Dress code: blue tie and male • Hacker News Board

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#141

Post by philwelch » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:07 AM UTC

essayist wrote: post #87

philwelch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences. Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability. The only downside is that it upsets intelligent people like you and I who are capable of actually parsing and understanding these kinds of st…

IANAL, but in various contexts, apologies actually work to defuse the situation and prevent legal action. I've read research into malpractice and product negligence that indicates that sincere apologies actually reduce lawsuits, because, in many cases, the lawsuits are sparked not by the initial negligent act, but rather by stone-walling. I can't find those references tonight, alas. But there is this research into pr…

That's probably true when dealing with decent people. I think the reason lawyers don't recommend that is because lawyers are professional assholes of a sort. I don't mean that as a slur on lawyers; I just mean that they're experts on what an asshole could do, and they use this knowledge to protect you from assholes. (Or alternatively, if you are an asshole, they help you achieve your aims.) Clearly an asshole would take a sincere apology and turn it around to crucify you. So lawyers recommend asshole-proof non-apologies instead.

This is, incidentally, also the rationale behind never talking to the police: unlike aggrieved customers, police more or less are professional assholes. It's not their fault per se, and it's not a slur on police officers, but even more than lawyers, police are more or less constrained by the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system to be total assholes almost all the time. Actually, this asshole theory seems to explain a lot about the legal system, for instance why divorcing couples seem to be total assholes to each other as soon as they both lawyer up.

Your point is that most people aren't assholes, and can be reasoned with. Fair enough! But there are assholes, and eventually you get bit by them, which is how big companies develop lawyerly antibodies to them. As for politicians, they're all lawyers already, and it's practically their job to be assholes to each other, and if they slip up there are plenty of assholes in the press to make up for it so appealing to the people's better nature is automatically more difficult.

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#142

Post by megablast » Mon, May 14, 2012, 1:06 PM UTC

aperrien wrote: post #114

josephcooney wrote: post #85

Picture this if you will: Half way through Mads Christensen's 'spot/tirade' Michael Dell walks onto the stage carrying a microphone. Mad's microphone goes dead. "Well Mads, I know we (Dell) asked you to come along and speak today" says Michael "but your views about women are very, very wrong. They don't represent my views, the views of my company, and they have no place at this conference. We're going to have a 15-mi…

I agree. I cannot see why he did not do this, as not doing it implies that he's really just a shadow of his former self... Sad, really.

Where you there at the show? Is this whole thing being overblown?

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#143

Post by fusiongyro » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:14 PM UTC

chives wrote: post #112

fusiongyro wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "This guy engaged in straightfaced serious misogynistic commentary" is a different criticism to "This guy should not have been hired for this particular venue". Actually, in this case, in America, the former implies the latter. This kind of rhetoric simply isn't appropriate in this kind of venue, whether it's meant comedically or not.

After reading the chain of comments above, I can't help but find your comment inappropriate. A) Someone gave a back story, that this guys is a actually a comedian. Do I get upset when a comedian makes fun of fat people? No, whether people laugh or not, it is quite obvious that it was a joke. Granted, it sounds like this guy was not funny despite females getting tossed under the proverbial bus, leading to point B) Whe…

It's amusing to me that you construe my comment as inappropriate, but not this guy telling a room full of technical conference goers to tell their wives "Shut up, bitch!" I haven't even use a swear word yet.

Of course this comic has the right to say this. Of course the company has a right to hire him. What I'm saying is that, in America, if a company did this, they would face the consequences. If people are offended because your company appears to support misogyny, you will lose business and "but he's a comedian!" will not suffice as an apology. At least, if you have been projecting an image of corporate neutrality. I suppose if your brand identity is, we're a bunch of brogrammer morons, it probably would help your image. But we're not talking about a company like that, we're talking about Dell.

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#144

Post by fusiongyro » Mon, May 14, 2012, 8:16 PM UTC

johnpowell wrote: post #102

etherael wrote: post #79

I know it's fashionable to have a knee jerk reaction and not actually check backstory etc, but just quietly. http://www.madschristensen-foredrag.dk/mc/Aktuelt-og-media This guy is clearly a comedian / over the top on purpose, to say that he actually genuinely believes the purposefully crafted bullshit on display in this particular article is to say that Les Patterson from Australia actually thinks that it's appropria…

I'm pretty sure Andrew Dice Clay will not be on stage at WWDC.

Thank you, I've been struggling to remember his name since I heard about this! That sounds like exactly what this would be like.

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#145

Post by baddox » Tue, May 15, 2012, 12:32 AM UTC

cbsmith wrote: post #139

baddox wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're saying. You say that an apology is an expression of regret, but then you say that Dell's apology isn't an expression of regret. Are you just saying that the Dell statement should have been more explicit?

I'm not sure he agrees that it is an apology. I think it is more fair to say is that they expressed regret, but the only regret they expressed is that other people were offended by what they did. The conclusion is that if they had it to do over again, and they could find a way to do it without offending those people (keeping it secret perhaps?), they'd do it.

But finding a way to do it without offending people is a perfectly fine solution, since the only bad thing that happened was that people were offended. I made that point in a previous comment.

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#146

Post by board7786 » Tue, May 15, 2012, 12:47 AM UTC

While some might say I've missed the point of the article for making the following comment, I think it's somewhat relevant to the whole concept of the author's argument:

USE SPELLCHECK.

I don't disagree with the sentiments of the author. The tech industry is one that is very much male dominated, and one where women are very much underrepresented. Some of the brightest people I have worked with in my time in the tech field have been women, and I welcome the opportunity to work with them; or anyone regardless of race, creed, color, background or sex, as long as they're intelligent and can do their job and do it well.

But when I read something put up for public display on a high-traffic blog such as this, and the author forgets to use spell check... I can't help but point it out.

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#147

Post by Tichy » Tue, May 15, 2012, 9:28 AM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #25

How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."? I am so tired of it, it has become a cliche. When did the business world/lawyers decide this was the optimal legal response to customers? My blood boils every time I read it as it is the most disingenuous, calculated, shallow tripe you can trot out when you fuck up. What ever happened to just owning up to you…

What would be the better apology? Giving one million dollars to everyone in the audience, for mental pain inflicted?

Re: Dress code: blue tie and male

#148

Post by cbsmith » Tue, May 15, 2012, 11:19 AM UTC

gfodor wrote: post #62

cbsmith wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think there are lots of cases where it is perfectly warranted. It's a big world; if you are on the world stage, it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do. There are experts in the fields of diplomacy and etiquette who devote their careers to getting this stuff right, and usually even then there is someone offended about efforts to be so "proper". ;-) So, I think it is a perfectly v…

I don't understand this viewpoint. What is an apology? An apology, at least to me, is a statement that you regret an action you performed, and hence are saying that if you were transported back in time and could relive that moment, you would have acted differently. Saying you are "sorry people were offended" does not imply that you would have acted differently. If you do not wish you would have acted differently, do…

> An apology, at least to me, is a statement that you regret an action you performed, and hence are saying that if you were transported back in time and could relive that moment, you would have acted differently.

I've been trying to think of how to express a response to this which is clear. Here's my best shot.

One can regret actions one performed, or actions one didn't perform. If you were to express such regret for either, it'd be deemed an apology.

Strictly speaking, "regret" doesn't imply that could you relive the moment, you would have acted differently. As per the dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regret

1. To feel sorry, disappointed, or distressed about.

The negative consequences of an action or inaction is apparent only in hindsight. You might do something differently if transported back in time, if you somehow had that hindsight, but feel absent that impossible scenario, you acted as could be expected by anyone, including yourself.

Finally, you may have faced what amounts to a no-win situation, where there was no way to choose outcomes that would avoid negative consequences for someone else without betraying some defining principle by which you choose to live your life. You may regret your actions (or lack thereof) and their consequences for others, without feeling there was a way to do better.

Really, there is a lot more nuance and variation available on this.