Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#671

Post by mixedCase » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 3:34 PM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #670

mixedCase wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read you claimed Apple apologized to you before I wrote that response. Which is why I asked where is the apology.

On her desk :) Why does it matter to you to see this damn paper? It seems to me that the OP deliberately avoids naming concrete people and publishing whatever paper trail she has. Which is probably a good thing, after some known cases of one-sided accounts published completely with details and real names resulting in lynch mobs against the accused and sometimes also against the victim. Discussion forums are not a cou…

>Why does it matter to you to see this damn paper?

If you read the previous comments, she brought it up as proof that her statements were sincere.

And this is very much the "court of public opinion", which is why the author wrote this post and chose to publish it here. People will make their own judgment with direct consequences. For an accusation of this level when the story has many holes and all we have is one side, some proof is needed. If anyone's reputation can be trashed forever with an improbable accusation, any civility you speak of is doomed.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#672

Post by bisby » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 3:41 PM UTC

vanderreeah wrote: post #645

bisby wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add further to the former category: appropriate friendly ribbing or banter definitely fall under the category of basic human dignity or respect. People cry at weddings. Not because they are sad, but because they are happy (usually). Why cry when you're happy? Studies[1] suggest that crying lowers your defenses. Similar to how salutes and handshakes were ways of demonstrating you weren't armed, you form a lot of so…

Bisby, I just can't understand how you go from a - very clearly to me - thought-through understanding of the nuances of response to targeted banter, to your apparent mind-reading of your colleague's motivations. I'm not saying that his motivations weren't bound up with a desire to move back home, but you state it with such dogmatic certainty it undoes any reasonableness your previous arguments so convincingly showed.…

You're right, I can't for sure say that. I've left out some stuff, but it is sort of a "you had to be there" kind of things. A lot of small stuff added up.

He had been working 2-3 months at a job where it was clearly labeled as remote work is a one off privilege (Snowed in? Work remotely. Kid sick? Work remotely. In general, be in the office). Yet after the incident, his only demand was full time remote. He didn't care if people were reprimanded. He didn't care if he didn't have to see the people that offended him. Anyone who was actually bothered by the situation I feel would care more about having the situation corrected rather than just getting full time remote. "I don't like the culture in the programming area" - "we can move your desk so you aren't even within earshot of that area, and we'll make sure the programmers are more professional in their discussions" - "no, that won't do, I need to be full time remote"

We had previously invited this guy to partake in stuff on weekends with us. The one time he even said "maybe", he wound up going to visit his parents that weekend instead. This was not some sort of exclusionary tactic, and this was probably the first time he was "targeted" by something.

Also, I'm not going to say that the "bully" was in the right here. This was a person who was clearly not intending to be a friend. Keeping things limited to professional interactions only would have been just fine, I don't need to be friends with all my coworkers (though I could see being the only one in a department that isn't a friend as kind of intimidating, but again, that was by his decision, not anyone else's). This "bully" has a hard time determining when it is appropriate to make jokes or when he's pushing it too far. But this wasn't an exceptionally inappropriate comment in my mind.

I used a bit of hyperbole perhaps, but it truly did seem like a case of "straw that broke the camel's back." The incident very possibly did bother him, but it was an isolated incident, and any of the reparations offered to him should have worked. This was not a scenario of him being bullied constantly. In my mind, in any other scenario, this event could not have triggered the response it got. Quitting your job because they won't let you work remotely after someone says "we were talking about you when you weren't around" seems like an extreme response.

To that extent, I'm not assuming "the worst of him." He was a young homesick guy who was having an off day. Unfortunately, that off day was the day someone decided to include him in the office banter, and in that moment, he made a decision to go back home and made a last effort to keep his job while doing it.

Edit - point being that someone being constantly harassed for sexual, gender, religious, racial or whatever reasons, I can totally see making a "fuck this I'm out"... Maybe I'm too close to the situation to see why this guy was bothered so much, but his situation to me doesn't seem anything like the woman in the article's.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#673

Post by sanderjd » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

zepto wrote: post #307

sanderjd wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, we all live in our own bubble. You're right that I was being condescending. My goal was to point out that things that appear indelibly true to you may not be universally true throughout society. Probably not a fight worth having, oops!

To me? Or to the person you were replying to? In any case - I agree with you that we are at a time when we need to confront the fact that different social points of view can have equal validity and it's not just a matter of one side overpowering the other anymore.

I meant the collective "you". I think this is true of everyone.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#674

Post by sanderjd » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 3:57 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #315

sanderjd wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an indicator of the bubble you're living in. It may be common vernacular amongst all or nearly all of the people you interact with, but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful. It might be worth taking a step back and asking yourself what other things you consider normal might actually be disrespectful.

The fact that you see it as disrespectful is just as indicative of the bubble you live in. Everybody has one, and your statement has not been proven to have value outside of your own.

I agree with the part about everybody being in their own bubble (and I find my comment that you replied to rather cringe-y now in its implication otherwise), but I'm not sure about the part where my statement has not "proven to have value" outside my own bubble. I'm not totally sure what that means, but from my perspective, it is valuable to know when the things you say are disrespectful to a different set of people than the ones you usually interact with.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#675

Post by pen2l » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #618

mistermann wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean offense, but this comment seems completely insane to me - you are saying that in the majority of cases, anything insulting said among coworkers is meant as an insult rather than good-natured ribbing? I look at the world today and despite an absolutely massive improvement in acceptance of diversity, many so called minorities seem to think things are even worse. It makes me wonder if there is some sort of…

Coworkers are not friends as a general rule. You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers. As a consequence, the inter-coworker relationship is a highly artificial and delicate one. Good natured ribbing has no place in it.

> You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers.

I don't like that you say this. For us introverted folks, that's the only way some of us meet. This is, in a way, questioning the sincerity of my friendship with my coworker... with whom I'm now connected with pretty intimately. I know I became close with this person because I was forced to be with her 7 hours a day every weekday for 3 years. No way I would have become so connected were it not for this weird scenario.

And besides, when choosing friends myself I'm probably going to find like-minded people... life is more exciting the other way... and that's more likely to happen when relationships are made without your choice.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#676

Post by st3v3r » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 6:10 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #626

st3v3r wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not addressing my point. You're kinda just reinforcing the idea that "You don't have to work there" is ok to tell, say, Uber drivers, but not ok to tell you regarding a company having a union.

I am addressing your point. When you have a non-competitive market - e.g. yellow cabs prior to Uber, employment under current union rules - you often need extra regulation to protect people. If we want to create a competitive market - one where unions have no special legal powers, and employers can stop doing business with them if they choose - then eliminating these worker and employer protections might make sense.

So once again, it's ok to tell other people that, just not you.

And eliminating worker protections never makes sense. It then just becomes a race to see who can undo them the fastest.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#677

Post by Karunamon » Mon, Dec 19, 2016, 6:47 PM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #674

Karunamon wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you see it as disrespectful is just as indicative of the bubble you live in. Everybody has one, and your statement has not been proven to have value outside of your own.

I agree with the part about everybody being in their own bubble (and I find my comment that you replied to rather cringe-y now in its implication otherwise), but I'm not sure about the part where my statement has not "proven to have value" outside my own bubble. I'm not totally sure what that means, but from my perspective, it is valuable to know when the things you say are disrespectful to a different set of people…

That was more in reference to "but it is simultaneously highly disrespectful" as if it were a universal truism. It isn't.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#678

Post by tptacek » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 1:39 AM UTC

pen2l wrote: post #675

rayiner wrote: post #618

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coworkers are not friends as a general rule. You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers. As a consequence, the inter-coworker relationship is a highly artificial and delicate one. Good natured ribbing has no place in it.

> You get to choose your friends--you don't get to choose your conworkers. I don't like that you say this. For us introverted folks, that's the only way some of us meet. This is, in a way, questioning the sincerity of my friendship with my coworker... with whom I'm now connected with pretty intimately. I know I became close with this person because I was forced to be with her 7 hours a day every weekday for 3 years.…

Nobody is saying you can't befriend your coworkers. They're saying that you can't presume friendship with coworkers as an excuse to treat them unprofessionally.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#679

Post by smsowmya » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 6:17 AM UTC

qb45 wrote: post #670

mixedCase wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did read you claimed Apple apologized to you before I wrote that response. Which is why I asked where is the apology.

On her desk :) Why does it matter to you to see this damn paper? It seems to me that the OP deliberately avoids naming concrete people and publishing whatever paper trail she has. Which is probably a good thing, after some known cases of one-sided accounts published completely with details and real names resulting in lynch mobs against the accused and sometimes also against the victim. Discussion forums are not a cou…

this person is a troll - just read his comments. don't bother engaging.

Re: Harassment at Apple: A personal perspective

#680

Post by smsowmya » Tue, Dec 20, 2016, 6:29 AM UTC

Merad wrote: post #189

kalleth wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astonished this is as high as it is. > did she try to talk to her harassers directly before going to a manager? There are a huge number of reasons why you should not be expected to do this. The harasser can be in a position of authority, for example. Even separately to that (and i understand this is a reducio argument, but..) would you ask an abuse victim to speak to their abuser? No, they go straight to the poli…

> This is a problem that needs fixing, rather than a status quo that needs defending. This is not a problem that can realistically be fixed. An organization that's going to work for the best interests of employees cannot be paid by the company, nor can it report to the company or someone with whom the company has significant influence. That means unions.

sigh - but management can do a better job managing and if victims know what or how to recognize problems, they can be better prepared to deal with the situation more effectively. which is the point of this piece.