Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Personally, I disagree. I have no problem my coworkers saying dick/sex/insulting/racist/etc jokes, whether they are male or female. If I worked at a company that claimed to have a "relaxed" office culture (i.e. most startups, not corporations), I would strongly voice my opinion that such censorship is inappropriate. The recent case of an Attlasian developer making a joke about his girlfriend at a conference comes to mind - I would offer my support for such a coworker and publicly state that I think the company's reaction was inappropriate.

Obviously, if people want to opt out of such email, they should be able to, but some might also do it for other reasons (e.g. prefer less distractions in their inbox).



Well, that's the thing, isn't it? It's not about whether you're cool with it -- it's about whether everyone is cool with it. Just because you like dick jokes doesn't mean that your female coworkers (or any of them, really) are comfortable with it. Since you can't speak for everyone, and some people can't speak up for themselves without making themselves targets, then it's your responsibility as a member of the team to make a judgment call: is this appropriate or not?

If you decide it's inappropriate, you should say something.

If you decide it's appropriate, don't.

I'm not advocating censorship, but I am advocating that you should push back if someone's doing something offensive. Your female coworkers are probably more likely to go to HR or the CEO to complain (in a relatively safe manner) than to speak up in "public", especially amongst a bunch of men who think "it's just a joke" or "it's just banter." And I'm pretty sure we both agree that talking to HR can make the whole thing way worse.


I disagree - maybe because I only perceive speech as "offensive" if it's directly insulting to a targeted person - which impersonal jokes (whether "dick jokes" or any other jokes) are not. In any case, I would rather err on the side of freedom, allow most communications (except insults, secrets, and whatever is illegal, such as hate speech), and rely on people to proactively say they are uncomfortable with something. I understand that not everyone wants that, but then again, I would prefer to not have to wear a suit to work, while others might. We just won't work together.


Have you ever asked the people who might be targeted by those jokes (women, minorities, etc.) if they feel comfortable with them?

Keep in mind a joke about someone "like you" is easy to read as a comment about you.


I have. They might, or they might not. But instead of changing myself, or expecting them to change, I simply choose not to associate with them.


I find your pro-censorship position completely offensive and inappropriate and unacceptable, not just in the workplace, but anywhere in civilized society.

What now?


A "relaxed" office culture means that "dick/sex/insulting/racist/etc jokes" are acceptable? This might be the most amazingly asinine comment I have ever encountered on HN.

The type of "jokes" you refer to are usually not only not funny to the people who have to listen to them, they can create huge liabilities for the companies dumb enough to employ the out-of-touch fool who thinks he's the office's Dave Attell.

"But we're a startup with a relaxed office culture and an opt out from toxic emails policy, not a big corporation!" isn't an effective defense to a racial discrimination or sexual harassment lawsuit.


Please show me precedent of a successful discrimination suit based on nothing more than a joke.


"Jokes" are commonly used as evidence in employment lawsuits:

http://www.boardmanclark.com/reading-room/it-was-just-a-joke...

http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/161026

http://www.fox19.com/story/26069939/wings-with-a-side-of-rac...

Please note that the vast majority of employment lawsuits settle before they ever go to trial.


> based on nothing more than a joke

None of your examples demonstrate this.

The joke is always a footnote to some other, primary complaint.

You failed your burden of proof.


I think that in a lot of companies, this would be a terrible approach to take. By not standing up against such things, you could easily destroy the cohesion in a company.

Maybe if you have a very homogenous company then noone will be there to take offence (that doesn't make it right), but the fact is that most companies are becoming more diverse and it is in their interests to support all members of the company to retain cohesion and efficiency - that means protecting them against their own coworkers, who may be racist, sexist, etc.

In addition, a company doesn't want it to get out that it has a very toxic work environment, as that could harm relations with consumers and partners.

You might call it censorship, but the fact is that companies must do what they need to to protect individual employees against a toxic culture.


I totally agree with all that you said, the thing is that I don't think that racist jokes mean that someone is a racist, and joking about one's girlfriend doesn't make a man sexist. I don't think those make for a toxic culture, only for a relaxed culture. But then again, I'm from Europe - I understand that Americans are quite a bit more puritanical about certain things (e.g. sex, cursing and race), and maybe less about others (violence and gore).


"I don't think that racist jokes mean that someone is a racist,"

what else could it possibly mean?


That a joke is funny because it plays on the racial stereotypes in an unexpected way. For example:

"What is a game called where a bunch of white guys are chasing a black guy? Golf."

I think the joke would be less funny if the races were reversed (and a different, but appropriate game was used).




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: