I find it mildly infuriating that some coworkers think entering a break room gives them license to play loud music over speakers, use obscene language (especially to and about other coworkers), and disrupt the fifteen minutes of peace and quiet some of us crave in the workplace.

I also can’t stand the fact that smokers can take unlimited ‘breaks’ whenever they please just to come back stinking up an entire room with their smoke.

  • SomeoneElse@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    OP added context. Their work colleagues relax on their breaks in a different way than OP does and this is the end of the world apparently. Everyone must sit in silence, no music, no swearing, no smoke breaks. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that OP isn’t exactly well liked by their colleagues…

    • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I do agree with OP on the thing about smokers though. You shouldn’t get special privileges just because you’re a drug addict.

      • SomeoneElse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lmao! Do you call tea and coffee drinkers “drug addicts” too?! Yup, smoke breaks should either be deducted from the allotted lunch break, or all employees should be allowed to step outside for 5 mins or whatever.

        • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It depends on how often they use their drug and how they act about it. If you can’t function and treat people like shit because you haven’t had your coffee/tea yet, you’re a drug addict.

          • joe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            This is an emotionally manipulative tactic, and not a great look. It’s no different than calling copyright infringement “theft”, abortion “murder”, or someone who speeds a “criminal”.

            Note that you’re not wrong. People that get cranky if they don’t get enough caffeine are probably feeling some withdrawals from it, and caffeine is a drug, but calling those people “drug addicts” leverages the emotional connotation from it’s more colloquial usage. If you can’t support your stance without emotional manipulation, you don’t have much of a stance, yeah?

              • joe@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You attempted to manipulate anyone that reads your comments into agreeing with your opinion.

                Don’t play dumb. It’s also not a good look.

                • DreamySweet@vlemmy.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, I don’t expect people to agree with me. I know my opinion is very unpopular. I don’t care.

                  • joe@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Then there’s no reason to be emotionally manipulative. If you were being honest right now, there would have been no reason to use the term “because they’re drug addicts” in your comment. The gist of the comment doesn’t change when that phrase is removed. It’s just not as emotionally manipulative.