What’s your most controversial opinion?

[InThe312]

To you it might be but to others it isn’t. Although you are saying that everybody should be allowed to wear whatever they feel comfortable in and have tattoos and piercings on display if that defines who they are, in your own mind, you still have lines that you are drawing. You have the sense to have those lines but other people’s lines are different.

Where does the line get drawn?

Swastikas. That's a pretty clear line that symbol of hate and genocide shouldn't be protected.

 

[Deleted member 6592667]

Looking my best usually means tees and jeans. Maybe a hat. Ink on display. I'm sure this will make someone scream cry.

 

[Dirt_in_the_Ground]

How far should they change? Should I be allowed to go to the office in a string bikini, with my flaps hanging out and a big full bush on show?

Would you employ somebody with a swastika tattooed on their cheek?

I spent most of my career in a big company where, when I started out, there was a fairly rigid, if moderately enforced, dress code—men in ties, women in business suits—but times changed, and a new management regime took over, which relaxed the code, and before long, people were showing up to work in tank tops and bicycle shorts. Then came another management change, which tightened the code back up a little, but gave us casual Fridays. Just the usual Dilbert-esque crap. Eventually it all gets sorted out by how you're talked about behind your back and who gets promoted. Survival of the fittest. Like high school.

 

[Deleted member 6568729]

I work in a field where a professional look was once required, but that has changed as they have found that many people feel more comfortable talking to someone who looks like them.

 

[BongoGal]

Swastikas. That's a pretty clear line that symbol of hate and genocide shouldn't be protected.

What about, say, a hammer and sickle tattoo? Is that the same thing? Or is that different?

Lines like freedom to express hateful insignia is not the same as freedom of expression.

Who decides which insignias are 'hateful' and thus unprotected? Majority vote? The prevailing sense of a society? Elected officials?

 

[AmberLGreen]

Swastikas. That's a pretty clear line that symbol of hate and genocide shouldn't be protected.

I agree. And it is extremist but there are still a lot of extremists out there who would manipulate company guidance to fit their own agendas. If a person with a swastika tattoo on their face was rejected for employment because of that, but a person with a pride flag tattooed on their face was employed, can you imagine the damage that would do. It shouldn’t be this way but it could be if there are no lines whatsoever.

The opinions being given were about a company not having the right to make you hide who you really are for 8 hours a day. Implying that you should be able to express yourself freely at all times. This also makes way for extremist symbols on bodies and clothing.

Sorry, not my own opinion but I do work for an institution where the allowing of one and not other could be seen as an inequality.

 

[Bry1313]

To you it might be but to others it isn’t. Although you are saying that everybody should be allowed to wear whatever they feel comfortable in and have tattoos and piercings on display if that defines who they are, in your own mind, you still have lines that you are drawing. You have the sense to have those lines but other people’s lines are different.

Where does the line get drawn?

Your bikini and swastika argument was the equivalent of “if we let homosexuals marry then we might as well allow people to marry their pets”. It was a lazy slippery slope argument and even I respect you too much to know it was a good faith point.

 

[Bry1313]

Also, another funny joke, that enters the tasteless realm. Again, you enter the dark areas of comedy, you need to be funny. Hat tip Ron Perlman in Mr and Mrs Smith





I’m down in Argentina… at a bar with some friends of mine…

And I see across the room this guy.

I just can’t take my eyes off him.

You know, he’s got the little…

Charlie Chaplin beard with the hair.

And I say to my friends, “I got to check this out, man.”

This is, like, whoa.

So I walk up to the guy and I say, “Excuse me, I apologize. I know I’ve been staring at you, but I got to ask you.”

He’s… [German accent] “No, you don’t have to ask me. I’m telling you, you’re right. I am who you think I am. And this is my wife Eva, and we are down here. We’re reorganizing. We’re gonna be bigger than ever. This time we’re going to kill 12 million Jews! And six acrobats!”

And I say, “Why six acrobats?”

He says, “You see, Eva? I told you nobody cares about the Jews.”

 

[AmberLGreen]

Your bikini and swastika argument was the equivalent of “if we let homosexuals marry then we might as well allow people to marry their pets”. It was a lazy slippery slope argument and even I respect you too much to know it was a good faith point.

I made it that extreme for the specific reason of making it more controversial.

I am one of those people, that whenever I look at anything, I will always view the extremes. We might not like them, or agree with them, or even think they are important but they are there and should always be considered. Sometimes you have to consider the possibility that comments can be made to start a deeper thinking conversation or to at least get thought processes moving in a direction that the original conversation stater may not have foreseen.

 

[InThe312]

What about, say, a hammer and sickle tattoo? Is that the same thing? Or is that different?

Who decides which insignias are 'hateful' and thus unprotected? Majority vote? The prevailing sense of a society? Elected officials?

The symbol of a fallen regime that didn't set out the eradicate certain types of people off the face of the planet? Different.

As for who gets to decide, I think yes, the prevailing sense of a society, the society that we all live in now and I think despite the extremist minorities having a voice in social media and on the internet, most of society across the globe is able to recognize the difference between the meaning behind a swastika and other symbols, such as a cross. I haven't asked everyone, but I feel like the prevailing sense of society is that Christians aren't quite the hateful, genocidal group that Nazis are.

I agree. And it is extremist but there are still a lot of extremists out there who would manipulate company guidance to fit their own agendas. If a person with a swastika tattoo on their face was rejected for employment because of that, but a person with a pride flag tattooed on their face was employed, can you imagine the damage that would do. It shouldn’t be this way but it could be if there are no lines whatsoever.

The opinions being given were about a company not having the right to make you hide who you really are for 8 hours a day. Implying that you should be able to express yourself freely at all times. This also makes way for extremist symbols on bodies and clothing.

Sorry, not my own opinion but I do work for an institution where the allowing of one and not other could be seen as an inequality.

This might be something that is just fundamentally different to the environments of our respective countries. The swastika wearer would bear the burden of proving that I made a hiring decision based on their appearance or their membership in a protected class. If you think I would ever write down in our talent acquisition system "No, has a swastika tattoo", you'd be very wrong. This all being said, in America, private companies do have the right to set and enforce appearance restrictions in the workplace. I just think we could all show some better judgment on those restrictions and be a little more accepting that someone who is tatted head to toe and has a nose ring might be an awesome employee in a role that they're totally qualified for.

I will add though, I do believe that you bear the burden of what people think of you by your own decisions. Banks and lawyers and accountants aren't likely to switch to bikinis as appropriate office wear any time soon and if you wish to be employed by them, it doesn't hurt to think about how your personal decisions are likely to affect how others perceive you. I, personally, wouldn't make a decision to hire or not hire someone based on whether or not they had tattoos (with exceptions discussed earlier), but at the same time, my tattoos are not visible if I'm wearing a long sleeved shirt and when I go to job interviews, I will wear a suit, every time. Wear your pride tattoo on your face, I think that's great, but also be real with yourself that there are people who will judge you, right or wrong, and you might not get that awesome job you wanted because of it.

 

[Bry1313]

I made it that extreme for the specific reason of making it more controversial.

I am one of those people, that whenever I look at anything, I will always view the extremes. We might not like them, or agree with them, or even think they are important but they are there and should always be considered. Sometimes you have to consider the possibility that comments can be made to start a deeper thinking conversation or to at least get thought processes moving in a direction that the original conversation stater may not have foreseen.

I dont find slippery slope arguments useful because, like I said, they inevitably go to the extremes that serve no value to the underlying point. (I.e. if we let two men marry than why can’t I marry my cat. )

I think we can have a valid discussion over the value of professional attire versus casual without bringing the acceptability of visible Nazis into the discussion

 

[AmberLGreen]

I dont find slippery slope arguments useful because, like I said, they inevitably go to the extremes that serve no value to the underlying point. (I.e. if we let two men marry than why can’t I marry my cat. )

I think we can have a valid discussion over the value of professional attire versus casual without bringing the acceptability of visible Nazis into the discussion

The discussion point was about employees being allowed to wear what they felt comfortable in and what allowed them to freely express themselves. Not just with clothing but with tattoos and accessories. One person’s free expression of themselves might be offensive to another person. As part of that discussion, I asked people to consider the extremes that other people might go to in order to express themselves freely. I chose that particular symbol because it is one that I knew would invoke the strongest feelings of hatred. It wasn’t intended as a “slippery slope argument” but as an aid to start a discussion about how a workplace could allow for freedom of expression but with still having some boundaries. I asked where the line could be drawn but have not yet seen any reasonable response as to how an employer and their workforce could fully create an environment across society for this.

 

[Deleted member 6592667]

You guys type a lot.

 

[Bry1313]

The discussion point was about employees being allowed to wear what they felt comfortable in and what allowed them to freely express themselves. Not just with clothing but with tattoos and accessories. One person’s free expression of themselves might be offensive to another person. As part of that discussion, I asked people to consider the extremes that other people might go to in order to express themselves freely. I chose that particular symbol because it is one that I knew would invoke the strongest feelings of hatred. It wasn’t intended as a “slippery slope argument” but as an aid to start a discussion about how a workplace could allow for freedom of expression but with still having some boundaries. I asked where the line could be drawn but have not yet seen any reasonable response as to how an employer and their workforce could fully create an environment across society for this.

Your statement is the definition of what slippery slope argument is.

 

[AmberLGreen]

Your statement is the definition of what slippery slope argument is.

You might need to define it for me as I don’t seem to be understanding

 

[crazychemgirl]

You might need to define it for me as I don’t seem to be understanding

Ok …

So tattoos as a specific example. Tattoos with no obvious connection to religion, discrimination, or vulgarity … is there a legitimate reason to have to have them hidden besides “offending” someone?

 

[BongoGal]

The symbol of a fallen regime that didn't set out the eradicate certain types of people off the face of the planet? Different.

You honestly believe that the communists didn't set out to eradicate certain types of people? If so, then how do you account for the slaughter of many tens of millions of people? Do you consider an accident? Collateral damage? If you know anything at all about the Holomodor, do you consider it an unfortunate agricultural policy or something perhaps more deliberate and sinister?

 

[Bry1313]

You might need to define it for me as I don’t seem to be understanding

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slope-fallacy/

 

[AmberLGreen]

Ok …

So tattoos as a specific example. Tattoos with no obvious connection to religion, discrimination, or vulgarity … is there a legitimate reason to have to have them hidden besides “offending” someone?

This is why I asked where do you draw the line? You have now given specifics of what might need to be excluded in freely expressing yourself. If you had to write a paper to your employer requesting a change to company policy on personal presentation, you would probably include things like this in it. They are discussion points that should be considered when requesting change and especially when considering societal change.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slope-fallacy/

I never stated what would or wouldn’t happen. I was asking where a line gets drawn and giving scenarios to be considered. To me that is how you have a discussion

 

[BongoGal]

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/slippery-slope-fallacy/

"The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy or reasoning error. More specifically, it is an informal fallacy where the error lies in the content of the argument rather than its format (formal fallacy). Therefore, not every slippery slope argument is flawed. When there is evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur, then the slippery slope argument is not fallacious."

 

[Deleted member 6568729]

As I said, the company I work for has recognized the importance of a less strict dress code that also allows for freedom of expression.

We are required to be well-groomed, neat, and clean.
Clothing is required to be clean, free from rips or stains, and not offensive, provocative, or contrary to our mission.
Tattoos do not need to be covered unless they are offensive or contrary to our mission.

It's really not hard to have a policy that gives you freedom to express yourself while also limiting what is offensive to others.

 

[Bry1313]

"The slippery slope fallacy is a logical fallacy or reasoning error. More specifically, it is an informal fallacy where the error lies in the content of the argument rather than its format (formal fallacy). Therefore, not every slippery slope argument is flawed. When there is evidence that the consequences of the initial action are highly likely to occur, then the slippery slope argument is not fallacious."

Are swastika face tattoos and string bikinis with unkempt bushes likely to become the rage of office fashion?

 

[Wand3rlust]

People are given an inch, and they take a mile. You will always get someone who, if you say tattoos are fine, will want to make a point. Soe times a valid one. Sometimes an egregious one.
There does need to be a line. And we need to have trust in our elected leaders that they know where to put it.

That seems sadly lacking in a lot of the great nations these days.

And I know I'm moving from how to present yourself at work, to more widespread issues.
But nothing is isolated.

People are scared of change. They feel comfort in familiarity and forget that things actually aren't what they used to be but sometimes that's a good thing.

There is a balance to be met.

 

[InThe312]

You honestly believe that the communists didn't set out to eradicate certain types of people? If so, then how do you account for the slaughter of many tens of millions of people? Do you consider an accident? Collateral damage? If you know anything at all about the Holomodor, do you consider it an unfortunate agricultural policy or something perhaps more deliberate and sinister?

No, but what I don't see is that symbol being used to represent a currently active extremist hate group. I see it exactly the same way I view the cross. Millions were slaughtered during the crusades, but I don't view the Christian church as a hate group. I don't view the Japanese flag (or the German flag for that matter) as a symbol of hate. Heck, I don't view the American flag as a symbol of hate and we've killed plenty of people in the name of freedom. I see a clear difference between the swastika and the hammer/sickle, it's OK with me if you don't.

 

[crazychemgirl]

As I said, the company I work for has recognized the importance of a less strict dress code that also allows for freedom of expression.

We are required to be well-groomed, neat, and clean.
Clothing is required to be clean, free from rips or stains, and not offensive, provocative, or contrary to our mission.
Tattoos do not need to be covered unless they are offensive or contrary to our mission.

It's really not hard to have a policy that gives you freedom to express yourself while also limiting what is offensive to others.

A voice of reason