(Part 2) Best products from r/AskHR

Yeah. Have you read 3 Felonies a Day? Talks about we all break so many laws every day, the vast majority of us without meaning to. And the whole ' more prisoners per capita than any other nation' thing.

Yes, you are overreacting. She didn’t steal the coat. Whether she would or wouldn’t have (had you not said anything)—the fact is that you did say something, and she didn’t steal it. You have no proof she was going to steal it, and you’re expecting them to...do what, exactly? You only have your own reasons and suspicions as to how there is no way she could have actually been confused or picked it up by accident.

Management or HR has no obligation to tell you how investigations/discipline are handled—they could have already addressed it with her, and you would have no idea. I am guessing she was mortified when confronted with this—she just got a new job, may not even have money for a coat, and is now being accused of theft before she even finishes training. You seem more upset that she hasn’t been permanently branded a coat thief, than about a person having no coat in the 20 degree Wisconsin winter.

Keep your coat at your own desk—either on the back of my chair, or get a cubicle hook.

Well, if there's anything I've got in my toolbox, it's bluntness! HA!

When I mention the bitterness, I'm talking exactly about the self-determination mindset that you talk about a couple paragraphs later; that you believe in humanity's right to free choice without external interference. I would find that most people do, including the SJW's you mention. People just define 'external interference' differently.

So, if you view self-determination as a foundational core to your ability to be free, than any social construct (views on race or gender) runs counter to that and you may view 'compliance' as a direct violation of your liberty. However, if you are one of the people who is seeing external interference as a direct RESULT of systemic racism, you see self-determination in a very different way. (Not to go too far down that rabbit-hole, but individual autonomy is reliant upon social views and/or actions regarding your right to that autonomy- which has historically been denied to people of color aka. systemic racism).

You, then, may become bitter at the constant onslaught of 'SJW' forcing conversations and wonder why others don't do what you did, and 'hard-work' their way out of it, without recognizing that there are roadblocks that exist for others that you did not encounter by virtue of your race. Just because you may not see those roadblocks, or agree, doesn't mean they aren't there. This also doesn't mean people affected by racism are victims but again, diminishing a very real experience to victimhood status so that it can be dismissed is self-serving at best.

To follow that, defaulting to the 'empirical evidence' standard, to me, is an easy out. It seems to be an 'I can't smell the sunflowers, and no one can prove what they smell like, and I don't see them anywhere, so they don't exist'. In the meantime, your back is to the field of flowers and despite people trying to give you directions, you do not turn around.

To me, it's just not that easy or simple. Which is why, I urge you, if you are feeling defensive about some of what you heard, don't dismiss it out of hand. Figure out if there was some truth there that will be useful for you. If you feel dehumanized by the conversations you've been having, imagine how dehumanized the people who have experienced some of these struggles may feel, knowing that you categorically deny their reality as propaganda. (I'm referencing your comments on systemic racism).

To your point, it's hard to recognize someone else's humanity if you feel it's THEIR boot on your neck. For you, it's the SJW's, for everyone else- it's you (and not because you're white, but because you refuse to take your blinders off). The difference is, your boot causes actual harm, while an SJW's boot causes you inconvenience, anger, feeling of being unduly criticized, and potentially outward capitulation and/or withdrawal instead of an eyes-wide-open confrontation of the realities of racism.

I may not have said all of this in the right way, but hopefully the intention came across. With that, I'm exhausted!

Edited to add: This is a good read that you may be interested in. Ironically, it is actually called White Fragility. There's a review in The New Yorker on it here.

> “The most effective adaptation of racism over time,” DiAngelo claims, “is the idea that racism is conscious bias held by mean people.” This “good/bad binary,” positing a world of evil racists and compassionate non-racists, is itself a racist construct, eliding systemic injustice and imbuing racism with such shattering moral meaning that white people, especially progressives, cannot bear to face their collusion in it

​

> As an ethical thinker, DiAngelo belongs to the utilitarian school, which places less importance on attitudes than on the ways in which attitudes cause harm