zlacker

>>zdw+(OP)
I predict people will claim "our culture isn't that toxic. Some of those things happen, but they don't bother me much."

If any non-zero subset of reasonable people are so offended by a behavior that they'd leave the industry because of it, we have to cut it out.

So don't ask "would this bother me?" Ask "would it bother someone?" And since you can't predict this from inside your head, you have to rely on firsthand accounts of people being bothered. This seems like a good overview of such accounts.

>>tlb+h7
> If any non-zero subset of reasonable people

Isn't the problem here that there is really no global (or even industry-wide) consensus on what's reasonable and what's not?

What feels perfectly reasonable to one may look absolutely and intolerably insane to someone else. And vice versa.

>>drdaem+9b
This is an empirical science. Any current consensus rules about what's acceptable derive ultimately from listening to people who are bothered by things. For example, in the 60s women started to object in large numbers to being wolf-whistled at when they walked past. Gradually, that became unacceptable in most workplaces. Many more things have become unacceptable since, and many more will in the future.

So there's no fixed rule, just a dialectic where people who are offended by things speak up, and people who run organizations listen and ban things that offend the most people. The process is always frustratingly slow, but it seems to be mostly moving in the right direction.