If you're worried about inadvertently causing offense in the workplace, consider:
1⃣ Treating people with kindness and respect by default which encourages them to give you the benefit of the doubt.
2⃣ Not getting massively defensive or aggressive when someone raises an issue.
When people can see you're trying, and making a genuine effort, they are far more likely to be patient with you.
If you're an asshole, they are far more likely to see even inadvertent faux pas as a deliberate attack, dismissive thoughtlessness or calculated cruelty.
Learning to treat being pulled up on something you said that hurt someone's feelings as an opportunity for dialogue, rather than as a final and damning judgement on your character hard.
Fight or flight is a natural instinct.
Still, it diffuses situations 99% of the time.
I should add, "opportunity for dialogue" does not mean "opportunity for high school debate."
"What about people who just run around looking for excuses to be offended, or who weaponize offense?"
They exist but:
a) the rules still apply here. If people know you as someone kind and respectful see you making an effort to engage, you won't be diminished in their eyes.
b) The existence of a minority that exploit offense doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to be kind, polite and considerate in the workplace any more than the existence of fucking idiots on twitter means we should shut down the platform.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People were running around and borrowing the PM's authority without authorization for matters relating to an ongoing military operation and evacuation in a city actively falling to the Taliban?
You guys get that's not great, right?
There's literally a West Wing clip about this:
The @BBCNews story that quote is from is here, if you want to read it in context and in full.
2/ A narrative can be extremely powerful in determining what makes it into the media we consume and how it's framed.
There's a reason news stories around a particular theme seem to happen in clusters. Nothing for a year, then relentlessly one after another.
3/ As a general rule media organizations like stories that align with established narratives and those that are directly and shockingly in contrast to it.
What they don't like is a story that runs contrary to narrative, but only mildly. No one reads those.
David Frost should be explicit about what he's proposing here.
The maximally charitable (least Bolshevik) interpretation is that he wants to move the UK to a US-like model whereby most senior positions in the civil service are political appointees who resign after each election.
The less charitable interpretations are all too stupid to contemplate.
Is your woke purging going to mean you fire everyone with pronouns in their e-mail signature when Frost comes in as PM, then fire everyone without them a few years later when a Labour PM takes over?
If Lord Frost's premise is that policy can only be delivered by a civil service where all individuals fully align in their hearts with the ideology of the government of the day then you are going to need a very different model of governance to the one you've had for centuries.
As a Ukrainian, watching obvious Boris Johnson superfan accounts cynically deploy the looming re-invasion of my birth country as a talking point to try and save their boy is gross, and the desperation pathetic.
FAQ #1: "The UK response has been great, shut up!"
A: Yes, it's been good! Certainly better than Germany's. And all that despite taking place in the middle of this crisis so by your own admission, partygate hasn't impeded it. UK walking and chewing gum same time, no problem.
FAQ #2: "This is in fact media criticism, why aren't they reporting more about Ukraine?"
A: Unless you're sending this tweet from inside a trench northeast of Mariupol, you likely know about what's going on in Ukraine from the same media you claim isn't reporting it.
As a former negotiator who now teaches this stuff, I promise you it makes a difference when the Minister in charge is seeking warm working relations and a path to progress instead of social media acrimony and a pretext for trade war.
1/ Habib's argument, that the TCA is preventing the UK from massively deregulating and thus delivering the "traditional Tory Brexit" he envisaged, is in direct contradiction to the UK government's repeated claims it had no intention of deregulating to race Europe to the bottom.
2/ Let's recall the horrors of the TCA negotiations.
The EU:
- was offering full market access, but wanted legal commitments that the UK wouldn't deregulate in areas like environment and labor rights to "exploit" that access.
This was the dreaded "Level Playing Field"
3/ The UK:
- Argued its regulations in these areas were world/europe leading
- That it had no intention of undermining them and never would
- That the level playing field commitments the EU sought were an unacceptable loss of sovereignty and more than you see in other FTAs