[turdnagel]

I'm not sure "we don't do that here" is any more neutral than any other way of telling someone to stop doing something. It has the added weight of "we," which implies a shared set of cultural values, which in turn may help get the message across. But it does nothing to defuse someone feeling defensive about their actions.

[giraffe_lady]

It makes clear, though still implicit, that was has been transgressed is a social norm specific to that context. It communicates that if you mean to oppose it, you're opposing the social cohesion of that context rather than the value of the thing itself.

It doesn't address the feelings of the person or help their defensiveness, no. It just makes it less likely they'll continue to push against it.

[restingrobot]

>It makes clear, though still implicit, that was has been transgressed is a social norm specific to that context.

But it really doesn't though. In the example of the off color, (e.g. racist), joke, saying "we don't do that here", doesn't specify what "we" don't do. We don't make jokes about that specific race, but others are ok? We don't make any race based jokes, but sex based jokes are OK? We don't make jokes specifically about that topic?

Its farm more effective to say something along the lines of "what you just said is inappropriate for our work environment, please keep others in mind when making jokes"

[kelseyfrog]

In all of my years of experience, I haven't met a bigot who didn't know they were being bigoted and why it was bigoted. I have met so very many who when confronted with their bigotry fail very badly at claiming that they don't know. Instead of sticking to their guns they decide to become the world's worst improv actor - it's very easy to spot. Their whole idea is to become as slippery as possible with ignorance and it shows.

[restingrobot]

I fully disagree with your sentiment. Yes there are outright bigoted jokes, but I believe many people have a different line in the sand of where appropriate and inappropriate are. There are many jokes that one workplace may deem 100% harmless and another might cause offense. My general assumption is that the person didn't mean to be bigoted, they just didn't understand where the line was.

This of course is not speaking of outright racism, but an example might be wearing a sombrero on Cinco de Mayo. Some workplaces would find this perfectly acceptable, whereas others might deem this racially insensitive and rude. It's not outright bigoted, (in my opinion), and not meant to cause harm, but the workplace culture is the what determines if it is acceptable or not.

[kelseyfrog]

It sounds like we're talking about different things and I don't disagree with what you described. In the example you used, where people are unaware of where the line is, I would fully expect that a person caught unaware, would, without trouble, be able to deduce the reason.

It's the hardline bigots who, again in my experience, cannot tolerate being confronted and feign ignorance in an attempt to misdirect. I'm pretty sure, if you found yourself face to face with one of these, you would be able to identify them easily.

[giraffe_lady]

No you've got it but maybe don't see the value of it fully.

It's pointing out an instance of transgression, not articulating a general rule. There probably is or needs to be a rule as well, but this doesn't by itself tell you what it is or define its bounds.

You want to separate the definition of a rule and its enforcement. Even if the rule is just an informal social one among a friend group this is valuable. Think about the common trope of someone in a group making a joke about a car accident, potentially funny, but not knowing someone else in the group recently lost a parent in a car accident. You shut them up tactfully and then give them the context of the transgression later and potentially debate its boundaries then if that's valuable.

What you absolutely don't want is, on the spot, having a public group-wide conversation about jokes about car accidents. Are they ever ok? Ok when someone isn't grieving from one? How long a buffer do we give for grief? Those are probably useful questions for this group to tackle, but this is the wrong time for it. "We don't joke about that" is good enough for now.

[restingrobot]

Your point is fine when it comes to a group of friends, that you most likely self selected, but I have to disagree when it is in the workplace, (a mixture of different values and opinions).

It is important that everyone is aware of the rules, (boundaries), not just the person that may have violated them. I agree a public group wide discussion is not appropriate, but we still need to communicate what rule was violated for the sake of the entire group, not just the transgressor.

[turdnagel]

I'm generally in agreement with you, but what I don't agree with is the author's assertion that it is a "magic" phrase that "ends the conversation". Realistically, it's very easy to imagine someone saying "why?" afterwards, leading to the exact kind of debate the author is trying to avoid. Anyway, I think it's a useful tool in the toolbelt, just not magic.

[giraffe_lady]

Yeah also agreed. I wasn't super impressed by the article, don't really find this to be a magic solution. It's solid when what you want is to avoid immediate pushback especially in public, and you don't mind generating some resentment in the other party for it. That describes plenty of situations but nowhere near all.

[mcguire]

On the other hand, it doesn't have the heavily implied threat of "that's against policy".

[ReptileMan]

And just shrugging off and ignoring the person just makes them less threatening.

[ThePadawan]

I personally find that people who thrive on loudly speaking their mind take a lack of opposition as confirmation of their beliefs.