Right or wrong? Calling out co-workers on language choices?

[Rosie_0801]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

And would you please stop calling this person "guy."  We already established that's a misogynistic term since there is no female version of "guy."

 

How about "bod" since that's all inclusive. Everyone has one of those.

[poppy]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

And would you please stop calling this person "guy."  We already established that's a misogynistic term since there is no female version of "guy."

 

Is this some kind of absurdity theater?

[Murphy101]

10 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Don't do it at work / professionally.    I don't know any adult men who do, it's not a typical / normal thing.   It's not that hard or complicated to remember.  

 

The entire point of this thread is that obviously you do know at least one guy who does do it at work. 

[poppy]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

Again, in real life it hasn’t been an issue.  You introduce yourself as Mrs Lastname or Miss Firstname.  Magic.

 

You're making it sound like kids should respect adutls preference..... but before you said no.

[poppy]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

 

The entire point of this thread is that obviously you do know at least one guy who does do it at work. 

 

No, I am not the OP.  I thinks she stopped replying  after she was called man-hating and threatening.
I'm just someone who doesn't think the word "girl" is always appropriate when describing adult women.

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, poppy said:

Is that not exactly what she did?  Asked him privately to cut it out, and gave him some reasons  why. 

As has been explained, the sending of a work email is not asking privately.  Using accusatory terms synonymous with hate / oppression is not "giving some reasons why."

[SKL]

12 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Is this some kind of absurdity theater?

Well it was tongue in cheek, but notice how you are using this casual term automatically because it is what you're used to.  Even though we've discussed on this thread that "guy" is not such a great word under the circumstances, you can't seem to remember that or you just don't care.  Yet you consider it appropriate to lambaste a man in a corporate email for using the term "girl" - his first offense that we know of.

[LMD]

26 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

We tend to avoid Ms FirstName because the only people who are addressed like that are preschool teachers. 
Nothing wrong with preschool teachers, but it's odd in a coop where most kids are 8-12  years old.

True! It was mostly the families with younger children who preferred this.

[poppy]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Well it was tongue in cheek, but notice how you are using this casual term automatically because it is what you're used to.  Even though we've discussed on this thread that "guy" is not such a great word under the circumstances, you can't seem to remember that or you just don't care.  Yet you consider it appropriate to lambaste a man in a corporate email for using the term "girl" - his first offense that we know of.

 

No, honestly, I got that you were deliberately minimizing the concern as petty and ridiculous.   I just thought it was unusually cruel, for you.

[poppy]

13 minutes ago, SKL said:

As has been explained, the sending of a work email is not asking privately.  Using accusatory terms synonymous with hate / oppression is not "giving some reasons why."

 

She used the phrase "implicit devaluation."  I get that a lot of people here think that concern should not be taken at all seriously, for whatever reason (they don't mind, so people who do are wrong?)  ...... but it is, indeed, giving reasons why.

[Katy]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 

How about "bod" since that's all inclusive. Everyone has one of those.

 

That wouldn't work in the USA - too many 80's movies evaluated a woman's "bod" as a way of objectifying her.   I think there was even a series of commercials, maybe body spray?  In the 90's that repeated the phrase "Hot bod" repeatedly.  It would be an instant HR complaint for anyone old enough to remember that.

[Rosie_0801]

2 minutes ago, Katy said:

 

That wouldn't work in the USA - too many 80's movies evaluated a woman's "bod" as a way of objectifying her.   I think there was even a series of commercials, maybe body spray?  In the 90's that repeated the phrase "Hot bod" repeatedly.  It would be an instant HR complaint for anyone old enough to remember that.

 I just think "entity" sounds so clinical.

[katilac]

 

On 4/22/2018 at 5:53 PM, regentrude said:

  Unless you are in the South; then you can say "y'all" 

1

 

And it even makes perfect grammatical sense, y'all!

On 4/23/2018 at 1:49 PM, regentrude said:

My issue is the hierarchy ma'am implies. You don't ma'am each other, IYKWIM.  

 

 

Not a bit true in the south. We ma'am and sir each other all day long. As Murphy101 noted, it's not unusual for an adult to ma'am a child. 

On 4/23/2018 at 2:44 PM, regentrude said:

Completely agree. And I do not object to the use of academic titles or the use of Mr/Mrs when a student addresses a teacher. I dislike the hierarchy and subservience "ma'am" conjures in situations where there should be no difference in status.

 

When do you think there should be no difference in status? Are you talking about purely social situations, like a party or park day?

7 hours ago, bolt. said:

I suppose an adult in that situation could return the gesture of respect by calling kids ‘mr/miss firstname’ too. That might be a fun solution.

 

Nobody would think it was a fun solution in my part of the south because nobody would notice. Adults are always called Mr/Miss FirstName, but it's not unusual at all to use it for children. We also use it adult to adult pretty often with acquaintances, like the librarian. How are you, Mr. Don, did my book come in? Not yet, Miss Katilac, the truck hasn't come today. 

3 hours ago, SKL said:

So I have a related question:  what is the female vs male version of the word "misogynist" and why don't we all know it?

 

 

Misandrist. 

1 hour ago, poppy said:

Is that not exactly what she did?  Asked him privately to cut it out, and gave him some reasons  why. 

 

As someone who has worked in a formal corporate environment, I know that company emails should never be considered private. Plus, the other person would have no reason to think she hadn't BCC'd half the world. 

OP, very interesting discussion! 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

A kid calling me my first name is not respectful, to be clear.  That’s a heck no, no ma’am, do not pass go or collect $200.  That’s pretty much anathema to basic manners in addressing non relative adults in a society, and I’m from a very casual social climate (SoCal).

 

I think this might actually be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life.

I'm pretty sure my older kid doesn't even know her teacher's last names. I sure don't. Admittedly, I thought the plethora of first-name only schools during our High School Admissions round was unusual, but I didn't think it was impolite! And around here, in informal settings all kids call all adults (other than their parents, grandparents, and perhaps aunts and uncles) by their first names only unless specifically told to do otherwise. I could probably get the kids on the block to call me Miss Tanaqui instead of just Tanaqui if I wanted, but why would I bother?

They show their basic manners by greeting me when they see me and answering inane questions along the lines of "How was school?" and "You're seven now, right?", by saying "Please" when asking to pet my dogs or if they can have one of the ice pops my kids are sharing out, by offering to help me lug my groceries up the stairs or to shovel my walk, by listening to me when I tell them things like "Don't pick my flowers, but you can sniff them" and "I know it's the middle of the day, but you need to be a little quieter out here because my mother is sick" and by not pestering me and their parents when we're talking to each other.

[Bluegoat]

10 hours ago, poppy said:

 

Here's a question then.  If a guy called a woman a "girl"  in one context, he probably would call me a "girl" in another context, because he thinks it's a normal way to talk about women.  Do I have to wait for him to call me a "girl" before I speak up?

 

He might, but that isn't obvious - what seems like natural language in one instance isn't going to in another.  And there is simply no way to know what every individual in the world will prefer or not prefer before you open your mouth to speak.  So it's pretty inevitable that if there is something you personally don't like, sometimes you'll have to tell people when it actually comes up.  

[Bluegoat]

8 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

 I just think "entity" sounds so clinical.

 

"Comrade"?

[poppy]

1 hour ago, Bluegoat said:

 

He might, but that isn't obvious - what seems like natural language in one instance isn't going to in another.  And there is simply no way to know what every individual in the world will prefer or not prefer before you open your mouth to speak.  So it's pretty inevitable that if there is something you personally don't like, sometimes you'll have to tell people when it actually comes up.  

 

This is about at work.  And your thinking only applies if you think "girl" is an appropriate way to refer to adult women who aren't you.  There must be some term for adult women you wouldn't find appropriate.  Chick?  MILF? Hottie? "This hottie I interviewed was very well spoken and would be a great addition to the team".   Don't complain, he isn't talking about you, maybe she doesn't  mind, how dare you presume to speak for all women?

I get that it is utterly alien  to some people that it is not always ok to refer to women as girls, but think of it this way. If literally no one else does it in OP's office--- and she's not a brand new employee--- there is probably a reason. And that reason is probably that it's not considered acceptable in that context.    Like calling Bob in his wheelchair a "cripple". It's just weird and nope.  If you like the word, you only have to avoid it at work 8 hours a day on weekdays. Complain at home all you want about the PC police ruining your life and being absurd, you don't mean anything bad about cripple, your aunt was  a cripple and she was awesome, whatever.

[poppy]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

Then we would have no issues and tralalals everyone is copacetic.

 

I'm glad you've come around to agreeing that children who use first names with adults who prefer it DO have good manners.  

[poppy]

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

Nope. You pretty much completely missed what I was saying, on purpose I’m guessing. 

 

You just agreed with someone who said that your child would address you as you wished, and other adults by first name, and would be demonstrating an equal level of respect to all. 
So I guess what you meant was, you'd be OK with that, but would also say that child has bad manners?

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

This is about at work.  And your thinking only applies if you think "girl" is an appropriate way to refer to adult women who aren't you.  There must be some term for adult women you wouldn't find appropriate.  Chick?  MILF? Hottie? "This hottie I interviewed was very well spoken and would be a great addition to the team".   Don't complain, he isn't talking about you, maybe she doesn't  mind, how dare you presume to speak for all women?

I get that it is utterly alien  to some people that it is not always ok to refer to women as girls, but think of it this way. If literally no one else does it in OP's office--- and she's not a brand new employee--- there is probably a reason. And that reason is probably that it's not considered acceptable in that context.    Like calling Bob in his wheelchair a "cripple". It's just weird and nope.  If you like the word, you only have to avoid it at work 8 hours a day on weekdays. Complain at home all you want about the PC police ruining your life and being absurd, you don't mean anything bad about cripple, your aunt was  a cripple and she was awesome, whatever.

 

Yeah, I think it's different if someone says "the girl I interviewed" as opposed to "that slut I interviewed."  I'm not sure how that isn't completely obvious.  Like, saying someone is a strict supervisor really isn't the same as saying she's an a$$hat.

Does no one else in the OPs office do this?  Has she worked there long?  I have no idea.  The OP in two separate incidents IMO acted inappropriately, so I don't know that her judgement is spot on as far as how to deal with questions like this, or language use in general. 

[poppy]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

Yeah, I think it's different if someone says "the girl I interviewed" as opposed to "that slut I interviewed."  I'm not sure how that isn't completely obvious.  Like, saying someone is a strict supervisor really isn't the same as saying she's an a$$hat.

Does no one else in the OPs office do this?  Has she worked there long?  I have no idea.  The OP in two separate incidents IMO acted inappropriately, so I don't know that her judgement is spot on as far as how to deal with questions like this, or language use in general. 

 

Wait, you think the OTHER incident -objecting to a  co-worker repeatedly using a "racially insensitive quip" - was inappropriate? How is that not as bad as "slut?"

[poppy]

7 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

No, I agreed that I wouldn’t say anything or be upset as long as they didn’t do it to me, nor whether the overall practice was one that was appropriate for a child.  For an older teen; eh, I’m more flexible as they approach adulthood and adult interactions.  But that’s an aside.

 

You did say whether the overall practice was appropriate for a child pretty loud & clear.

We're all entitled to our opinions, best to stand behind yours.  Accept hate once in a while, I do lol.

[poppy]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

It’s not about who finds what words acceptable or not.  It’s about how to address word choice that you don’t find acceptable.  The fact of the matter is that “girl” just isn’t as universally unacceptable as you seem to want it to be.  But regardless of that, it bothers the OP and it does bother others.  Which is fine, that person should speak up.  They should however do so in a manner that reasonable in relation to the incident.  And an email with language that implies gender discrimination and/or harassment took place is much stronger and more serious than the very minor intransgression of the use of the word that sometimes bothers some people. 

 

So 8 pages to say, you think it was fine but should have been verbal not email?
I agreed with that long ago *shrug*  Email is so much easier.  And there is literally NO case of the employee getting fired or sued for that one email exchange to the reaction to it is out of proportion IMO.

 

Please do, however, accept that it's not a "very minor transgression".  It was a transgression full stop.

[Wheres Toto]

12 hours ago, poppy said:

 

I'm certain many of the people in this thread do not work in a formal corporate environment.  I wouldn't begin to say what's proper etiquette working at a farm, or in the armed forces, or .... I don't know, name a bunch of other places with distinct codes of behavior. 

I worked in formal corporate environments for over 20 years, as recently as a couple years ago (and still freelance for that last job).  I was support level (Executive Assistant) but usually worked for Executive Level.  Most recently a female Senior VP.   

I think the use of the term misogyny and putting it in an email instead of just a casual comment pushed it over the edge into too strong of a response.  The terminology and the fact that it was sent as a written response make it seem like it might be taken farther and most of the male coworkers I know would definitely find it concerning.  Most of the female coworkers I know would wonder what all the fuss was about.  

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Wait, you think the OTHER incident -objecting to a  co-worker repeatedly using a "racially insensitive quip" - was inappropriate? How is that not as bad as "slut?"

Again, it was the way she wrote it up into his performance review instead of telling him verbally and giving him a chance to change.

Also we do not know what the "racially insensitive quip" was.  Would we all agree it was racially insensitive?  Who knows?  I think it's insensitive when people imply my kids need to be treated any differently in deference to their skin color or birth origin.  Other people think the world needs to change all sorts of policies in deference to the same skin color or birth origin.  Therefore I tend to be skeptical about vague references such as the above.

[EmseB]

12 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Wait, you think the OTHER incident -objecting to a  co-worker repeatedly using a "racially insensitive quip" - was inappropriate? How is that not as bad as "slut?"

Putting it on a performance eval before talking to him in person about it is way out of line, imo. 

[Bluegoat]

17 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Wait, you think the OTHER incident -objecting to a  co-worker repeatedly using a "racially insensitive quip" - was inappropriate? How is that not as bad as "slut?"

 

Yeah, as most people who responded in the thread did.

We don't know what the guy said, but chances are if it hadn't been pointed out before it wasn't something clearly socially unacceptable.  But you don't write something up in a performance report without saying something verbally first.  That's a pretty high lack of sensitivity, and just plain understanding of management and how to improve the performance in your workplace.  

Two incidents of way over the top makes me think the OP is unclear on how to address issues like this, and maybe especially with regard to creating a paper trail.

ETA - And I didn't compare what the man who supposedly made the "quip" was to saying slut.  I compared it to "girls" which is the comparison you are making.  It makes a difference.

[poppy]

It's very typical for this board to say that pointing out racism is always worse than racism / racial insensitivity itself . It reflects the WTM norm.

[EmseB]

2 minutes ago, poppy said:

It's very typical for this board to say that pointing out racism is always worse than racism / racial insensitivity itself . It reflects the WTM norm.

When in doubt, strongly imply everyone who disagrees with you is a racist.

 

[poppy]

Just now, EmseB said:

When in doubt, call everyone who disagrees with you a racist.

 

Right? Racism doesn't actually exist and is only a problem because people keep TALKING about it.  

[Bluegoat]

Just now, poppy said:

It's very typical for this board to say that pointing out racism is always worse than racism / racial insensitivity itself . It reflects the WTM norm.

 

Oh, come on.   No one has said anything like that.  That is coming from your own mind.  

Are you seriously saying you don't understand why it's not good practice to write up an item like that in a performance review without first addressing it with the employee?  IN many workplaces that can actually be cause for complaint by the worker.  We don't even know what the guy said, or why.  

 

[SKL]

Recall that the OP was asking whether she was putting herself in the position of being viewed as the "word police" at work.  That is what people are responding to.  The answer is, if you become known as the person who writes people up in their performance reviews for "racially insensitive quips" that you didn't even talk to the employee about first, and if you send emails to people using words like "misogyny" over common usage like calling a young woman "girl,"  then yes, you will be known as the word police unless you stop doing that right now.  Save it for serious stuff and repeated missteps that are not corrected after reasonable coaching.

[poppy]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

 

Oh, come on.   No one has said anything like that.  That is coming from your own mind.  

Are you seriously saying you don't understand why it's not good practice to write up an item like that in a performance review without first addressing it with the employee?  IN many workplaces that can actually be cause for complaint by the worker.  We don't even know what the guy said, or why.  

 

 

If it's not a transgression to call an adult women a "girl" professionally, even after people complain to you about it, who knows.  The world's upside down in this thread.  Say what you want, anytime, as long as it doesn't bug the person you're talking to. They are allowed to object. But only in certain ways. Verbally yes, written no.  Lots of rules about how to complain; no rules about how to behave.

[SKL]

1 minute ago, poppy said:

 

If it's not a transgression to call an adult women a "girl" professionally, even after people complain to you about it, who knows.  The world's upside down in this thread.  Say what you want, anytime, as long as it doesn't bug the person you're talking to. They are allowed to object. But only in certain ways. Verbally yes, written no.  Lots of rules about how to complain; no rules about how to behave.

Wait, where does it say he did this after people complained to him about it? 

And yes, there are ways to communicate sensitive things.  Absolutely.  I am sure you already knew that.

[katilac]

1 minute ago, poppy said:

 

If it's not a transgression to call an adult women a "girl" professionally, even after people complain to you about it, who knows.   

1

 

BBM: That's not what happened.  

[Bluegoat]

Just now, poppy said:

 

If it's not a transgression to call an adult women a "girl" professionally, even after people complain to you about it, who knows.  The world's upside down in this thread.  Say what you want, anytime, as long as it doesn't bug the person you're talking to. They are allowed to object. But only in certain ways. Verbally yes, written no.  Lots of rules about how to complain; no rules about how to behave.

 

But that isn't what happened.

Seriously, you have changed the nature of what happened in the OP.  No one asked this guy not to say "girl".   No one has said anyone should say anything with no repercussions, ever.  You've posted about six times in a row saying people are making statements in posts that, clearly, they have not made.

You should really ask why that is happening.  

[poppy]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

BBM: That's not what happened.  

 

I don't know what BBM means, but, no, it didn't happen, but many here have said that "girls" is fine and no one would mind and it's very minor and someone just literally just said "it's not a transgression at all" to use the term girl. 

So, if tomorrow he used the word "girl" to describe a woman at his workplace who is not the OP, would everyone on this thread agree that is wrong?

[SKL]

Well let's not have a major freakout.  If it's that big of a thing, go to the manager and make a general recommendation that all employees be given training in feminist-friendly language that they must strive to use going forward.  Otherwise OP is in danger of hearing "girl" again from some other hapless man (or woman!).

[Bluegoat]

3 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

I don't know what BBM means, but, no, it didn't happen, but many here have said that "girls" is fine and no one would mind and it's very minor and someone just literally just said "it's not a transgression at all" to use the term girl.

 

She said that to many people, it isn't.  Which is true, objectively.  Many women don't care, or don't think that in that incident it was really at all important.  This is a very off the cuff statement where most people would not be stopping to think "gee, what is the right word to use at this moment."

That being the case, it is not appropriate treat it like something that the person who said it should have known was clearly out of bounds, or said with ill intent.

That's why it was a minor incident.  If you change the facts of what happened, it might no longer be a minor incident.  

[katilac]

6 minutes ago, poppy said:

 They are allowed to object. But only in certain ways. Verbally yes, written no.  Lots of rules about how to complain; no rules about how to behave.

 

 

If you have experience in formal corporate environments, then you should know that there are indeed rules about how to complain in addition to rules about how to behave. I have never worked at, or heard of, an office where a direct written complaint to a same-level colleague was the accepted way to do it.

1 minute ago, poppy said:

 

I don't know what BBM means, but, no, it didn't happen 

 

 

BBM means bolding by me, it's used when you want to bold something for emphasis in a quote. 

[EmseB]

7 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

I don't know what BBM means, but, no, it didn't happen, but many here have said that "girls" is fine and no one would mind and it's very minor and someone just literally just said "it's not a transgression at all" to use the term girl. 

So, if tomorrow he used the word "girl" to describe a woman at his workplace who is not the OP, would everyone on this thread agree that is wrong?

No, because if I was at his workplace and he called me a girl, I wouldn't consider him to be in the wrong. If he called the OP a girl, he would be wrong because he clearly now knows she objects to it. IOW, it is not universally wrong to refer to women as girls. 

[SKL]

FTR I don't want my bosses to refer to me as "girl" in the workplace.  I might not have cared when I finished grad school 26 years ago; I felt pretty young in those days; but maybe I would have.

As I said from my first post, I think it is fine to point out verbally that some women (self included) would not like to be called "girl" at work.  And since you don't know with a new person, it is wise to default to "woman."  That may not be a comfortable conversation, but it's better than an email.

I have had to tell people harder things than that.  I had a male co-worker who was acting foolishly with a younger female co-worker, i.e. running around, laughing, being too close for professional standards (especially given that he was married).  I took him aside and told him what it looked like.  He acted shocked, didn't admit anything, but he said thanks and changed his behavior.  No emails necessary.  That is just one example.  Just because a conversation isn't easy in person, that doesn't mean email is the better medium.

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Op hasn’t been logged into the board since shortly after she posted this.  She’s going to come back and go “omg, it’s like a shopping cart thread! 

She might be reading it without logging in though.  :)

[poppy]

1 minute ago, Arctic Mama said:

I am standing behind mine.  But it occurs to me based on who all is responding in this thread that you’re probably defining child in a broader age range than I am, which could explain some of the issue.

 

Now if we are all talking about seven year olds then my view of a lack of manners and respect stands.  A sixteen year old?  That’s more gray.

 

My youngest is 7. You think he has bad manners.  I know.  My friends adore him, so. Whatever.

20 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Actually now I am sure we aren’t reading the same words because what I ACTUALLY said was “to others, it’s not even a transgression at all.”

because this whole situation is really a matter of opinion.  And YOUR opinion of the use of the word “girl” doesn’t match others opinions. Which is fine, but still doesn’t make your opinion the right one and everyone else’s wrong.  It is completely ok for someone else to be of the opinion that the use of the word “girl” is fine.  

 

It's not a matter of opinion.  If she VERBALLY asked him to not use demeaning language, and he continued to do so, it would be utterly legitimate for her to complain to HR.  I think most people here agreed with that honestly. 

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

It's not a matter of opinion.  If she VERBALLY asked him to not use demeaning language, and he continued to do so, it would be utterly legitimate for her to complain to HR.  I think most people here agreed with that honestly. 

 

You are talking about something that didn't happen, she never asked him that, nor did the person it referred to.  And whether the language is demeaning is very much a matter of opinion.

[EmseB]

56 minutes ago, poppy said:

 

Right? Racism doesn't actually exist and is only a problem because people keep TALKING about it.  

We don't know what was actually said and it shouldn't be addressed for the first time in a performance report = the board doesn't think racism exists.

[Murphy101]

2 hours ago, poppy said:

 

This is about at work.  And your thinking only applies if you think "girl" is an appropriate way to refer to adult women who aren't you.  There must be some term for adult women you wouldn't find appropriate.  Chick?  MILF? Hottie? "This hottie I interviewed was very well spoken and would be a great addition to the team".   Don't complain, he isn't talking about you, maybe she doesn't  mind, how dare you presume to speak for all women?

 

Girl

chick

MILF

hottie

One of these things is not like the others.

Because one of these things is just another word for a female. 

Because three of these things are inappropriate interest in sex/relationship indicators.

Because one of these things is okay to say to many or even most females and three of these things better stick to bedroom situations outside work only, if even then. And if used at work, should get reported to HR. And still not get an email directly from a peer ripping them for being a misogynist. 

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, poppy said:

It's very typical for this board to say that pointing out racism is always worse than racism / racial insensitivity itself . It reflects the WTM norm.

 

Bullshirt. 

[Tanaqui]

Quote

Oh, come on.   No one has said anything like that.  That is coming from your own mind.  

 

Perhaps not on this thread, but I've definitely seen it on other threads.

[katilac]

4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

 

Perhaps not on this thread, but I've definitely seen it on other threads.

 

Pretty much every opinion that exists has been expressed in another thread at some point in time, that is far from making it a WTM norm. This is a very large, diverse, and prolific board. There are a daunting number of threads launched daily. Seeing an idea or opinion expressed, even several times, does not a norm make. The opposite opinion is also expressed darn near every time, because we all know this board rarely agrees on anything 

I think viewing that as the WTM norm is a classic case of confirmation bias at work.