[waterlion]

Sorry, there's no handbook. You just have to go through life doing your best, occasionally there's a little misunderstanding and there's a witch-hunt and you're subjected to mass-Internet-bullying until you apologise for your little mistake, whether or not it was your fault. Together society moves forward to non-exclusionary monoculture where there is no risky language, however borderline or insignificant, and offenders are switftly dealt with.

For every joke there is a minority that it excludes.

Alternatively, people are thoughtful about what they write and equally thoughtful about their standards of evidence and credibility when they call people out on things. People stop and think before bullying each other in the name of equality and try to exercise empathy for everyone.

But sadly I don't think the human brain is wired for that.

(Yes I'm still annoyed about Noordhuis and incredulous about how vindictive and hateful some people can be.)

[MartinCron]

I'm generally what one would classify as a white-knighting witch-hunter who thinks that you should keep your "risky" language and humor out of professional contexts (for basically the same reason you shouldn't smoke cigarettes in professional offices, I shouldn't have to breathe that shit while I'm working) but I just upvoted you because you're making an excellent point about exercising empathy for everyone.

[waterlion]

Here's the thing. So am I. I would say I am very egalitarian and very empathetic. I would say I am a feminist, which is perhaps why I find certain behaviour on the Internet under the banner of feminism troubling.

I recognise that mob-precursor-feeling rising in me occasionally (often when I see footage of policemen attacking civilians unprovoked) but, I think, it's up to us all to behave as civilised human beings, and that includes not joining the mob, seeking to empathise with both parties and actually looking for the evidence.

For this reason I find mob mentality and zero tolerance behaviour deeply troubling and try to engage in conversation whenever I see it.

This is a corporate blog so you could say it comes under the 'professional' umbrella. If you're going to criticise it, you could say that the general tone of the article isn't particularly professional, but, as I said in another comment, there was plenty more to find problems with than just the mention of a padded bra. I happen to think the blog post was fine, probably because the Internet has brought personal and professional universes incredibly close.

I understand if others disagree, for disagreement to be respected it has to come intellectual honesty (i.e. evidence of critical thought) rather than as a reflex.

[scarecrowbob]

I don't disagree with your initial point. However, it carries the rhetorical premise that simply because we find something offensive we should question our sensibilities rather than note when we feel other folks are being sexist.

To an extent, I agree with that as well, though it's possible you're not intending that premise within your statement.

But ultimately, we have sensibilities, and while we should question them it's not universally the case that our sensibilities are wrongheaded, and personally, I think the padded bra comment is a good example of that kind of thing which, even upon reflection, I have little trouble saying that folks who write like that are employing a sexist trope.

[MartinCron]

I think that we should all strive both not to be offensive and not to be easily offended. Just as importantly, we can call out stupid sexist tropes (or inadvertent exclusionary language) without demonizing those who write them.