At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
At Google, an Employee-Run Email List Tracks Harassment and Bias Complaints
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-23/at-google-an-employee-run-email-list-tracks-harassment-and-bias-complaints
228 comments
Why? What law was violated?
Is it?
As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no?
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
As long as the performance review was done based on the employee's performance over the entire year, it's fair game no?
I'm not sure I agree with the logic that someone who takes time off during the year is given credit for the good work they would have done had they not taken time off.
The logic is that you aren't expected to work in your off time so it shouldn't factor in at all. If his work exceeded during the time he was working whether or not he took leave shouldn't effect that.
Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
Reviews should be about the quality of the work, not whether you take 0 vacations days or work until 10pm everyday because you're 22 and don't have a family.
Consider it as a ratio WQ:T where "WQ" is the Work x Quality product and T is the Time of employment. You're saying that T should be a constant and include time an employee isn't expected to be working, but WQ is fair to vary. Essentially you're adding to T even when the employee is expected explicitly to not add to WQ.
So in my opinion it's not fair game.
So in my opinion it's not fair game.
I get why there should be protection for people on paternity leave. At the same time, if you're using an 'expectations' system appropriately and honestly (as opposed to just a renaming of some other scale) it may be dishonest to not change his rating. If there is an expectation about performance and it wasn't exceeded (how could you exceed your typical performance while on paternity leave?) then the employee shouldn't be given an exceeds.
The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave.
I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
The big issues here (at least for me) are that a) there was a non-zero expectation for someone on paternity leave and b) someone was given a performance evaluation either while on or regarding work done during a paternity leave.
I'm curious if this signals a larger issue at Google where they have paternity leave 'in name only' - similar to 'unlimited' vacation policies and the like.
I mean there should be a zero expectation policy if you are on paternity leave. Then if you actually get something done, then you're by definition "exceeds". That's the logical approach. Or you just don't have a performance review for that period.
Yeah, no. You manage to expectations while the person is capable of performing their duties. Using your logic is exactly why women suffer the indignation of being paid $0.77 to every man's dollar of equal functional qualification level. We all assume Google is a very wise and smart corporation, so let's assume that bonus, RSUs, and all discretionary income is proportional to time worked. That's how you solve the "you weren't here for the entire period" problem.
"women suffer the indignation of being paid $0.77 to every man's dollar of equal functional qualification level."
That is not the case, the gender pay gap does not compare salaries for equal job positions and qualifications.
That is not the case, the gender pay gap does not compare salaries for equal job positions and qualifications.
Yes, the prevalence of studies that report averages are what you are referencing--though you don't provide any. But, there are plenty of anecdotes (e.g. the several Google Sheets pay experiments folks have run) showing disparity. I am a sample of one, but I have seen this disparity--and, worked to fix it--with folks I've managed over the years as well. So, I do not agree with absolutes like "that is not the case."
The 77% number is specifically from the "official gender pay gap", presumably published by your national ministry of statistics or whatever (I am not from the US, but here in Germany the official ministry for statistics does the same). And that explicitly does not show 77 Cent to the dollar, as it does not compare people in the same jobs.
Anecdotes are also really misleading here: not everybody earns the same amount of money, so you can always find two people where one of the two earns more than the other. It doesn't mean anything. And as a male engineer I have also discovered before that somebody who seemed less qualified earned more than me. Renegotiate, or switch companies.
As for the Google spreadsheet, it is interesting, but I doubt it captures sufficient detail.
In fact, a often used trick with the gender pay gap (among other things) is to remove just enough detail to make it seem outrageous.
For example lets say pediatricians earn less on average than neurosurgeons, but more women become pediatricians then neurosurgeons (why is another matter). Now if you want to give the impression of sexist salaries, you don't publish the average income of male and female pediatricians and male and female neurosurgeons. You go one step back and publish the average salaries of male and female physicians. Just omit the details that could explain the differences in salaries, and you have shown your desired sexist wage gap.
(why pediatricians earn less than neurosurgeons: simple supply and demand).
Anecdotes are also really misleading here: not everybody earns the same amount of money, so you can always find two people where one of the two earns more than the other. It doesn't mean anything. And as a male engineer I have also discovered before that somebody who seemed less qualified earned more than me. Renegotiate, or switch companies.
As for the Google spreadsheet, it is interesting, but I doubt it captures sufficient detail.
In fact, a often used trick with the gender pay gap (among other things) is to remove just enough detail to make it seem outrageous.
For example lets say pediatricians earn less on average than neurosurgeons, but more women become pediatricians then neurosurgeons (why is another matter). Now if you want to give the impression of sexist salaries, you don't publish the average income of male and female pediatricians and male and female neurosurgeons. You go one step back and publish the average salaries of male and female physicians. Just omit the details that could explain the differences in salaries, and you have shown your desired sexist wage gap.
(why pediatricians earn less than neurosurgeons: simple supply and demand).
I'd agree that someone who is on leave, and doesn't work, indeed"meets" expectations. It would be a problem only if everybody is expected to exceed expectations, but then all the evaluation process becomes, almost by definition, nonsensical.
I mean, I think the problem is evaluating performance at all for time not spent at work. If someone was on leave for part of a review period, that time shouldn't be evaluated. If they were on leave for most/all of it, that review should probably be skipped as null. Doing otherwise creates a misleading conflation between "meeting the expectation of leave" and "meeting the expectations of the job".
That's ridiculous. Leave is leave; it's an employee's right that's offered in law or in their contract, and they should not be punished in any way for taking advantage of it.
If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave, then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or February. Leave should be handled the same way.
If the employee was not professional about taking leave (didn't give any notice, did not work with colleagues to organize coverage of his tasks, etc.) then things are different. Similarly, if they promised to do something while on leave and didn't, then that would be an issue.
If the employee would otherwise exceed expectations and took paternity leave, then they still exceed expectations. If they were hired in March and worked for 40 weeks, they would not be penalized for failing to work in January or February. Leave should be handled the same way.
If the employee was not professional about taking leave (didn't give any notice, did not work with colleagues to organize coverage of his tasks, etc.) then things are different. Similarly, if they promised to do something while on leave and didn't, then that would be an issue.
> Leave is leave; it's an employee's right that's offered in law or in their contract, and they should not be punished in any way for taking advantage of it.
Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.
Certainly, one has the right to exercise one's rights, but one also has a duty to acknowledge that they impact others. Someone who takes paternity leave will, mutatis mutandis, achieve less than someone who does not; someone who is on leave for an entire review period and does nothing related to work cannot fairly be said to exceed expectations.
Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.
Certainly, one has the right to exercise one's rights, but one also has a duty to acknowledge that they impact others. Someone who takes paternity leave will, mutatis mutandis, achieve less than someone who does not; someone who is on leave for an entire review period and does nothing related to work cannot fairly be said to exceed expectations.
> Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.
On a scale of 1, 2, and 3, where each of these confers different privileges, when I knock you down from a 3 to a 2 specifically because of X, I am punishing you for X.
The corporate words tied to the ratings are not magical.
On a scale of 1, 2, and 3, where each of these confers different privileges, when I knock you down from a 3 to a 2 specifically because of X, I am punishing you for X.
The corporate words tied to the ratings are not magical.
>Being rated as someone who meets expectations is not a punishment.
Is that true? I seem to recall a scene from Office Space and flair about this...
Seems like they shouldn't include leave in the review at all and only review when they're working.
Is that true? I seem to recall a scene from Office Space and flair about this...
Seems like they shouldn't include leave in the review at all and only review when they're working.
The point is that you are on paternity leave, taking care of a child on a company sanctioned policy. It's like being told you didn't work hard enough on your vacation - it doesn't make sense to set "work" expectations for a period in which one is absent from work.
Isn't exceeds like getting a bonus? You still want bonus while on paternity? I thought only legal requirement is base rate and expected payments - which a bonus is not?
As others have wrote, paternity is like a vacation. It's time off work, you can't be evaluated on that time, it's like it doesn't exists for evaluation. So if you exceeded expectations a day before taking paternity you still do the day you are back.
I wouldn't expect a bonus on vacation either.
It depends on what the rating is used for.
It depends on what the rating is used for.
[deleted]
At the company where I work, they temporarily disable accounts for both paternity and maternity leave to prevent that exact issue.
review should be done only for the time that employee was not on leave. makes sense.
[deleted]
I'm not so sure. Wouldn't a person on paternity leave be expected to perform less, if not zero work? By doing that, didn't he "meet" expectations? That seems, technically speaking, the accurate description.
Of course, if paternity leave really means "we expect you to work at a similar rate", then it's quite obviously not a "paternity leave" in anything other than name.
Of course, if paternity leave really means "we expect you to work at a similar rate", then it's quite obviously not a "paternity leave" in anything other than name.
I'm sad to see so many comments here worrying about such a list becoming "weaponized".
TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.
The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.
This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
TFA says that the list is anonymous, and that "usually, the people in the complaints are not named" (the cited exception being naming Eric Schmidt, the CEO, for behavior during a large company meeting). You're not going to publicly shame someone without naming them, so clearly that's not the intent or effect.
The point of the list, again from TFA, is to raise awareness about bad things that happen at Google, often outside the view of privileged white men like myself. With 20% of the company subscribed, it sounds like it's working.
This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
Disclaimer: I work at Google, and speak here (as always) for myself.
> I would encourage those of you who have such a reaction to step back and consider why people might submit anonymously to such a list, and what benefits a company might get from having one.
While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.
There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
While we're doing thought exercises, let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process. Someone could just value justice and fairness, including channels for recourse when legitimate incidents of slander (or honest misunderstandings!) arise.
There's nothing wrong, ignorant, or shameful about that perspective. In fact, we should embrace these perspectives in a diverse work culture.
> let's also step back and consider why someone would value things like evidence-based judgments and due process.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by.
I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in.
What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias.
Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is nothing wrong with valuing evidence-based judgements and due process. But that is not what I was ranting against. Conflating the trope of immediately jumping to a concern about false accusations while ignoring victims with "valuing evidence-based judgements and due process" is, however, a pretty good example of what I am bothered by.
I think the real thought experiment is: Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
I think the answer might be, most of us here have never had to worry about being harassed at work. Most of us here don't know what it's like to be worried for our safety -- psychological or sexual -- at work. Most of us don't know what it's like to be subjected to a constant stream of microagressions from coworkers. So most of us can't imagine what many minorities in tech go through on a daily basis. That's just because most of us fit in.
What all of us can imagine is being falsely accused of doing something bad. And so since that's what we can imagine without effort, that's what we talk about, and worry about. Availability bias.
Falling prey to the availability bias doesn't make you a bad person. But you can learn to be better.
> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
What makes you think they don't care about victims? My loved ones and I volunteer a lot in this area.
> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations...
There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
I guess we could argue about which kinds of innocent people are worth protecting, but I'm not really interested in getting into that business.
There aren't many specifics being posted here about particular stories, but there mostly seems to be consensus that egregious behavior requires at least immediate dismissal and that less cut-and-dry incidents require some sort of correction. There also seems to be agreement that better awareness of poor behavior is a good thing.
There just doesn't seem to be consensus that anonymous posts sent out by anonymous curators is the best way to go about this. That doesn't mean some people are indifferent to awful things. They're just wary that the tools we use to help people don't end up hurting others.
What makes you think they don't care about victims? My loved ones and I volunteer a lot in this area.
> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations...
There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
I guess we could argue about which kinds of innocent people are worth protecting, but I'm not really interested in getting into that business.
There aren't many specifics being posted here about particular stories, but there mostly seems to be consensus that egregious behavior requires at least immediate dismissal and that less cut-and-dry incidents require some sort of correction. There also seems to be agreement that better awareness of poor behavior is a good thing.
There just doesn't seem to be consensus that anonymous posts sent out by anonymous curators is the best way to go about this. That doesn't mean some people are indifferent to awful things. They're just wary that the tools we use to help people don't end up hurting others.
>> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
> What makes you think they don't care about victims?
I never said that anyone does or doesn't care about anyone else.
I said that the words written here on HN focused on the spectre of false accusations, rather than on the victims of harassment, abuse, and worse. I also said that this is a common, much-discussed failure mode, and that we should know better.
> There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
Right.
But in this particular instance, we're talking about wanting to protect people from those they're harassing. This list is very clearly not being used to bully anyone, and part of my objection is with the kneejerk assumption that this must be what's going on, and that privileged white men aren't getting sufficient protection in their workplace.
What I am saying is, rather than restricting our consideration to fringy concerns of how this list might harm white men (it doesn't), we should also (not even exclusively! -- just also) consider how it affects everyone else.
[edited for formatting]
> What makes you think they don't care about victims?
I never said that anyone does or doesn't care about anyone else.
I said that the words written here on HN focused on the spectre of false accusations, rather than on the victims of harassment, abuse, and worse. I also said that this is a common, much-discussed failure mode, and that we should know better.
> There are personal (verbal, emotional abuse) and social (bullying) forms of abuse that hinge on slander, lies, and manipulation to punish people or to otherwise assert power. Wanting to make sure that is not an issue is wanting to protect people.
Right.
But in this particular instance, we're talking about wanting to protect people from those they're harassing. This list is very clearly not being used to bully anyone, and part of my objection is with the kneejerk assumption that this must be what's going on, and that privileged white men aren't getting sufficient protection in their workplace.
What I am saying is, rather than restricting our consideration to fringy concerns of how this list might harm white men (it doesn't), we should also (not even exclusively! -- just also) consider how it affects everyone else.
[edited for formatting]
> Why would so many of the HN comments jump to worrying about the false accusations, without paying any heed for the victims?
you're connecting two points that are not naturally connected. caring about false accusations does not exclude caring about victims.
additionally, some awareness of the current political climate is necessary for this discussion. false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.
you're connecting two points that are not naturally connected. caring about false accusations does not exclude caring about victims.
additionally, some awareness of the current political climate is necessary for this discussion. false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.
> false accusations have been weaponized in other contexts.
I really think you are missing my point, sadly.
I really think you are missing my point, sadly.
what's your point then? maybe you're missing my point.
My point is:
> This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
> This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't. Jumping so quickly, as many comments here have, to considering effects of fake reports is wildly disrespectful of the (largely female, and thus underrepresented here and at places like Google) victims, and is part of the reason that rape and sexual assault go underreported.
so I'm sure now that you're not understanding my point, which is that implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities.
a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct? why do you suppose it will accomplish that? my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct? why do you suppose it will accomplish that? my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
[deleted]
> implementing a system that facilitates false accusations does significant harm and does not remedy the real actual problem of under-reporting to legal authorities.
This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.
I've repeated this a number of times, but people are not hearing it. This is exactly my point, that people here are fixating on the non-problem of false accusations instead of the real problem of microaggressions, macroaggressions, and harassment proper in the workplace.
> a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
Not everything bad that people do to one another rises to the level of criminal misconduct. And not every victim of a crime wishes to confront their perpetrator in the court of law. Part of the point of this list is to raise awareness of stuff which does not go through the courts, but which is nonetheless bad.
> however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.
People are relating stories. "This happened to me." That is not an accusation. The only victims here are the people relating the stories.
If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.
> what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct?
That is one purpose to the list, yes.
> why do you suppose it will accomplish that?
By raising awareness, as TFA and I have said multiple times now.
> my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
Those accidentally committing transgressions -- either called out or not in the newsletter -- may now be made aware that they are doing something bad. Through this mailing list, I personally have learned of whole classes of things that are hurtful to people, that I just didn't realize before. That makes me a better, more considerate person.
> additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something.
Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
But, one more time: Nobody is being accused of anything via this list.
Notice how many times above you assume that's not the case and that people are being falsely and publicly named and shamed, despite this having been made clear multiple times in thread? Notice how few times you have considered why people might be posting to this list? This is exactly what I am talking about.
This thread was a great opportunity to talk about harassment in the workplace. Instead it's turned into a bunch of people complaining about something that is not happening, but is bad because it might hypothetically hurt privileged white men.
Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.
I've repeated this a number of times, but people are not hearing it. This is exactly my point, that people here are fixating on the non-problem of false accusations instead of the real problem of microaggressions, macroaggressions, and harassment proper in the workplace.
> a victim of a crime should make a criminal complaint, and if he or she doesn't, then we should attempt to discover the reasons why not.
Not everything bad that people do to one another rises to the level of criminal misconduct. And not every victim of a crime wishes to confront their perpetrator in the court of law. Part of the point of this list is to raise awareness of stuff which does not go through the courts, but which is nonetheless bad.
> however, anonymously accusing people of misconduct does absolutely nothing to assist those who have been wronged. it has significant potential for harm and creates a chilling effect and a culture of paranoia.
Nobody is accusing anybody of anything.
People are relating stories. "This happened to me." That is not an accusation. The only victims here are the people relating the stories.
If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.
> what is the supposed benefit of anonymous accusations? is this intended to mitigate against future misconduct?
That is one purpose to the list, yes.
> why do you suppose it will accomplish that?
By raising awareness, as TFA and I have said multiple times now.
> my intuition on this is that those who are legitimately abusive will continue to be abusive (because they are already insensitive and not caring about how their actions impact others) and those that are only accidentally committing transgressions will now be subjected to ostracism because they could not adequately predict how their actions made in good faith will be perceived by others.
Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
Those accidentally committing transgressions -- either called out or not in the newsletter -- may now be made aware that they are doing something bad. Through this mailing list, I personally have learned of whole classes of things that are hurtful to people, that I just didn't realize before. That makes me a better, more considerate person.
> additionally, let's consider the principles of due process and justice described in the U.S. constitution. the right to face your accuser. the right to expedient arbitration. the right to representation. the right to defend yourself without being presumed guilty. all of these principles of justice are lost with an anonymous accusation mailing list.
Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something.
Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
https://xkcd.com/1357/
But, one more time: Nobody is being accused of anything via this list.
Notice how many times above you assume that's not the case and that people are being falsely and publicly named and shamed, despite this having been made clear multiple times in thread? Notice how few times you have considered why people might be posting to this list? This is exactly what I am talking about.
This thread was a great opportunity to talk about harassment in the workplace. Instead it's turned into a bunch of people complaining about something that is not happening, but is bad because it might hypothetically hurt privileged white men.
Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
>If the "paranoia" effected is that more white dudes start considering how the things they say and might affect people who are not white dudes and think twice before doing or saying things that might hurt another person, then I think that's working as intended.
I agree with you but please don't single out us "white dudes", we can be victims of harassment and discrimination as well and we benefit from the yes@google list as well as anybody else.
I agree with you but please don't single out us "white dudes", we can be victims of harassment and discrimination as well and we benefit from the yes@google list as well as anybody else.
> This system does not facilitate accusations of any kind, because it is anonymous to all parties involved.
I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.
> Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise. the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
> Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something. Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
this seems like deliberate misinterpretation of my point. I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well. I'm not making a legalistic argument I'm making an ethical argument. I believe those principles establish solid ethics for handling disputes, and are just as well suited for interactions between individuals they are for interactions between the state and an individual.
> Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
Not the point. The point is that the slippery slope to truly bad outcomes begins with well intentioned systems like this one.
I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.
> Nobody is being publicly accused of anything, as has been said multiple times in this thread.
they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise. the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
> Those are all rights that you have when the government accuses you of something. Those are not rights that you have when another person accuses you of something.
this seems like deliberate misinterpretation of my point. I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well. I'm not making a legalistic argument I'm making an ethical argument. I believe those principles establish solid ethics for handling disputes, and are just as well suited for interactions between individuals they are for interactions between the state and an individual.
> Give it a break, everyone. White men are doing just fine at Google. We are not the victims here.
Not the point. The point is that the slippery slope to truly bad outcomes begins with well intentioned systems like this one.
>I find considerable irony in this assertion considering we're talking about Google here. If any organization should know about the emptiness of promises of anonymity it's Google.
So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think people submit things? Your argument seems to boil down to "these 15000 people don't actually know what's good for them", and I find that (as a subscriber) incredibly infantilizing.
>they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise.
That's not what an accusation is. "Someone did something that made me feel uncomfortable" does not accuse anyone of anything.
>the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
You don't think the list curators thought of that? C'mon.
>I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well.
Which are irrelevant. Half of those things don't apply in civil cases, much less a company's HR process, much less something that isn't a disciplinary tool. But if we're going to use the constitution as a point of argument, it also prohibits restrictions on speech so if Google as a company intends to uphold the constitution, it shouldn't restrict its employees right to speak to each other about anything, including complaints about perceived sleights.
Once again: comparing this list to any kind of disciplinary tool or group is misleading and conveys a misunderstanding of the list and Google.
So, you're assumption is that the 15,000 engineers who are subscribed (including multiple people in this thread), are incapable of determining whether or not the list is actually anonymous? Its a google internal list, how do you think people submit things? Your argument seems to boil down to "these 15000 people don't actually know what's good for them", and I find that (as a subscriber) incredibly infantilizing.
>they are, actually. they're being accused anonymously, but that is cold comfort because anonymity in an organization and social setting like that one is a false promise.
That's not what an accusation is. "Someone did something that made me feel uncomfortable" does not accuse anyone of anything.
>the ease by which candid identities can be discovered and correlated makes this a deep flaw if you mean to use it as a defense against potential abuse of the list.
You don't think the list curators thought of that? C'mon.
>I presented the principles of due process in the U.S. justice system as a model for how to manage disputes in other systems as well.
Which are irrelevant. Half of those things don't apply in civil cases, much less a company's HR process, much less something that isn't a disciplinary tool. But if we're going to use the constitution as a point of argument, it also prohibits restrictions on speech so if Google as a company intends to uphold the constitution, it shouldn't restrict its employees right to speak to each other about anything, including complaints about perceived sleights.
Once again: comparing this list to any kind of disciplinary tool or group is misleading and conveys a misunderstanding of the list and Google.
Google knows exactly the times, places, and details of how Levandowski did questionable operations on his laptop.
If management wanted to find out who posted what on yag, it would have no problem doing so.
If management wanted to find out who posted what on yag, it would have no problem doing so.
if the list has no function with respect to regulating behavior (which is what a disciplinary tool is), then what is it's function?
think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.
think carefully before you answer. officially designated authority is not necessary for a thing to be impactful.
I think it's great that you are so worried about the well-being of people accused of harassment.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of women and minorities in tech, who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of women and minorities in tech, who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.
my interest isn't narrowly constrained to people accused of harassment. my interest is in setting standards for ethics, which I find to be absolutely essential at this cultural moment because our standards of discourse and ethics seems to be breaking down.
I think it's great that you are so worried about the well-being of people who are disproportionately the victims of harassment.
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of those who might be anonymously accused of harassment without evidence or opportunity to defend themselves.
-----
Does it sound better turned around? If not, why not? What are you attempting to communicate, and how might you state it more clearly?
I only wish you'd express and weigh equally a concern for the well-being of those who might be anonymously accused of harassment without evidence or opportunity to defend themselves.
-----
Does it sound better turned around? If not, why not? What are you attempting to communicate, and how might you state it more clearly?
I'm also a Googler. Unlike you, I'm forced to comment anonymously, using a throwaway I just created using Tor. Why? Because I'm a member of one of the "privileged" groups that many think make up too great a portion of Google's employee base, and because some people (especially the ones graduating from college these days) think I'm an oppressor just because of my race and gender.
Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.
The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.
Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.
Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?
Nevertheless, I need to pipe up and express that g/yes-at-google makes me feel terrified. I'm not alone either. Some people have expressed that they plan on discontinuing all non-work communication. I've done the same, but not announced it. I've also started scrubbing all my technical communication. Anything I say might be interpreted in the worst possible light as taken as evidence of deep-seated bigotry and bias. I've never had to be this paranoid before in my life.
The scariest thing is that I've seen people "called out" for comments that would have passed even my paranoid-mode filter, even on purely technical subjects. At this point, I'm scared of making too much or too little eye contact. (Either one might be a micro-aggression.) I feel that no matter how careful I am about what I say and no matter how little bias is in my heart, it's only a matter of time before I land in front of HR for something I didn't intend to say.
Programs like YAG sensitize people to these sorts of uncharitable interpretations of others' speech. They encourage a kind of paranoid bunker mentality when it comes to social interaction. They teach people that their experiences are particular to their identity, not universal among their colleagues. They teach people to punish the wicked, not work together to solve problems.
Is this the kind of company we want to have? Is this the kind of culture that any organization should foster?
I'm truly sorry you feel this way.
I'm another white man who works at Google. I don't feel this way. You see me here commenting using a username that's easily traceable to my real identity. So we are reacting to a similar situation quite differently. What's the difference between us? I don't know.
I also think that your having this feeling is not WAI -- Google has been pretty clear that they want everyone to feel psychologically safe at work.
Ultimately what you have is a feeling -- it's not a fact, or even an opinion. I can't argue you out of it. But feel free to reach out to me IRL if you want to talk about it. I am easy to find.
I'm another white man who works at Google. I don't feel this way. You see me here commenting using a username that's easily traceable to my real identity. So we are reacting to a similar situation quite differently. What's the difference between us? I don't know.
I also think that your having this feeling is not WAI -- Google has been pretty clear that they want everyone to feel psychologically safe at work.
Ultimately what you have is a feeling -- it's not a fact, or even an opinion. I can't argue you out of it. But feel free to reach out to me IRL if you want to talk about it. I am easy to find.
Another throwaway here. Let me explain why I'm afraid.
Discussion that I've seen around microaggressions seems to land on the idea that, much like sexual harassment, one can be guilty without intent or awareness. This is a difficult to balance situation because, on the one hand, you have the fact that we as white men do not know what it feels like to be "othered" or harassed every day of your life, thus making our own judgment of what constitutes fair and unfair treatment somewhat skewed. On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
Prior to the current email list under discussion, there was a web app internally for tracking microaggressions. I remember reading it and being horrified at the treatment that non-white people in general, and women in particular, endured - story after story of degradation, insults and bullying. Referring to these actions as "micro" aggressions was comically understating their magnitude. However, I did see one or two stories that I thought were an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a normal, everyday situation. I vividly recall one - let me attempt to retell that story here: "One day I was waiting for the bus to ${SOME_DESTINATION}. The bus stop was unusually busy, lots of people were around. Somebody said out loud 'Wow, looks like everybody is going to ${SOME_DESTINATION} today'. This comment was aimed at me because I was not white."
In the above scenario, I acknowledge the possibility that the speaker was aiming a negative comment at the reporter...but surely it is also possible that a non-biased person would make that comment innocently, perhaps even without knowledge that the non-white person were present? The reason I am afraid is that I can imagine myself making an innocent comment like that, bereft of any bias (implicit or otherwise), and I am afraid of what the consequences might be. Having a discussion about the comment would be fine, but what if I were to be brought in front of HR and have it formally recorded in my employee file? What if I received explicit disciplinary action? Could I be fired in circumstances like this?
As I've said, I recognize the legitimacy of the vast, vast majority of these grievances as well as the need to share them. What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty. Without acknowledgement that communication is challenging and an innocent comment can be interpreted uncharitably, I am afraid of the potential consequences.
Discussion that I've seen around microaggressions seems to land on the idea that, much like sexual harassment, one can be guilty without intent or awareness. This is a difficult to balance situation because, on the one hand, you have the fact that we as white men do not know what it feels like to be "othered" or harassed every day of your life, thus making our own judgment of what constitutes fair and unfair treatment somewhat skewed. On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
Prior to the current email list under discussion, there was a web app internally for tracking microaggressions. I remember reading it and being horrified at the treatment that non-white people in general, and women in particular, endured - story after story of degradation, insults and bullying. Referring to these actions as "micro" aggressions was comically understating their magnitude. However, I did see one or two stories that I thought were an extremely uncharitable interpretation of a normal, everyday situation. I vividly recall one - let me attempt to retell that story here: "One day I was waiting for the bus to ${SOME_DESTINATION}. The bus stop was unusually busy, lots of people were around. Somebody said out loud 'Wow, looks like everybody is going to ${SOME_DESTINATION} today'. This comment was aimed at me because I was not white."
In the above scenario, I acknowledge the possibility that the speaker was aiming a negative comment at the reporter...but surely it is also possible that a non-biased person would make that comment innocently, perhaps even without knowledge that the non-white person were present? The reason I am afraid is that I can imagine myself making an innocent comment like that, bereft of any bias (implicit or otherwise), and I am afraid of what the consequences might be. Having a discussion about the comment would be fine, but what if I were to be brought in front of HR and have it formally recorded in my employee file? What if I received explicit disciplinary action? Could I be fired in circumstances like this?
As I've said, I recognize the legitimacy of the vast, vast majority of these grievances as well as the need to share them. What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty. Without acknowledgement that communication is challenging and an innocent comment can be interpreted uncharitably, I am afraid of the potential consequences.
> What scares me is the absolutes with which they are spoken about, in that the accusation of having committed a microaggression or act of bias always means the accused is guilty.
Can you handle a little guilt, though? It sounds like you can -- you're saying, I know I'm not perfect, I know I can be better.
I think that is, to a first approximation, the standard applied to employees at Google.
> On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
In the story you relate, does the accuser actually have any real power? They told their story, and...that's the end, right? I think you're assuming somehow that every time someone says "someone did this shitty thing to me," they want HR to fire that person. I know from talking to people who have had shitty things done to them that that's not true. People -- victims, HR -- have a sense of proportionality.
And I'm sure someone here can come up with an anecdote that shows someone acting without proportionality. But the fact that the system isn't perfect doesn't mean it's wrong as a rule, and consider that for every one accused who is acted upon disproportionately, there are surely many more victims who never seek or see justice. So if the system seems more imperfect to you lately, perhaps what is actually happening is that the imperfections are being felt more equitably.
If Google fired every white man who referred to a group of people men+women as "guys", there would be very few of us left. I don't mean to say that stuff like that isn't important and that we shouldn't change our language, just that degree of harm and intent are important. I have never heard anyone from HR suggest otherwise.
If I can make a guess as to where this fear might be coming from: A friend at another company related a story to me about how she tried to gently correct a coworker's microaggression. He blew up at her, angry that she was making a big thing out of a little thing. Which she wasn't, objectively or in intent. But then she took the blowup to HR.
So that's what happened, but I have to imagine his story is going to be, I made this innocent comment, and then I got taken to task with HR over it.
I'm sure many people have stories like that, where they completely miss the point about what they're actually talking to HR about. And then maybe these stories make their way to you, and you conclude, "gosh, I'm terrified of stepping out of line, look at the awful thing that happened to person X for doing basically nothing. And this other thing in YAG, I did that myself recently. I am terrified." But I suggest there's a different way to look at the same data that paints a quite different picture.
Can you handle a little guilt, though? It sounds like you can -- you're saying, I know I'm not perfect, I know I can be better.
I think that is, to a first approximation, the standard applied to employees at Google.
> On the other hand, this can lead to the infliction of the "perpetrator" status in situations that, to my honest attempt to calmly and thoughtfully analyze the circumstances, grant too much power to the accuser.
In the story you relate, does the accuser actually have any real power? They told their story, and...that's the end, right? I think you're assuming somehow that every time someone says "someone did this shitty thing to me," they want HR to fire that person. I know from talking to people who have had shitty things done to them that that's not true. People -- victims, HR -- have a sense of proportionality.
And I'm sure someone here can come up with an anecdote that shows someone acting without proportionality. But the fact that the system isn't perfect doesn't mean it's wrong as a rule, and consider that for every one accused who is acted upon disproportionately, there are surely many more victims who never seek or see justice. So if the system seems more imperfect to you lately, perhaps what is actually happening is that the imperfections are being felt more equitably.
If Google fired every white man who referred to a group of people men+women as "guys", there would be very few of us left. I don't mean to say that stuff like that isn't important and that we shouldn't change our language, just that degree of harm and intent are important. I have never heard anyone from HR suggest otherwise.
If I can make a guess as to where this fear might be coming from: A friend at another company related a story to me about how she tried to gently correct a coworker's microaggression. He blew up at her, angry that she was making a big thing out of a little thing. Which she wasn't, objectively or in intent. But then she took the blowup to HR.
So that's what happened, but I have to imagine his story is going to be, I made this innocent comment, and then I got taken to task with HR over it.
I'm sure many people have stories like that, where they completely miss the point about what they're actually talking to HR about. And then maybe these stories make their way to you, and you conclude, "gosh, I'm terrified of stepping out of line, look at the awful thing that happened to person X for doing basically nothing. And this other thing in YAG, I did that myself recently. I am terrified." But I suggest there's a different way to look at the same data that paints a quite different picture.
I replied to you an hour ago attempting to explain why I, a white man who works at Google, was also somewhat afraid. I made an effort to explain my feelings constructively while recognizing the existence of my privilege and the necessity of an outlet for people not like me to speak up.
The comment was flag-killed.
I can't speak for the other commenter, but I would never risk attaching this opinion to my real identity, and thus I'd never come to you IRL to discuss this.
The comment was flag-killed.
I can't speak for the other commenter, but I would never risk attaching this opinion to my real identity, and thus I'd never come to you IRL to discuss this.
[deleted]
It doesn't matter that the complaints are anonymous. The ultimate end result of this produces anxiety, even if action is taken. It is passive violence on a mass scale instead of healing occurring in one place. People should not want every fracture or trespass humming in the background to remind us. We should be moving on, dedicating our focus on being better people, achieving new heights, real things that progress us forward, that deserves recognition, not pain, not being known as a victim of something. I feel that is the way of our society now, a mad obsession with pain and offense. Violence shifted into an abstract form...
Taken (very) broadly, I agree. A list like this shifts a burden onto those of us who have privilege, as we're now aware of the bad shit that goes down around us that before we might never have seen.
Hopefully it makes us uncomfortable enough to change our actions, thus obviating the need for this discomfort at all.
Hopefully it makes us uncomfortable enough to change our actions, thus obviating the need for this discomfort at all.
It is natural that we want to take from those who have and give it to those who have not. Whether it economical benefit, experiences, or knowledge.
But in this case, I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force. I think there is a missing piece here and one organization alone will not produce the best solution.
But in this case, I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force. I think there is a missing piece here and one organization alone will not produce the best solution.
> I am unconvinced that scaling these experiences in this environment is a healing force.
You might be right. But I think that's a limited point.
Mistreatment of women and minorities is as old as time. All that's changed here is that they're talking about it in a public forum.
Maybe that helps heal things (I tend to think it does, by way of raising awareness), maybe, as you say, it doesn't help. Maybe it even hurts.
But I am not about to tell victims how to deal with their own pain.
You might be right. But I think that's a limited point.
Mistreatment of women and minorities is as old as time. All that's changed here is that they're talking about it in a public forum.
Maybe that helps heal things (I tend to think it does, by way of raising awareness), maybe, as you say, it doesn't help. Maybe it even hurts.
But I am not about to tell victims how to deal with their own pain.
You seem to be confused. Written words are not violence.
Another definition of violence is "Strength of emotion or of a destructive natural force.". As long as something is a force of trespass on a being it can count as violence.
There are many studies that also prove emotional trauma and conflict also produce responses similar to physical pain in the brain.
There are many studies that also prove emotional trauma and conflict also produce responses similar to physical pain in the brain.
It's concerning to me, but not for the reasons you listed. Naming names isn't the only way to out someone on such a list. Details about time, place, personalities, specific words said, etc, can unintentionally out someone.
And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.
I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.
And it's not just the accused that could be outed. The accuser faces the same issue.
I don't see why it's odd to have some concerns about this approach. It clearly requires a moderator with some skill, or a mistake could really hurt someone.
(Googler w/ the obvious disclaimer)
The moderator(s) have actually been quite good about removing or otherwise obfuscating the details you mentioned.
The entries are usually along the lines of "A (male) engineer said $AWFUL_THING to another (female) engineer in a large meeting". Specific enough that you understand the $AWFUL_THING but generic enough that you can't easily infer who the people are.
The moderator(s) have actually been quite good about removing or otherwise obfuscating the details you mentioned.
The entries are usually along the lines of "A (male) engineer said $AWFUL_THING to another (female) engineer in a large meeting". Specific enough that you understand the $AWFUL_THING but generic enough that you can't easily infer who the people are.
I would guess most subscribers simply like gossip and watching train wrecks.
It's like old days of Gawker.com. You could rationalize that you were doing a true public service by participating in the "name and shame" game. Or you could just be there to take pleasure in other people's misery.
Also, look at 'name and shame' subreddits like the SRS communities. Those places are toxic. While I think that there's some value to be had in viewing other people's missteps and learning how to improve based upon them (a favorite quote of mine, "the best way to cure your bad habits is to see them in others"). However, a wide scale list like this one does not seem to me to be good.
For example, the reason aviation gets safer and safer is because every time there's a mistake it's documented, studied, and then if corrections need to be made, they are made. What's not helpful is some open forum where people just make anonymized complaints that some airline has bad pilots or crappy planes. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but I think there's something there...
Also, look at 'name and shame' subreddits like the SRS communities. Those places are toxic. While I think that there's some value to be had in viewing other people's missteps and learning how to improve based upon them (a favorite quote of mine, "the best way to cure your bad habits is to see them in others"). However, a wide scale list like this one does not seem to me to be good.
For example, the reason aviation gets safer and safer is because every time there's a mistake it's documented, studied, and then if corrections need to be made, they are made. What's not helpful is some open forum where people just make anonymized complaints that some airline has bad pilots or crappy planes. Maybe that's not the best analogy, but I think there's something there...
There's no naming and shaming in "Yes, at Google". From the article: "Usually, the people in the complaints are not named."
Not sure that helps much. At worst, people will start guessing and perhaps suspect the wrong people. And many people can probably identified from the context. Furthermore, there can be no defense against the accusations.
Empirically, this does not happen. It's a company of like 70,000 employees. You're not going to be able to guess the people involved when the company is that size. Maybe if it was a company on the order of 100s of people you'd be able to.
This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.
This is a hypothetical worry that doesn't seem to play out in practice.
Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.
Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc.
You can figure it out... Not in all cases, but most of the time I'm sure it's easy to figure out...
Especially since it sounds like the stories are personal, you can just figure what team the victim is on and narrow down the list of possible offenders to a few. Usually there are details: senior/junior, married/unmarried, old/young, manager, direct report, colleagues, etc, etc.
You can figure it out... Not in all cases, but most of the time I'm sure it's easy to figure out...
> Disagree. It's super easy to narrow it down to a handful of people and make assumptions about who it was.
I have to ask, are you saying this because have you read the stories and been able to narrow down who it was? Or are you just assuming? The stories are extremely vague, and they're curated by someone who removes unnecessary detail from the stories to make sure they stay anonymized.
Here's the type of story you might see in the mailing list (this is a fictitious example along the lines of what actually shows up) "I had a meeting with a male team mate and a male employee from another group. The employee from the other group would only address my male colleague despite me being the lead of the project."
That's what most of the stories are like, with few identifying details, and just a few sentences at most describing the situation. The stories are intentionally obfuscated and brief. If this was a real incident, I'd have no idea if someone from my team was involved, or if it was my manager, or any other person I worked with. The people involved will be able to figure it out if they're reading, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there'd be no way of knowing.
The only time I've every seen someone figure out who was being mentioned was when they outed themself.
I have to ask, are you saying this because have you read the stories and been able to narrow down who it was? Or are you just assuming? The stories are extremely vague, and they're curated by someone who removes unnecessary detail from the stories to make sure they stay anonymized.
Here's the type of story you might see in the mailing list (this is a fictitious example along the lines of what actually shows up) "I had a meeting with a male team mate and a male employee from another group. The employee from the other group would only address my male colleague despite me being the lead of the project."
That's what most of the stories are like, with few identifying details, and just a few sentences at most describing the situation. The stories are intentionally obfuscated and brief. If this was a real incident, I'd have no idea if someone from my team was involved, or if it was my manager, or any other person I worked with. The people involved will be able to figure it out if they're reading, but in the overwhelming majority of cases there'd be no way of knowing.
The only time I've every seen someone figure out who was being mentioned was when they outed themself.
> privileged white men like myself
The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.
I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.
> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.
Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.
The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
The current Chancellor of Germany happens to be a women, which is the most privileged positions in Europe.
I'm also sure that you will find a lot of white men who lack anything that can be considered privilege.
> why people might submit anonymously to such a list > This trope of jumping immediately to the problem of false accusations is sadly common in discussions e.g. of rape reporting. Yes, some reports of rape (and harassment) are untrue. The vast majority aren't.
Even if a rape accusation turns out to be false, the damage is done, and nobody will care about your "privileged white men" because they don't have enough victim creds.
> The former president of the US was a black man, he was arguably in one of the most privileged positions in the US / World.
That's not what privilege is. Its about how society treats people as a whole. As as a whole, white men benefit from their gender and race. Yes there are white people who are poor or have other issues. Yes there are black people people who are wealthy or in positions of power. Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
That's not what privilege is. Its about how society treats people as a whole. As as a whole, white men benefit from their gender and race. Yes there are white people who are poor or have other issues. Yes there are black people people who are wealthy or in positions of power. Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
How does society treat people as whole? can you explain what advantage do non-white-males have over everyone else?
> Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
Sorry mate, if you look at statistics, Asians earn more in America than 'whites', so I guess we should start calling Asians privileged then, right?
> Citing individual examples doesn't discount macro trends
Sorry mate, if you look at statistics, Asians earn more in America than 'whites', so I guess we should start calling Asians privileged then, right?
> The former president of the US was a bkack man
...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.
I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity. Which is a good indication that society is still skewed.
...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.
I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity. Which is a good indication that society is still skewed.
And Trump was called Hitler, Idiot, Psychopath and all sorts of other things. Presidents simply attract some amount of hatred.
Yes, to take your point further: instead of any of those names, for Obama people chose a racial slur. They could have just as easily used Hitler, Idiot, Psycopath. That would have been a better test of whether our society was in some post-race society that people think we're in just because we got one black president, once.
If that doesn't make you stop and think, I'm really not sure what else will.
If that doesn't make you stop and think, I'm really not sure what else will.
They just call people what the suppose annoys them most. That is why they call women cunts and men gay or sexist or whatever. Would you say sexism is only over when men are being called cunts and bitches?
Actually it seems to me Nigger is a lot softer than Hitler. It basically means "black person I don't like because they are black". Hitler means "psychopathic mass murderer".
Besides, this is again the "there is an asshole in Kansas" line of thinking. Just because you can find somebody, somewhere in the universe who is an asshole, it doesn't prove that everybody is an asshole.
Actually it seems to me Nigger is a lot softer than Hitler. It basically means "black person I don't like because they are black". Hitler means "psychopathic mass murderer".
Besides, this is again the "there is an asshole in Kansas" line of thinking. Just because you can find somebody, somewhere in the universe who is an asshole, it doesn't prove that everybody is an asshole.
I don't think that first line is true, most adults are able to be disagreeable without using a slur, such as us. So no, I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).
Second, there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage. On this point I would hope we would agree. Also, I find comparisons of Trump to Hitler silly and overreactionary (and I have a book recommendation for those that want to learn how Hitler actually rose to power).
Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
The ultimate lack of empathy from both sides is what really bothers me, the culmination of which is the continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society. I may as well proclaim we are a species that lives on multiple planets because we sent humans to the Moon once.
Second, there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage. On this point I would hope we would agree. Also, I find comparisons of Trump to Hitler silly and overreactionary (and I have a book recommendation for those that want to learn how Hitler actually rose to power).
Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
The ultimate lack of empathy from both sides is what really bothers me, the culmination of which is the continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society. I may as well proclaim we are a species that lives on multiple planets because we sent humans to the Moon once.
> most adults are able to be disagreeable without using a slur, such as us
The whole point of an insult is to get the other side angry, not necessarily for it to have roots in reality. I do agree that it's not a good way to have an argument. If I want to insult you I'll look at what hurts you the most.
Here is something that's not being called out as racist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8
> I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).
Sexism exists because:
- there are a few actually sexist males and females out there see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marissa+mayer+gender+bias&...
- biology is sexist and there is little we can do about that
- sexism can be used as a great excuse for failing and it can be weaponized, you can threaten your boss that you'll call him sexist if you, the female don't get the promotion instead of the more qualified male
What I don't believe exists is: systematic sexism, that I believe is made up to be the ultimate excuse for everything.
> there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage
There is no difference if your objective is to hurt the other person's feelings, you pick whichever is most effective.
> Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
I mostly noticed this from Hilary supporters, it's not an eye for an eye thing: http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
> continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society
Do we have slavery? No
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? No
What is your criteria for a 'post-race society'? What other checkboxes do we need to hit to get there?
The whole point of an insult is to get the other side angry, not necessarily for it to have roots in reality. I do agree that it's not a good way to have an argument. If I want to insult you I'll look at what hurts you the most.
Here is something that's not being called out as racist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5ulvcqaiM8
> I would say sexism wouldn't exist if people could disagree on merits of discussion instead of any insults (which, by nature of personal attack, immediately invokes all *isms of the victim).
Sexism exists because:
- there are a few actually sexist males and females out there see: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=marissa+mayer+gender+bias&...
- biology is sexist and there is little we can do about that
- sexism can be used as a great excuse for failing and it can be weaponized, you can threaten your boss that you'll call him sexist if you, the female don't get the promotion instead of the more qualified male
What I don't believe exists is: systematic sexism, that I believe is made up to be the ultimate excuse for everything.
> there's a huge difference between insulting someone because of their perceived character ("asshole") with little cultural baggage, and insulting someone for being literally in their own skin with a word that has huge cultural baggage
There is no difference if your objective is to hurt the other person's feelings, you pick whichever is most effective.
> Finally, I do agree that the lashing out against Trump supporters is bad. Just as it was bad that Obama supporters also had to put up with burning crosses in their frontyards when he was elected. Both sides can't see this sucks for everyone at different times for some reason and it's a stupid cycle.
I mostly noticed this from Hilary supporters, it's not an eye for an eye thing: http://blog.samaltman.com/what-i-heard-from-trump-supporters
> continued ignorance of believing we are in some post-race society
Do we have slavery? No
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? No
What is your criteria for a 'post-race society'? What other checkboxes do we need to hit to get there?
Systematic sexism is tens of thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier, the opposite of which does not happen at a huge scale (but is also wrong). There is a difference between institutional isms (eg slavery, separate-but-equal) and systemic isms (eg private schools in The South, disproportionally higher rates of police brutality of minorities).
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
> Systematic sexism
systematic
Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic
If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?
> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier
Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.
Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further
So these were your best arguments?
> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.
You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.
If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.
systematic
Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical.
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic
If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?
> thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier
Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place.
Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
> Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s.
Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
> Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further
So these were your best arguments?
> as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time.
I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering.
You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it.
If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.
> If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?
https://goo.gl/ceakLN
"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."
Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.
> Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?
It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration.
> Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
> Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
https://goo.gl/ceakLN
"relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part."
Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.
> Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?
It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration.
> Also, what about women telling women the same thing?
What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
> Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side.
People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
> Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system.
The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down?
> It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions
Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems?
> including seeing and treating women as decoration.
Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things).
Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo
> Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
Or maybe it's just not really sexist.
> People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.
The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down?
> It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions
Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems?
> including seeing and treating women as decoration.
Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things).
Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo
> Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too.
Or maybe it's just not really sexist.
> People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.
I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong.
I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective.
Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from").
So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions:
- "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?)
- "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?)
- "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion:
- "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering."
Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win.
Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do.
At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.
I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective.
Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from").
So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions:
- "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman)
- "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?)
- "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?)
- "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion:
- "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering."
Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win.
Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do.
At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.
> the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong.
I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.
> Though I am not surprised
Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?
> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.
Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .
> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.
If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.
> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.
The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true
> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.
> (Rooted in strawman)
More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.
> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?
How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?
I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?
> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.
> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win
It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.
Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...
> Language matters.
It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.
Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.
I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.
I thought you intentionally used 'systematic', the word 'systemic' actually makes your argument weaker.
> Though I am not surprised
Why are you not surprised, are all people just bad who don't blindly agree with you?
> For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition.
No, it does not excuse insults, insults of all form are bad. What I said is: when picking insults, you pick the one that hurts the most, because at that point, your objective is to do the most damage.
Just because someone utters the word 'nigger' does not make them racist. Otherwise Kanye and everyone who sings along would be racist, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gG_dA32oH44 .
> Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
If I tell you the Earth is diamond shaped, I can't really expect you to believe it without some hard evidence.
If you say that society is still racist, you are the one who needs to point out why, I'm not the one who needs to point out why not.
> Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote.
The original claim: white men are privileged My reply to that: some of the most privileged people are black and/or women therefore that statement cannot be true
> Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further.
I used a few examples to disprove a generalised statement, you tried to use an example to reinforce a generalised statement. If you look at all my comments, I never imply that there is absolute 0 racism and sexism in the world, my issue is when people generalise and start pointing at mystical hidden 'systems'.
> (Rooted in strawman)
More like rooted in you choosing the wrong word.
> Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?
How does my character have anything to do with the ridiculousness of this claim? Who are they? Where is the study that proves out this is an actual issue?
I can find women who get offended if I complement them on their looks, does that make this sexist even if majority of the women would actually enjoy that?
> (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won)
The intention was not to stop the conversation, I was pointing out that your arguments so far are incredibly weak, if you have better ones, I'm happy to debate them.
> Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win
It's not me-versus-you, it's me pointing out that people with similar opinions have trouble when they receive basic questions.
Examples: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpfOW3vhZbPMsPHa8TGjL1Q/vid...
> Language matters.
It doesn't invalidate points though, just because I use harsh(for people worried about PC) constructs doesn't mean what I'm saying is wrong.
Trump won the election, despite his incredibly hostile and offensive style of discourse.
I worry more about the points I'm making than the style or tone.
But people get angry and want to insult each other. Sure, it would be nicer if they wouldn't, but it is not in itself related to racism or sexism. I guess the unwarranted insults are often the most annoying, because there is no possible counter.
[deleted]
Not to mention how many liberals take smug joy in mocking Trump's skin tone, without the least bit of irony..
The US doesn't have a long history of oppressing people who use fake tan sprays so the two really aren't comparable.
... He just had a tan from tanning / being in Florida.
http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a26621/donald-trump...
http://www.marieclaire.com/politics/news/a26621/donald-trump...
OK? The US doesn't have a history of oppressing white people with tans either
So you're in the camp of "It's not racism or bigotry, as long as it's against whites?"
I do not believe that people making fun of Trump's bad tan are motivated by racism, no.
What is your definition of racism?
What about people with red hair? I think they have a history of being bullied?
>the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Not to minimize it, but I do wonder how often this sort of thing is elaborate trolling versus racism. Especially on a college campus.
Not to minimize it, but I do wonder how often this sort of thing is elaborate trolling versus racism. Especially on a college campus.
I don't see a difference. racist trolling is a form of racism.
Is making fun of a group of people and having no hatred towards them the same thing as actually hating that group?
If I tell a joke about black/asian/latino/<insert your favourite race or ethnicity here> then I'm automatically racist, then I'm exactly the same thing as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church?
If I tell a joke about black/asian/latino/<insert your favourite race or ethnicity here> then I'm automatically racist, then I'm exactly the same thing as the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church?
trolling and joking aren't the same thing. a joke is intended as humor and the audience understands it as such (even if they might not consider it funny). trolling is intended to cause offense and distress. even if a racist troll does not authentically hold racist beliefs, they are displaying a level of insensitivity in communication that is identical with racist speech.
The motivation is (usually) different, so how you might try and stop it would be different as well. And, I'm honestly just curious.
> Racism and systemic oppression didn't get solved just because you can cherrypick examples well.
And then you just cherry picked an example:
> ...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Good job for being consistent!
> I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity
Trump is being called names all the time, they even call Trump voters deplorable.
> Racism and systemic oppression
If this so called systematic oppression would exists, than how did Obama get elected? It seems to me that even if there is systemic racism, it's ineffective.
And then you just cherry picked an example:
> ...and when he was reelected president, the Free Expression tunnel at NC State was spray painted with the confederate battle flag background, his "Hope" pose portrait, and in huge bold black letters the word "NIGGER".
Good job for being consistent!
> I don't see non-white people oppressing white people because Trump is in power, calling them/him a "cracker" or other slurs, on the same continuous intensity
Trump is being called names all the time, they even call Trump voters deplorable.
> Racism and systemic oppression
If this so called systematic oppression would exists, than how did Obama get elected? It seems to me that even if there is systemic racism, it's ineffective.
[deleted]
Your comment contains a lot of appeals to emotion and very few facts, if any at all (for example, the claim that the "vast majority" of rape accusations is true definitely needs a source). This is the hallmark of someone who goes along with mainstream opinion without thinking for themselves. I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.
> Your comment contains a lot of appeals to emotion and very few facts, if any at all (for example, the claim that the "vast majority" of rape accusations is true definitely needs a source).
https://www.google.com/search?q=fraction+of+rape+reports+tha...
> I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.
Likewise. :)
https://www.google.com/search?q=fraction+of+rape+reports+tha...
> I urge you and everyone else to think deeply before reiterating what you have heard or read from others.
Likewise. :)
That google link doesn't really support the claim. For example, the headline on the National Review is somewhat deliberately strong sounding...what's in the article is quite different.
I'm no expert, and not trying to sway opinion either way. But the results of your Google search only make it muddier.
I'm no expert, and not trying to sway opinion either way. But the results of your Google search only make it muddier.
I feel this might be problematic. The Soviet block countries had something called a culture of criticism and self-criticism. As part of this culture, factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized. What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
Nothing, but that's not what this is. For a variety of reasons, people are reluctant to report incidents through official channels. This is an unofficial and anonymous channel. It's a way to make people aware that yes, things are happening, even if no official action is taken. I hope it makes people more aware.
My experience has been that for a sanity check a discussion with a trusted colleague in a different department is worth a lot. If XY is genuinely concerning then that person will say "yeah, I've found that, too, and it's really concerning". What's with the need for a formal shame list and for establishing an Akashic record?
My understanding from the article was that it doesn't name the offenders. (The one exception being the Alphabet CEO from a public meeting.) To me, that precludes it from being a "shame list."
I like how submissions are anonymous. Back in USSR an anonymous tip was a good way of getting rid of your annoying neighbours or rivals.
Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
Another convenient thing was that with an anonymous complaint the burden of proof lay solely on the accused, who had to protest his innocence without even being able to face the accuser. But we are half-way there anyway, aren't we?
As has been mentioned elsewhere - names aren't mentioned in the list.
Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
Also even with anonymity although such a system maybe open for abuse, so that people can implicate innocent people, the potential to allow actual victims to speak up who wouldn't otherwise seems worth the risk
This reminds me of the whole metadata collection scandal/argument, because this is what is being shared - metadata. Just because you don't name a person directly, does not yet imply anonymity.
Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
Another observation - the article states that people aren't "usually" named. I don't see anything preventing the peoples names appearing later on, as this thing develops.
As far as I can tell, it's run for employees by employees. If it ever starts doing more harm than good, it will just stop. People have to want to submit and want to read it.
So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.
I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
So I don't see this as management sponsored spying, just employees wanting more transparency. To highlight what actually goes on.
I believe the point with the 'usually' was that the only one who had been named was Eric Schmidt from a open meeting.
Yeah, the anonymous accused get sent straight to the gulag.
"What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?"
on what evidence/grounds?
on what evidence/grounds?
None needed, California is an "at-will" employment state -- you can be fired for any legal reason or none at all.
Isn't there that famous quote "Praise in public criticize in private."?
Seems apt here.
Seems apt here.
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment and possibly reporting them to law enforcement?
because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.
because they might be innocent? why is a person's employer a better arbitrator than the legal system? firing someone based on implications is deeply problematic. that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made.
Just a few questions:
- Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?
- Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
- Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
- Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
- A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
- Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?
- Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
- Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
- Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
- A company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
> Do you believe that an employer should only fire someone for things that are illegal? If yes, why, if no, how can we rely on the legal system if they are being fired for things that aren't illegal?
They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.
> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.
> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.
> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.
> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.
They can fire an employee for any reason they want to in an "at will" state, so your question isn't cogent to begin with. Whether or not it should be done is contextual and I can't answer in the abstract. The way you frame your question here is designed to be a rhetorical trap though, and I don't appreciate that.
> Do you believe that this innocent until proven guilty legally applies even if other employees are leaving as a result of their conduct? Say a manager whose reports seem to quit very quickly complaining about sexual harassment. When does the company have the right to fire the troublemaker? One employee that quits? 5? 10?
Remember, I'm discussing ethics not laws here. Yes, I believe that "innocent until proven guilty" is a good ethical stance almost always. Your hypothetical isn't cogent here. Decisions must be contextual and your contrived example lacks context is is constructed so as to advance your (poorly concealed) agenda. Another rhetorical trap. I expect good faith discussion here and you're demonstrating bad faith.
> Should a company be liable for actions that its employees take on its premises during the working day? That is, if I complain about a coworker, and then am forced to continue working with them, and then am hurt (we'll say physically to make this simpler), should I be able to sue the company for forcing me to continue working with that person despite my complaint?
Liability is a matter of the civic code and is a legal question, and remember, we're discussing ethics not law. Your contrived example here is once again lacking context so it is unanswerable as presented and yet another example of you attempting a rhetorical trap.
> Related to the prior two, but broader: at what point does the economic effect on the company outweigh their moral duty to protect employees accused of misconduct? Keep in mind that a company has a duty to shareholders as well as to its other employees. I hope you don't think that a company should be willing to go under to continue employing a single employee, no matter their alleged misconduct.
"I hope you don't think". Your constructions here are insulting to me. Nothing but leading questions, contrived examples, begging the question and other rhetorical tricks. If you have a position of your own you should state it directly and not assume I will be tricked or trapped by you.
> company has a moral duty to protect employees from firing based on implication. Does it also have a moral duty to protect employees from harassment?
yes to both. an implication of harassment should result in a fair process to determine the truth bounded by the context of the situation and the interests of all the involved parties. FAIR PROCESS is the key portion of the last sentence. My objections have always been to UNFAIR PROCESSES and are not a defense of harassment.
I'm sorry you took my post as a rhetorical trap, it wasn't intended as such.
You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you.
From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view?
To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation).
I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work.
You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.
You stated that "that kind of action ought to wait until a real legal judgment has been made." Which to me comes across as rather absolute, your response has made it clear that that wasn't entirely true, so my apologies for misunderstanding you.
From your comments here though, it sounds to me that you consider an HR investigation an unfair process, would that correctly characterize your view?
To be clear, I do believe your stance is untenable, but that doesn't mean my statements are in bad faith, these questions are more or less the reasons that I believe that the stance that "companies shouldn't fire people before they're found guilty of a crime" is an untenable stance (and s/companies/universities or other organization/ for a broader conversation).
I don't think that an organization can hold itself to the ethical bar you think is proper without causing itself (and its constituents) a level of inconvenience that is too great. For a society or government, where membership is not voluntary, that is necessary, but for groups whose members are free to leave (for whatever definition fits the group), it doesn't work.
You can't simultaneously have a group that people will want to voluntarily join in and one that protects abusers.
I do believe that it is very unusual for an HR investigation to be a fair process. HR is primarily tasked with protecting the company from legal liability first, and with resolving employee disputes second, and with finding out the truth as a distant third (so distant as to be not-on-the-map).
I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects).
There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.
Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior.
I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff.
If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.
I'm not an absolutist but I do have a high standard of ethics when it comes to disciplinary action that can affect a person's livelihood and reputation (and thus future employment prospects).
There is an unfortunate trend in our society right now for the justice of the mob. The loudest and most aggrieved mob tends to exert its "authority" (as such, it's illegitimate but is authority none the less) against those who stand accused of a moral transgression. This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.
Given the troubling circumstances we find ourselves in I find it important to advocate for higher standards of discourse, ethics, and institutional conduct because the natural tendency otherwise becomes a race to the bottom combined with CYA behavior.
I don't think my advocacy for high standards of ethics in institutional authority is untenable though. I think we have reached a place where we need new solutions because HR isn't cutting it because it is not intended to nor should its mandate be expanded to cover this kind of stuff.
If workplace harassment is as pervasive and problematic as it seems to be (at some companies) then a separate function for handling those issues fairly would be my preference. I'm also, however, deeply concerned that we are seeing a slip into a transgressions-driven-dialogue and the moral panics and kneejerk reactions we see all over social media, and particularly on college campuses, is beginning to become normalized in the workplace as well. That would be a tragic outcome.
>This has created the atmosphere of a moral panic which leads to numerous false accusations. It's a troubling circumstance.
Why do you believe this to be the case? From my perspective, I've seen very few examples of false accusation (certainly not enough to call them "numerous") and many more examples of actions that go unpunished.
Really I think that's what defines the core of our difference in view. You seem to believe that there is some great number of false accusations flying around, and further that these false accusations are causing innocent people great harm. On the other hand, I see many instances of people who should be punished for actions that are unacceptable go completely without consequence. Can you see why, from my perspective, I don't see our current situation as tragic, and indeed see it as a vast improvement over the past (which had an even greater number of unpunished actions).
Why do you believe this to be the case? From my perspective, I've seen very few examples of false accusation (certainly not enough to call them "numerous") and many more examples of actions that go unpunished.
Really I think that's what defines the core of our difference in view. You seem to believe that there is some great number of false accusations flying around, and further that these false accusations are causing innocent people great harm. On the other hand, I see many instances of people who should be punished for actions that are unacceptable go completely without consequence. Can you see why, from my perspective, I don't see our current situation as tragic, and indeed see it as a vast improvement over the past (which had an even greater number of unpunished actions).
to be clear, I don't believe the moral panic has set in at private employers yet in the way it has in the university, but I see more and more steps in that direction every day and the YAG mailing list is too close for comfort, in my opinion. It's one moderator slip-up away from becoming noxious.
As a very recent graduate, my same comments apply, more or less, to universities.
as someone with more years and perspective than a very recent graduate, I would encourage you to consider your critics more seriously and reflect on why so many people are deeply disturbed by what is going on in the academy right now.
>as someone with more years and perspective
Wasn't it you who said we should speak in good faith. I prefer not to be patronized.
I asked you a question, which applied equally to universities as workplaces, that could be summed up as "As someone who has recently been at a university, and is currently in a workplace, I am aware of many more (perhaps orders of magnitude more) instances of abuse that goes unreported or unpunished as compared to instances of people being falsely accused of things. Given that, why should I take your concerns seriously, other than your wisdom and perspective?" You avoided it. Its difficult to take your concerns seriously when you avoid explaining them.
Or in other words, I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of harassment goes unreported, and similarly anecdotal evidence that relatively few accusations are false ones, and anecdotal evidence that in many cases, being forced out or punished for perceived harassment won't actually have a lasting negative impact, and certainly won't be life-ruining. Actual data tends to agree with me. If, as I believe, for every 1 false accusation of something, 10 instances of that thing go unreported, why should I stand for focussing resources on providing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) protections to the 1, when at the same time there are 10 victims, and perhaps 10 assailants, who go without justice and punishment, respectively?
Wasn't it you who said we should speak in good faith. I prefer not to be patronized.
I asked you a question, which applied equally to universities as workplaces, that could be summed up as "As someone who has recently been at a university, and is currently in a workplace, I am aware of many more (perhaps orders of magnitude more) instances of abuse that goes unreported or unpunished as compared to instances of people being falsely accused of things. Given that, why should I take your concerns seriously, other than your wisdom and perspective?" You avoided it. Its difficult to take your concerns seriously when you avoid explaining them.
Or in other words, I have anecdotal evidence that a lot of harassment goes unreported, and similarly anecdotal evidence that relatively few accusations are false ones, and anecdotal evidence that in many cases, being forced out or punished for perceived harassment won't actually have a lasting negative impact, and certainly won't be life-ruining. Actual data tends to agree with me. If, as I believe, for every 1 false accusation of something, 10 instances of that thing go unreported, why should I stand for focussing resources on providing additional (and perhaps unnecessary) protections to the 1, when at the same time there are 10 victims, and perhaps 10 assailants, who go without justice and punishment, respectively?
> What's wrong with simply firing people who are implicated in harassment
You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
You'd get sued for wrongful termination if you go around firing people based on mere implication.
Not everything that creates a negative environment is a fireable offense, and the folks who the burden of that behavior falls on don't generally want to get folks fired unnecessarily. Creating a discussion of "Hey, can we not do this" is a better solution to a lot of issues than reporting things to an opaque body that takes the approach of "Is this exposing us to a lawsuit, if so, fired. Otherwise, do nothing"
> factories would orchestrate meetings in which people who ran afoul of party management were publicly humiliated by their colleagues and ostracized.
I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.
I think this is a very wrong-headed way to go about self-criticism. It shouldn't be about loyalty to a party, it should be about recognition of faults and how to improve them. This is how I envisage worker control of production should be like, anyway. We should have a culture of criticism and self-criticism, in my opinion, because it does not necessitate meanness or humiliation.
It's actually a pretty widely-recognized cult tactic. People are grouped together for shaming sessions where they confess failings and are berated for them.
It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well.
It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
It's nominally about bonding and seeing that everyone has failings, but as you point out that doesn't get problems solved. In practice, it creates social pressure to confess errors (you don't want to act superior to those around you), plus top down pressure ("confess or we'll say it for you"). It also creates investment (if this was all for nothing, why'd I humiliate myself?) and vulnerability (if I leave, they can tell everyone what I said!) And, of course, the degree of shaming can be tailored to cut down people doing too well.
It's a terrifyingly effective thing, and the state communist version looked remarkably similar to the cult version. I don't think it's something you'd do if you actually wanted to help people or improve process, though. The best cultures of self-criticism seem to be the ones that criticize in abstract, sorting out what happened and why publicly but not aiming at individuals.
I don't think such meetings ought to aim at individuals, in fact this is what I wanted to avoid, rather it would be good to talk about processes in general, and to admit faults like that; I think this would be a much clearer way of making progress than to start a blame game or criticise people covertly, which usually ends up festering and turning into hate. I think people should be open about themselves, and constructively criticise. And again, I don't see why that ought to necessitate meanness.
Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go.
It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
Criticising in abstract I think leads to a passive-aggressive culture, which I don't think it's right at all. The point of the meetings would be that everyone is involved, there's no secrecy, and that the meetings are perhaps optional, or at least participation in them is optional. I think a social pressure to confess errors may be a good thing at times, though I admit there's a lot of variation in how it could go.
It's strange that I've been downvoted three times on my comment, but only have one reply. Such is the way of HN.
The main lesson of aircraft safety culture should be that you can have an enquiry to establish what happened, or an enquiry to find out who's to blame - but not both, since once you start assigning blame there's a motive to conceal or destroy evidence.
> no secrecy
This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret.
> social pressure to confess errors
This turns into bullying very quickly.
> no secrecy
This is a nightmare for the person who's percieved underperforming due to unavoidable health issues that they've discussed with their manager/HR but would prefer to keep secret.
> social pressure to confess errors
This turns into bullying very quickly.
I'm not a big fan of HR departments, but an open company-wide-readable email list seems like it could have it's own perils.
Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.
Hopefully it's carefully moderated/anonymized/edited by somebody who is good at that sort of thing.
This has really huge potential for abuse.
How do we know the acts happened indeed?
How do we know the acts happened indeed?
They don't, but I don't think the point of it is to accuse people, you would report to HR and have a proper investigation for that.
From the report, this is fully anonymous on both sides, so it sounds like the purpose is more to learn from mistakes and realize things that we may have done unconsciously, more so than pointing fingers. Like for example, when Eric interrupted the other person as the article say, I doubt they were intentionally trying to be disrespectful and he may not have realized what he did was not nice. But by seeing the impact that some action have had on other people, we can view things from other people's perspective and learn from it.
From the report, this is fully anonymous on both sides, so it sounds like the purpose is more to learn from mistakes and realize things that we may have done unconsciously, more so than pointing fingers. Like for example, when Eric interrupted the other person as the article say, I doubt they were intentionally trying to be disrespectful and he may not have realized what he did was not nice. But by seeing the impact that some action have had on other people, we can view things from other people's perspective and learn from it.
While there are instances of false accusations, isn't the larger problem in our society that people are harassed or abused at work on a seemingly regular basis?
False accusations are also harassment.
Agreed. But it seems like the problem we have now is that more people are being harassed and not being taken seriously with their claims than people making false claims. Is that a world we are okay with living in? Regardless of the answer we should be having that conversation
One problem I have with these list is, as you say, they make it seem as if there is a huge problem with people being harassed. I am not convinced that is true, because the context is missing. Like how many people work for Google, how many incidents are there per month, and how many of these incidents even warrant a complaint?
There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading.
Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make for a very pleasant work day.
I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context - and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.
There is already a debate about the "princess" incident. Eventually somebody will make statistics about that list, and the "princess" incident will be counted as a harassment incident along the lines of grabbing somebodies ass or blackmailing them for sex over losing their job. That seems very misleading.
Also, I'd argue the existence of such a list is already harassment of a lot of people. If now you have to watch your back for every comment, it doesn't make for a very pleasant work day.
I can not judge if "princess" was harassment or not, because we lack context - and so do the readers of the list. It could be friends who habitually edge each other on, like calling a vegetarian "princess" to probe their determination. Or it could be said with disdain, Redneck style (anybody who doesn't eat meat can't amount to much). We don't know. But everybody now has to worry about their words being taken out of context and glued to the wall.
Why is confidential material for public consumption? All this is stuff that ought to go to the Ombudsman, HR or the police to be dealt with properly. What good does it do to hear "my supervisor is habitually oversharing and told me she smokes hashish and is worried about an upcoming drug test"?
Because you don't necessarily need to involve the police every time you're trying to set an interpersonal boundary. Most people are well adjusted enough to change their behavior when you ask them to, and you don't need the threat of firing or jail to convince these people. You just need to ask them, nicely but assertively, to stop.
When you post to the mailing list it's obviously gone past the "assert-boundaries" point, because you tried that already. Nicely but assertively is a problem with unreasonable supervisors in an "at will" state and a weak labour market.
The mailing list isn't just for calling out your supervisors, and the article implies that the managers of the list do give people the chance to respond. It sounds less like a way to anonymously out inappropriate or offensive behavior and more like a way to give examples after the behavior has already been dealt with.
HR is not really intended to be the employee's friend or advocate. They work for the interests of the shareholders and management. It can be like reporting police corruption to the police -- not always a very effective course of action.
>Why is confidential material for public consumption?
If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.
If a person voluntarily and freely posts to the mailing list, (s)he is deciding that this is not confidential. Of course, if it identifies other people who did not consent, then you have a problem.
- A female employee was allegedly called a “princess” for favoring salad over burgers.
I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
I imagine the guy that delivered that comment would be hard pushed to figure out what he did wrong. I suppose we all have to really careful what we say.
It all depends on the context.
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
But yes, we all have to be really careful what we say. Not for fear of being shamed -- for fear of offending someone! Calling someone a "princess" for liking salads could easily be taken as an offense, gender aside.
It's the same reason you don't just go around talking politics in the officf. Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
How do you ever criticize somebody in such a friendly office? I suppose the need just never arises, because HR only hires flawless, swell people to begin with? So that if ever somebody takes a disliking to somebody else, it must be because of racism or sexism?
You criticize what the person did and state you reasons. You avoid making allusions on sterile cyclists if that person happens to cycle to work.
It is easier to criticize people if you did not picked up on them nor mocked nor humiliated them previously. Because a.) they will have more trust to what you say b.) they will not assume you are not just humiliating them again c.) they will not be predispose to see you as a jerk.
It is easier to criticize people if you did not picked up on them nor mocked nor humiliated them previously. Because a.) they will have more trust to what you say b.) they will not assume you are not just humiliating them again c.) they will not be predispose to see you as a jerk.
> Keep that kind of dialogue out of the workplace.
Or freely leave until you find a place that's cool.
Or freely leave until you find a place that's cool.
"Cool" for me isn't somewhere that I can say anything I want without concern for how it affects others. Cool is inclusive.
But that's a strawman, since I didn't say that.
You talk of vague "inclusivity", and hyperbolic "say anything I want"; but the post specifically referred to "Calling someone a 'princess' for liking salads" - when are we going to be inclusive of differing opinions and forms of expression? Seems a very specific interpretational framework is being mandated here.
Using rough language versus running off to HR when offended - I know who I'd prefer working with.
You talk of vague "inclusivity", and hyperbolic "say anything I want"; but the post specifically referred to "Calling someone a 'princess' for liking salads" - when are we going to be inclusive of differing opinions and forms of expression? Seems a very specific interpretational framework is being mandated here.
Using rough language versus running off to HR when offended - I know who I'd prefer working with.
There are so many other/better ways to question someone's taste, even in jest.
This is also why I originally said it depends on the context. You can say it to a work buddy who you hang out with after hours. You can't say it to someone from another team who you don't know very well. Use your head.
This is also why I originally said it depends on the context. You can say it to a work buddy who you hang out with after hours. You can't say it to someone from another team who you don't know very well. Use your head.
better according to who?
If you retreat when pushed, they'll just keep pushing. The issue here isn't whether you offend someone, it's who should be sided with when it goes to HR.
If you retreat when pushed, they'll just keep pushing. The issue here isn't whether you offend someone, it's who should be sided with when it goes to HR.
Yeah, but when you make "salad princess" joke, you are the one pushing. And she is the one that has to either retreat or push back - either directly by humiliating you back or less directly through HR.
If she pushes back and humiliates you back, would you be cool with it?
If she pushes back and humiliates you back, would you be cool with it?
"Humiliate" in the same sense? Sure!
But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.
HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.
But it's always possible to claim your offense is real. Pushing is using real authority to moderate a person's own language. Interpretation is subjective.
HR is neither a nuanced or objective judge of semantics - they aren't even in the same ballpark as a direct response.
I did not meant "humiliate" nor "would you be ok if she responded in playful nuanced way". I meant if she humiliated you back, really. After all, pleasant joking "humiliation" would not make you stop.
I meant would you be ok if she really humiliated you. As you said, offense is semantic. Pushing back won't be comfortable to you. If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
I meant would you be ok if she really humiliated you. As you said, offense is semantic. Pushing back won't be comfortable to you. If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
Again, in the same way, Sure. "humiliated you back" implies it's humiliating in the first place, so I have no idea what standard you are applying.
> If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
false choice. I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated". Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?
> If she did that, would the teasing stop or would the group take your side and retaliated?
false choice. I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated". Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?
> "humiliated you back" implies it's humiliating in the first place, so I have no idea what standard you are applying.
I would find the princess salad comment hostile, unless there is context to mitigate that (we are good friends and in mutually teasing relationship).
Meaning, I would see that as one of those situations when I need to respond more aggressively next time otherwise I risk to be picked on regularly. Not sure if "humiliating" is the right word, but princess is not the image I want to maintain in front of colleges or anyone. Someone not to be picked on is much more practical image.
"I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated".
I am less likely to come with the answer right away, but I would attempt to figure out answer ready for next time you pick on me. Most likely, I would just tell "go fuck off" or something else rude with the tone of voice that is as deep and unfriendly as can be. Other then that, I am not sure, I don't know you nor the whole situation, so it is hard to come up with something.
Not a path for someone who considers it important to look like polite person all the time, but you gotta give up something. I think that this is where many women make mistake - they see aggressive response as something wrong and end up being constantly picked on.
"Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?"
That is part of the thing, right? You don't stick up with anything like that, you are mainstream and know that you are accepted by colleges. That gives you advantage in this bullshit.
But mostly, I prefer more formal workplaces that are above this elementary school stuff.
I would find the princess salad comment hostile, unless there is context to mitigate that (we are good friends and in mutually teasing relationship).
Meaning, I would see that as one of those situations when I need to respond more aggressively next time otherwise I risk to be picked on regularly. Not sure if "humiliating" is the right word, but princess is not the image I want to maintain in front of colleges or anyone. Someone not to be picked on is much more practical image.
"I don't know what you mean retaliate, anymore than I know what you mean "really humiliated".
I am less likely to come with the answer right away, but I would attempt to figure out answer ready for next time you pick on me. Most likely, I would just tell "go fuck off" or something else rude with the tone of voice that is as deep and unfriendly as can be. Other then that, I am not sure, I don't know you nor the whole situation, so it is hard to come up with something.
Not a path for someone who considers it important to look like polite person all the time, but you gotta give up something. I think that this is where many women make mistake - they see aggressive response as something wrong and end up being constantly picked on.
"Maybe I'm thick skinned, but what do you imagine a coworker could say?"
That is part of the thing, right? You don't stick up with anything like that, you are mainstream and know that you are accepted by colleges. That gives you advantage in this bullshit.
But mostly, I prefer more formal workplaces that are above this elementary school stuff.
Insulting your coworkers is not "cool".
auserperson(1)
Hmm. I'm actually struggling to think of a situation where it would be the done thing to call one of your colleagues "princess", be they male or female.
If you know them well enough that they understand that you're joking, then it's probably okay. If you're not sure, then don't. I do have female friends at the office who might find that funny, but only because we know each other and we give each other as good as we get. The difference is that we are friends not just colleagues, which is on a different level, interpersonally.
I feel like I would prefer a more professional work environment, even if it's less funny.
Unfortunately, the problem with "professional" relationships is that they're not very good at fulfilling the social needs of humans. It's practical to keep things professional in order to avoid drama, but when you work all day and work is the main place you get to interact with other people, it can get a bit depressing. And this is partially the reason why things like "company culture" and "culture-fit" come about, but obviously it's a hard and tricky problem to solve.
Yes. I don't really fit in at places where I don't have some kind of personal relationship with my co-workers. We don't stand in front of the whole office and make fun of each other, but when we're at lunch or in private we do play a little. Expecting people to robotically conform to an idealized notion of "professionalism" creates sterile workplaces. You spend enough time with someone and you will eventually become friends with them, co-worker or not.
Then again, workplace is not meant to fulfill your social needs as a human. People who are fun to socialize with and people who are pleasant to work with are very different people. One can be fun and pleasant friend while not so reliable college.
Professionalism is what allows you to work together despite being very different people with different interests and personalities.
Fun workplaces tend to discriminate against those who are different on personal level regardless of their actual skills and contributions.
Professionalism is what allows you to work together despite being very different people with different interests and personalities.
Fun workplaces tend to discriminate against those who are different on personal level regardless of their actual skills and contributions.
> workplace is not meant to fulfill your social needs as a human
It's not, but when it takes up the majority of your waking life at ~60-80hrs/wk, it's not an unreasonable expectation, especially for the mental well-being of the workers. And so long as the trend continues towards longer work hours, there really doesn't seem to be much of a humane way to deal with that added stress otherwise, despite all the obvious drawbacks you mentioned.
The ideal of course, would be to shorten the workday. Unfortunately, inertia seems to be working very much against that possible solution.
It's not, but when it takes up the majority of your waking life at ~60-80hrs/wk, it's not an unreasonable expectation, especially for the mental well-being of the workers. And so long as the trend continues towards longer work hours, there really doesn't seem to be much of a humane way to deal with that added stress otherwise, despite all the obvious drawbacks you mentioned.
The ideal of course, would be to shorten the workday. Unfortunately, inertia seems to be working very much against that possible solution.
If it takes 60-80hrs/wk, then you need a better workplace regardless of nature of communication. Unless you plan to live like monk (meaning no family no friends out of work) - beware tho, monks have pretty much guaranteed membership for life you do not.
Yes, my observation is the same - the people who spend 60-80hrs at work do take all their socialization into workplace. Meaning they waste time of people who want to work at work and then go home - either because of kids or because of aging relative or because of anything else including hobbies.
The above is one more reason to avoid fun cultural workplaces. They tend to want all of you, not just your work.
Yes, my observation is the same - the people who spend 60-80hrs at work do take all their socialization into workplace. Meaning they waste time of people who want to work at work and then go home - either because of kids or because of aging relative or because of anything else including hobbies.
The above is one more reason to avoid fun cultural workplaces. They tend to want all of you, not just your work.
I wonder why this was downvoted. I have the same preference.
If they are a genuine princess (not necessarily outlandish if you live in a place which 1. still has royalty and 2. has a pretty down-to-earth one — after all we've recently learned Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands moonlights as a commercial co-pilot) — or if they come to work wearing a tiara, or if they ask you?
But when you're talking to a princess you would typically use the form Your Highness, or similar.
Anyway, I was thinking of the sorts of situations that actually turn up, on average, for most people. There are only so many princesses to go round, a tiara is highly unusual office garb, and I've never heard of anybody asking to be called "princess" in a professional capacity, at least not in white collar work such as Google. I stand by my rule of thumb. My difficulty thinking up situations was based on my experiences of being at work, which are of course unique, but not, I suspect, especially unusual.
(But if we're trying to think of unlikely possibilities, what about if Princess is your colleague's name? Though given your reply, I expect you're the sort of pedantic so-and-so who'd actually notice that I deliberately quoted it in lower case to sidestep this one.)
Anyway, I was thinking of the sorts of situations that actually turn up, on average, for most people. There are only so many princesses to go round, a tiara is highly unusual office garb, and I've never heard of anybody asking to be called "princess" in a professional capacity, at least not in white collar work such as Google. I stand by my rule of thumb. My difficulty thinking up situations was based on my experiences of being at work, which are of course unique, but not, I suspect, especially unusual.
(But if we're trying to think of unlikely possibilities, what about if Princess is your colleague's name? Though given your reply, I expect you're the sort of pedantic so-and-so who'd actually notice that I deliberately quoted it in lower case to sidestep this one.)
Google has a security manager with the title of "Security Princess": https://twitter.com/laparisa
(but yes, clearly exceptional case)
(but yes, clearly exceptional case)
We played Mario Kart at our office Christmas party. My colleague was racing as Princess Peach. I made a remark saying "Princess Peach over here..."
Other than that, I cannot think of a single place that is appropriate.
Other than that, I cannot think of a single place that is appropriate.
Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment.
This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
This could be making fun of a friend. How is this harassment?
In a workplace you are talking to a colleague that you respect. In my experience "princess" is either used to refer to a child or someone who is spoiled and weak. It's really all about context, if I call my friend a "cunt" at home when he uses a blue shell in MarioKart no one is uncomfortable but if I used it in the workplace it's a huge problem and will make people really uncomfortable.
"Making fun of" someone at work is harassment.
Context matters, and we have none. It could either be an incredibly rude thing to say, or an inside joke between the two people.
And the fact that it's on that list suggests that the recipient didn't like it. Why call someone a name they don't like? Who gets anything out of that interaction?
"Princess" in the UK at least would be pretty offensive in that context - I wouldn't dream of calling a colleague that.
Depends on the colleague, I have done that and similar many times previously and had similar back.
The comment is made, we laugh, he has his salad, I eat my burger, we moved on to something else.
(UK)
The comment is made, we laugh, he has his salad, I eat my burger, we moved on to something else.
(UK)
No it wouldn't. Try spending some time further up north.
> Can you explain specifically whats wrong with the comment.
Obviously casual sexism. Friend or not that's not professional to call a colleague that way at the workplace.
Obviously casual sexism. Friend or not that's not professional to call a colleague that way at the workplace.
If it's a friend there's probably some flexibility depending on the context of the friendship.
But if the "friend" feels the need to file a complaint rather than talk to the person about it then clearly the comment wasn't appropriate.
But if the "friend" feels the need to file a complaint rather than talk to the person about it then clearly the comment wasn't appropriate.
... or it was simply misunderstood/taken the "wrong" way by someone particularly touchy.
I can understand most of the listed complains, but both the "princess" reference and the one about the hairdressers sending supposedly racists code messages sound more like if some problems are also somehow with the people that complained.
I can understand most of the listed complains, but both the "princess" reference and the one about the hairdressers sending supposedly racists code messages sound more like if some problems are also somehow with the people that complained.
> by someone particularly touchy.
No. It's okay to say this to someone you know well and who you know won't mind. But the default position is "don't say this", and so the people who have a strong negative response to it are not "particularly touchy", they're normal.
No. It's okay to say this to someone you know well and who you know won't mind. But the default position is "don't say this", and so the people who have a strong negative response to it are not "particularly touchy", they're normal.
I agree on the "default position", though I cannot see anything so inappropriate to justify a HR call or a complain to the (official or unofficial) company list, at the very most a comment like that could have provoked some snappy response and an immediate - on the spot - clarification between the parties, at least between "normal" (adult) people.
That would be a "normal" reaction as I see it, saying nothing then writing to the list a complain seems to me like the act of someone that either has experienced much more serious "name calling" (or some other untold offence) or that is a tad bit oversensitive.
Most probably normality - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder.
Most probably normality - like beauty - is in the eye of the beholder.
It looks simple to me: that remark was not professional, it's something you'd say to a friend, ideally one with whom you share a relationship close enough to allow for remarks like that one. If you stick to professional interactions, you'll hardly create such a problem at a workplace.
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
The hardship begins when personal and professional relationships mix, but if a personal relationship is established it's reasonable to assume that both people should know how to deal with eachother and would have cleared this up between themselves. If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
Some companies purposely have a laid-back culture. Not a 'bro' culture, but a friendly, social one - that includes jabbing and jiving.
I love those beanbag-chair, not corp environments. Not everything that isn't corporate is 'unprofessional'. Wearing trainers to work was unprofessional, until it became established; now tech CEOs compete on who has the most expensive sneakers.
> If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
I assume you mean the person who said it? It's also possible the person who reported it doesn't know how to manage relationships, or had some other motive in reporting this to HR - you can speculate either way.
I love those beanbag-chair, not corp environments. Not everything that isn't corporate is 'unprofessional'. Wearing trainers to work was unprofessional, until it became established; now tech CEOs compete on who has the most expensive sneakers.
> If HR was involved, it's because someone was out of line or just doesn't understand how adults manage boundaries, in which case he should be warned and, if the case merits, punished.
I assume you mean the person who said it? It's also possible the person who reported it doesn't know how to manage relationships, or had some other motive in reporting this to HR - you can speculate either way.
I dunno maybe I'm crazy but "jabbing and jiving" is the last thing I ever want at work.
Directness, professionalism and - yes! - impersonal conversation - is what I would generally prefer.
And as for competitive dressing. Bring back uniforms is all I can say to that.
Edit: grammar
Directness, professionalism and - yes! - impersonal conversation - is what I would generally prefer.
And as for competitive dressing. Bring back uniforms is all I can say to that.
Edit: grammar
The great thing is that there is more than one company, so people can choose their preferred environment. I suspect there are still many businesses were uniforms are the norm, so you can apply to one of those. You can wear your uniform, but you don't have to make all companies uniform.
Do you love your cubicle, worker 000843874?
It's unprofessional. If the person who was called princess felt uncomfortable enough to write about it, it indicates they were not friends and this is not their common relationship.
It's can be a disrespectful joke. Besides, it's a gendered joke. If it was directed to a woman, it's very impolite, given the constant pressure on woman to keep thin in society and how that is a frequent bias towards woman. If it was a man, it sounds very transphobic/homophobic, as in "you're less because you act like a woman", besides man also deals with fat shaming. And a lot of people deal with eating disorders, so making fun of people eating choices at work is not a good idea.
Of course, if they were friends, I mean actual friends. It would be fine. If one person had felt offended, they would be able to say that to the other, instead of an anonymous mailing list. Or if they didn't felt offended, they could laugh together and each to it's own. But it's clearly not the case. So it's a good idea to avoid this sort of behavior to people that you don't know well, even you get along with them in a work environment.
If people feel they need a guideline to avoid this behavior and not feel like they need to be hard pushed to figure out what they did wrong, here it is: you can make this sort of joke to someone who is your friend (friend enough to regularly see each other outside of work, take care of each other kids, trust in each other in personal matters), if not, it's not work appropriate.
It's can be a disrespectful joke. Besides, it's a gendered joke. If it was directed to a woman, it's very impolite, given the constant pressure on woman to keep thin in society and how that is a frequent bias towards woman. If it was a man, it sounds very transphobic/homophobic, as in "you're less because you act like a woman", besides man also deals with fat shaming. And a lot of people deal with eating disorders, so making fun of people eating choices at work is not a good idea.
Of course, if they were friends, I mean actual friends. It would be fine. If one person had felt offended, they would be able to say that to the other, instead of an anonymous mailing list. Or if they didn't felt offended, they could laugh together and each to it's own. But it's clearly not the case. So it's a good idea to avoid this sort of behavior to people that you don't know well, even you get along with them in a work environment.
If people feel they need a guideline to avoid this behavior and not feel like they need to be hard pushed to figure out what they did wrong, here it is: you can make this sort of joke to someone who is your friend (friend enough to regularly see each other outside of work, take care of each other kids, trust in each other in personal matters), if not, it's not work appropriate.
I wonder if the 'curation' might skew folks' view. E.g. if one believes Ted is a rotten guy, one might mention all the times Ted does rotten things, but if one believes Tod is a great guy then one might just not mention the rotten things he does.
Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
Likewise, I wonder how often this list mentions when someone casually makes a rude remark about Christianity or Judaism, or when someone puts down men, or whites, or Republicans. Maybe it does — certainly the article didn't mention any anti-right bias incidents though (unless I missed it after reading twice).
This is what happens when people have lost faith in the formal process and instead institutionalized gossip as a necessary system for their own protection.
[deleted]
> "Subsequently informed by the engineer that she was expected to 'sleep with everyone' because that's the culture here."
I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response?
Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team."
I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
I'm rather "unenlightened"/regressive/whatever from a SV perspective. But... If there wasn't a significant power difference here, like an intern vs someone senior, how does this even happen? I mean, I get it if it was one-on-one, even a direct boss might pressure someone into that. But "sleep with everyone"? What's the expected response?
Or was this some poor excuse after a failed attempt? "Hey don't get upset. Everyone sleeps around on this team."
I'm just having a hard time comprehending this quote, not from an offended view, just a practical/social/etc. view.
It's a common abuse tactic: establish the behaviour you want as "normal" and gaslight people who object. Often it works. It's also the sort of thing that people can very easily explain away as "joke", "hazing", etc.
I can see this getting out of hand quickly. Humans have a tendency to amplify anxiety of local, improbable events. This is essentially a weapon that can quickly impact morale and elevate disruptive conversations that will become far removed from the situation with too many participants. I'd have optin, in-person support groups where nothing leaves the room and it is limited in size. Sometimes spreading a problem across more people does not fix it, it only makes it worse.
being constantly disrespected by coworkers can also impact morale.
I think this is excellent, especially seeing as how so often HR's duty is only to the company and not to the employee making the complaint.
Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.
Tangentially I wonder if a similar system could be used to report bullying in schools. Perhaps the anonymity only works at a certain scale.
Once this list has enough reach, someone may weaponize it. I've seen it happen.
Is this what got Amit Singhal in the first place, perhaps? (EDIT: I guess not, he left fifteen months ago, this list is eight months old.) It's briefly mentioned in this article, but I was shocked less people talked about what the Amit Singhal story meant for Google.
That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.
It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
That one of their most senior executives, who at one point rewrote the entire Google Search engine, when that was possible for one person to do, and worked there for sixteen years was fired for sexual harassment.
It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in, so I have to wonder how long Google may have been trying to protect one of their most valuable employees.
I think it's reasonable to think that the public awareness contributed to his departure, almost to the extend of being responsible I'd reckon.
I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
I don't think he started suddenly, but rather has done it for a very long time. Being such an immensly valuable asset does buy you slack, I bet.
I've worked with my share of jerks and assholes. Rarely have I seen them dealt with. Mean people often know how to manipulate their messaging you avoid punative action. Few places have a zero tolerance policy, they'll just move them somewhere else.
None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
None of the jerks or assholes I've known had anything happen to them, that I am aware of. I'd like to think they'll be fired eventually.
>It's hard to imagine he suddenly started harassing women sixteen years in
Why?
Why?
"is facing growing pressure from diversity advocates and the media"
I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.
I don't think these entities should have the power to exert pressure.
It's a Bentham construction inside Big Brother, how quaint.
What does "employee-run" mean in this context? (isn't everything at Google employee-run by definition?)
I am not quite sure about whether sexual harassment laws are a good idea yet.
So here's the rules of this brave new world: beyond your house you're a sexless, emotionless creature without family, life outside the office, without sense of humour, without personal interests and preferences.
Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.
Be like this, and you'll get free meals, free shuttle bus and goats at company campus. And it's good for your resumé.
ika_(1)
[deleted]
If true, that is quite obviously legally actionable.