Asklemmy

43970 readers

806 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

385

My wife, newly hired, was asked to un-blur her camera during a routine meeting to confirm her I9 information. This seems like a violation to me? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

126 comments fedilink hide all child comments

She had interviewed and met both remotely and in person, this guy was merely an HR drone confirming her documentation. I was a little bent when she told me he had asked her to remove her blur filter "to have a look at her working environment, make sure it's not cluttered" (something along those lines). No one else at this company requested such. Was he way out of line?

I should note, this is my PC in our living room and not where she will be working from. And this guy wants a look around our home?! Told my wife to bring this up once she's settled in, ask HR if this is policy. She started today!

She thinks it's a racism thing. I'm not so sure, but I don't have any other explanation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] -19 points 3 months ago (6 children)

It was a dumb metaphor that made no sense.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So, a visible difference that some other people react to with prejudice is not like racism. Got it.

You ask: "Why assume they react to your VISIBLE ETHNIC DIFFERENCES in particular?"

The VISIBLE DIFFERENCES are visible.

People have made fun of me for having those VISIBLE DIFFERENCES before.

I can see facial expressions when people perceive THOSE VISIBLE DIFFERENCES, and notice features of judgemental reaction in their speech and behaviour after.

I'm sure you can comprehend why removing the controversial topic of ethnic differences [controversial because e.g. some people want to claim racism is does not happen any longer, or is not of any importance when it does because 'it's illegal to discriminate'] to replace it with another visible difference made it a suitable metaphor. I'm sure that you knew this, in fact, when you called it 'dumb'.
Your annoyance is, therefore, possibly more at me saying that a woman is allowed to believe she is being targeted for racist reasons, and that such a woman should be listened to fairly. Feel free to clarify on that, if you wish. As for me, I logically believe that racism exists, as I have seen it. And that people can intuit when it is happening, as I have seen it. And that other people can disagree with it, because they profit from racism being ignored, as I have seen it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Well if you aren't willing to engage in any sort of introspection all metaphor is stupid probably.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Or maybe the problem is with you?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

I think it made sense to most other people who read it

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I'm autistic also and I understood it just fine.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Yeah that was a shit metaphor.