Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the type. That's no conflation at all to illustrate your arbitrary rule enforcement, especially of rules that don't exist. I'm asking if that defense has ever worked in the workplace, when faced with a discrimination lawsuit?
It is discernment. Trolling handshakes for the sake of disruption vs established users breaking rules are different scenarios and therefore differently enforced.
To do it properly we need clear and unambiguous rules, and someone who understand not just that, but the principles behind it. So someone just and with an ability to do abstract reasoning which is something you still have failed to show.
Your conflation doesn't match this scenario.
Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of the type. That's no conflation at all to illustrate your arbitrary rule enforcement, especially of rules that don't exist. I'm asking if that defense has ever worked in the workplace, when faced with a discrimination lawsuit?
Discernment.
That's not an answer. If you're judging one side differently than the other for the same infractions, that's not discernment. That's discrimination.
It is discernment. Trolling handshakes for the sake of disruption vs established users breaking rules are different scenarios and therefore differently enforced.
To do it properly we need clear and unambiguous rules, and someone who understand not just that, but the principles behind it. So someone just and with an ability to do abstract reasoning which is something you still have failed to show.