOL But if I don't want to deal with all that, I excuse myself or put in some headphones.

Thanks for honestly admitting you're neither a parent or teacher. I'm a parent and I think your opinion may change if you ever become one too.

I won't become a parent, so my opinion won't change.

Just curious: what are your thoughts on Muslims practicing their faith at work?

[Jack Dracula]

And there's many more subjects that could be included. And we've already determined that you don't like people talking about non-work things in the workplace anyhow.

I listed four subjects and suggested employers may have a right to expect employees to be working while they're being paid for it. I didn't suggest no one talk about anything else.

How is talking about religion "not behaving like an adult"?

I suggested employees assume an adult level of responsability in their conversations. It's resonable to assume an adult would understand that though religion itself isn't necessarily a touchy subject, it can lead to related subjects that upset people very quickly.

Yes, if a small group of people in the workplace break-room talking about their religion (example mine, since you've been highly non-specific) offends an outside party so much, I think the onus is on the outside party to remove their self from the situation (or hell, just ignore it).

If a person(s) is preaching to an individual about a religion, then the person(s) are in the wrong

The situation doesn't fit. I'm suggesting these subjects be avoided to prevent anyone from having to make the choice in the first place. Depending on the conversation, the person may leave the area but be distressed and unproductive for the rest of the day.
I agree with you about the preaching.

No, you think that talking about religion makes them "non adult like" and you question their mental faculties for feeling the need to do so. I doubt there's some epidemic of religious talk at work that's sweeping the nation.

See above for my thoughts on mental faculties.
I wouldn't call it an epidemic, but there is a great deal of talk in the U.S about abortion, same-sex marriage etc. Depending on the conversation and views of the particpants people can get extremely upset.

So, swearing (and loudly) isn't inherently offensive, but talking about religion is?

Depending on the job atmosphere. I should've made that distinction in my original post. My mistake.

Look...I'm talking to you as 100% atheist. But even I can accept the fact that a lot of people are religious and that, sometimes, when a co-worker is in the hospital with a serious injury, people at work like to form prayer circles and pass around posts on Facebook asking for prayer. Am I offended that people find solace in such a thing as religion? No, because I can understand that religion can be a very personal, spiritual, and good thing for many people. And I have excused myself from a few prayer circles, just because I wanted to go on about my day. I had a few odd stares as I left, but I wasn't pressured or inquired about it.

I'm also Atheist and likely would've reacted the same way you did. Not all situations are the same and adjustment is to be expected. The situation you've descibed was handled by management in a positive way and likely had a positive effect on morale for the employees.

So long as people aren't being preachy with their religion, or otherwise harming people, it's no different than them talking about their babies/family. Hell, I find "baby talk" more annoying, because they always want to show off all the pictures and Facebook posts and "Ooooh and awww" about little hair bows and "Listen to what little Jimmy said". LOL But if I don't want to deal with all that, I excuse myself or put in some headphones.

I agree. I only suggested those four particular subjects would make HR's job easier. Everyone has particular subjects that annoy them. If enough people complain about someone or something aside from the four, it's up to HR and management to decide if it's disruptive enough to correct someone's behaviour.

Just curious: what are your thoughts on Muslims practicing their faith at work?

I don't have a problem with any religious person demonstrating their faith at work as long as it doesn't become a disruption. I'm aware that a faithful Muslim may be expected to pray a certain number of times a day. management should be smart enough to provide a space for them to do so where they won't be bothered or disturb others. In my opinion, since prayer or meditation can instill calm and focus, it would make them better employees.

[Star_Jammer]

I listed four subjects and suggested employers may have a right to expect employees to be working while they're being paid for it. I didn't suggest no one talk about anything else.


I suggested employees assume an adult level of responsability in their conversations. It's resonable to assume an adult would understand that though religion itself isn't necessarily a touchy subject, it can lead to related subjects that upset people very quickly.


The situation doesn't fit. I'm suggesting these subjects be avoided to prevent anyone from having to make the choice in the first place. Depending on the conversation, the person may leave the area but be distressed and unproductive for the rest of the day.
I agree with you about the preaching.


See above for my thoughts on mental faculties.
I wouldn't call it an epidemic, but there is a great deal of talk in the U.S about abortion, same-sex marriage etc. Depending on the conversation and views of the particpants people can get extremely upset.

If your main contention is that "If X happens, then Y happens", there's not much controversy. Of course it would. If people exercised more and ate healthier, there would be less heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and whatever else. There's not much controversy in sweeping statements like that. The controversy lies in how those results are achieved. Do we force people to exercise and eat healthy, because the result is a good one?

Yes, HR would have a lovely time if people stopped talking about X at work. A similar pipe-dream is that HR would have a lovelier time if people only talked about work at work (you support this apparently). Either of these are a pipe-dream though and, again, not very controversial. Basically: it ain't gonna happen.

Depending on the job atmosphere. I should've made that distinction in my original post. My mistake.


I'm also Atheist and likely would've reacted the same way you did. Not all situations are the same and adjustment is to be expected. The situation you've descibed was handled by management in a positive way and likely had a positive effect on morale for the employees.

Funny thing is, if religious discussion was so taboo at work that people just didn't partake, then how do positive examples of prayer circles ever happen?

I agree. I only suggested those four particular subjects would make HR's job easier. Everyone has particular subjects that annoy them. If enough people complain about someone or something aside from the four, it's up to HR and management to decide if it's disruptive enough to correct someone's behaviour.

What if there's never "enough people " that complain? Is this a "greater good" argument?

I don't have a problem with any religious person demonstrating their faith at work as long as it doesn't become a disruption. I'm aware that a faithful Muslim may be expected to pray a certain number of times a day. management should be smart enough to provide a space for them to do so where they won't be bothered or disturb others. In my opinion, since prayer or meditation can instill calm and focus, it would make them better employees.

I purport it would be rather awkward to practice one's faith at work if they can't feel comfortable enough to talk about it at work.

It's clear, though, we have are at an impasse, especially in regards to what each of us consider "adult behavior". Oddly, we both feel either side needs to practice restraint, we just don't agree when and where.

I would point out, though, that people are general taught at a very young age to temper their emotions, even as early as the "terrible 2's". At least for myself, however, I have been taught all my life to share my ideas and never be afraid to speak upon something I had an opinion about. I see it as this: You're asking people to be silent and I'm asking people to be understanding.

Discussion of X isn't inherently a bad thing. It's how it's discussed that can be, to which I've conceded there are plenty of times that "discussion" (aka preaching) is improper.

We just have a fundamentally different viewpoint.

[Moon Ronin]

I hate that this has turned into a 80s-90s music genre thread. There I said it.

I liked it better as an 80s-90s music genre thread than a workplace edicate thread. There I said it

[WillieMorgan]

I liked it better as an 80s-90s music genre thread than a workplace edicate thread. There I said it

Ooh Snap! This forum should have a like button .

The rise of pseudoscience and wilful ignorance in today's society really concerns me. It will have always been there but social media's amplified it to the max.

The Flat Earth Society, geocentrism, the utter nonsense that is chemtrails, the list goes on. An alarming number of people seem to want to believe in easily disprovable bollocks than the reality that exists around us all.

You ever come across a flat-earther? In reality they are badly educated, averagely intelligent people. In their heads they can disprove both gravity and thus Einstein's theories of relativity. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at it's lamentable worst.

[Moon Ronin]

Ooh Snap! This forum should have a like button .

The rise of pseudoscience and wilful ignorance in today's society really concerns me. It will have always been there but social media's amplified it to the max.

The Flat Earth Society, geocentrism, the utter nonsense that is chemtrails, the list goes on. An alarming number of people seem to want to believe in easily disprovable bollocks than the reality that exists around us all.

You ever come across a flat-earther? In reality they are badly educated, averagely intelligent people. In their heads they can disprove both gravity and thus Einstein's theories of relativity. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at it's lamentable worst.

Lamar Glover an astrophysicist in the Netflix doc Beyond the Curve has an interesting and rare perspective on the flat-earthers and how they are treated by society.

[Kirby101]

Ooh Snap! This forum should have a like button .

The rise of pseudoscience and wilful ignorance in today's society really concerns me. It will have always been there but social media's amplified it to the max.

The Flat Earth Society, geocentrism, the utter nonsense that is chemtrails, the list goes on. An alarming number of people seem to want to believe in easily disprovable bollocks than the reality that exists around us all.

You ever come across a flat-earther? In reality they are badly educated, averagely intelligent people. In their heads they can disprove both gravity and thus Einstein's theories of relativity. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at it's lamentable worst.

I have come across some of those people. I don't engage, it's a hopeless cause. They don't believe their own eyes.