zlacker

> It's also problematic because the workplace inherently has an underlying adversarial quality that can provide a never-ending supply of "microaggressions"

Its also the only place in adulthood where people willingly or unwillingly must work together with people different than them and not necessarily of their choosing to reach a common goal.

>>taurat+(OP)
The only place?

>>aarpmc+A6
Can you think of others? Maybe sports?

>>aarpmc+A6
For me it is. Everywhere else I choose who I do and do not interact with, I go to stores where only “my people” go, I live in a neighborhood where only “my people” live.

>>taurat+eo
Charities. Church. Musical groups. Schools (PTA, etc). Local government.

>>humanr+zI
None of those places is a literal requirement for sustenance, but you do need to work somewhere, and for most people, that somewhere is anywhere that will take you.

>>darker+iL
Pedantically you are mostly correct. Practically I'm not convinced your distinction is useful.

>>humanr+ML
Practically speaking, having freedom of choice is a big deal. And we are free to choose our churches, whether to engage in our PTA, etc.

We're also free to find new jobs if we don't like them, but it sure is harder than those other choices.

>>taurat+(OP)
Even that common goal often ends up being an IRL McGuffin when the real point for most people is to get paid. For some, reaching that goal may be counter to their employment or workplace comfort. The common goal may not actually be so common, especially if the means to reach that goal elevates some over others, which almost certainly will happen in any hierarchy.