Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 116 posts

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#101

Post by DanBC »

jasode wrote: post #99
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone posting earnestly on this thread should be embarrassed. I'm even unhappy Patrick did.

I think you're overreacting here. Yes, the impetus of the original article was a weird "he said, she said" soap opera. And some comments are feeding on that aspect. However, it looks like majority of comments are focusing on the "right" way to deal with a MILF comment. Some members express that it is a zero tolerance offense. Some other members express that something like that should only be a warning and the person…

It's a productive discussion on the original ask HN thread.

It's less useful here, hanging off this poisonous blog post. Mean dumb things shouldn't get upvotes.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#102

Post by [deleted] »

jasode wrote: post #99
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone posting earnestly on this thread should be embarrassed. I'm even unhappy Patrick did.

I think you're overreacting here. Yes, the impetus of the original article was a weird "he said, she said" soap opera. And some comments are feeding on that aspect. However, it looks like majority of comments are focusing on the "right" way to deal with a MILF comment. Some members express that it is a zero tolerance offense. Some other members express that something like that should only be a warning and the person…

[deleted]

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#103

Post by dragonwriter »

noxToken wrote: post #54
jasode wrote: post #8

>So, I am female. Yes, but here's the way I read it: "I am [a] female" and you provided one anecdote for us to consider. (E.g. Working relationship turned out fine for you in the end.) Nonetheless, I don't read it as "I represent females". My experience behind closed doors with HR about harassing males is to err on the side of termination. Sure, if a man makes 2 offers for a "drinks after work?" and the woman refuses…

To preface this, I am not excusing the guy's behavior. However, I think I understand why he may have thought it was alright to call her a MILF. MILF became a really popular term in the early 00s. Back then, it was obviously vulgar. I think the term has been thrown around so casually, that to most people, it has lost its bite. Hell, morning zoo shows will drop MILF (even though the "F" is blatantly vulgar) without bat…

> To him, it was probably analogous to saying, "You look good. Really good. We should go out sometime," with the subtext of sex after the date.

I think its kind of odd to see this as a defense of the acceptability (even subjective from the POV of the speaker) of a comment after a rejection, in a conversation between coworkers, that originated in a work-related forum even if it had an intervening change of venue.

That's, at best, only marginally less problematic in context than the original statement. So, yeah, it is basically analogous to saying that -- which is exactly the problem.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#104

Post by kbenson »

jasode wrote: post #99
tptacek wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone posting earnestly on this thread should be embarrassed. I'm even unhappy Patrick did.

I think you're overreacting here. Yes, the impetus of the original article was a weird "he said, she said" soap opera. And some comments are feeding on that aspect. However, it looks like majority of comments are focusing on the "right" way to deal with a MILF comment. Some members express that it is a zero tolerance offense. Some other members express that something like that should only be a warning and the person…

> I was surprised to learn that MILF is not disrespectful enough for some folks to terminate the employee.

I suspect that some people are unclear of, or have suppressed in favor of the colloquial use, the definition or expanded form of MILF. If you think of it as "very attractive mother and/or mature woman", which I think the meaning has shifted to somewhat over time, then I can see how some people might have differing interpretations for the severity of the remark. That's not to say it's acceptable, it is not, but I can see how someone could be somewhat surprised initially the severity of the negative reaction to their comment, through ignorance or carelessness.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#105

Post by zepto »

busterarm wrote: post #87
zepto wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you have made this up. I can't see anywhere in the guidelines where there is any rule about not posting anything off-site relating to HN, or not identifying members of the community. There isn't even a rule against what you are choosing to label a 'personal attack', but looks reasonably civil to me. Even if there were such a rule, attempting to silence dissent outside the communities own spaces is behavior ty…

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906242 I'm not saying silence dissent outside HN. People are free to post on their blogs whatever they want. If they are making a personal attack against someone on HN on their personal blog, the link to that blog post should be blocked from this site and the user absolutely warned/banned if they themselves share it.

How do you know it's an attack and not just a statement of fact?

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#106

Post by busterarm »

zepto wrote: post #105
busterarm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906242 I'm not saying silence dissent outside HN. People are free to post on their blogs whatever they want. If they are making a personal attack against someone on HN on their personal blog, the link to that blog post should be blocked from this site and the user absolutely warned/banned if they themselves share it.

How do you know it's an attack and not just a statement of fact?

I don't think whether it's an attack or not has much to do with the factual basis of a private disagreement that they had 4 years ago and how that speaks to patio11's character or the quality of his advice now.

Not that I'm sticking up for Patrick. I frequently find myself in (often silent) disagreement with him, but the post was extremely flimsy to me and not much more than an offsite meta-discussion that contributes neither to the original discussion nor this community. I flagged the link but since it remains I think this is worth discussing.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#107

Post by noxToken »

dragonwriter wrote: post #103
noxToken wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To preface this, I am not excusing the guy's behavior. However, I think I understand why he may have thought it was alright to call her a MILF. MILF became a really popular term in the early 00s. Back then, it was obviously vulgar. I think the term has been thrown around so casually, that to most people, it has lost its bite. Hell, morning zoo shows will drop MILF (even though the "F" is blatantly vulgar) without bat…

> To him, it was probably analogous to saying, "You look good. Really good. We should go out sometime," with the subtext of sex after the date. I think its kind of odd to see this as a defense of the acceptability (even subjective from the POV of the speaker) of a comment after a rejection, in a conversation between coworkers, that originated in a work-related forum even if it had an intervening change of venue. That…

I'm not defending him. When someone makes a transgression, especially such a blatant one, I always try to reason why would the person do that in the first place. If someone kills another person, it's very likely that they didn't do it just for fun.

So if an action is so egregious, why risk your career over it? I figure it's because he didn't equate MILF with crossing any line. Otherwise, why would he bother to regroup and try again after getting rejected? I cannot fathom why someone would act in such a way that they'd get fired if they knew beforehand that they were in the wrong . Which, as you said, is the issue: he (not me) didn't think that there was anything wrong with what he said.

And for the umpteenth time, his words and actions were NOT acceptable. I just want to reason through something that seems so obviously wrong to me.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#108

Post by zepto »

busterarm wrote: post #106
zepto wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it's an attack and not just a statement of fact?

I don't think whether it's an attack or not has much to do with the factual basis of a private disagreement that they had 4 years ago and how that speaks to patio11's character or the quality of his advice now. Not that I'm sticking up for Patrick. I frequently find myself in (often silent) disagreement with him, but the post was extremely flimsy to me and not much more than an offsite meta-discussion that contribute…

If it's not an attack then everything you've said on this thread is invalidated.

You may not be sticking up for Patrick, but you are sticking up for something. In the absence of an attack, it's unclear what.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#109

Post by dragonwriter »

zepto wrote: post #105
busterarm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10906242 I'm not saying silence dissent outside HN. People are free to post on their blogs whatever they want. If they are making a personal attack against someone on HN on their personal blog, the link to that blog post should be blocked from this site and the user absolutely warned/banned if they themselves share it.

How do you know it's an attack and not just a statement of fact?

Its an attack whether or not its a statement of fact.

Re: Lawyer lawyer lawyer LAWYER lawyer LAWYER

#110

Post by busterarm »

zepto wrote: post #108
busterarm wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think whether it's an attack or not has much to do with the factual basis of a private disagreement that they had 4 years ago and how that speaks to patio11's character or the quality of his advice now. Not that I'm sticking up for Patrick. I frequently find myself in (often silent) disagreement with him, but the post was extremely flimsy to me and not much more than an offsite meta-discussion that contribute…

If it's not an attack then everything you've said on this thread is invalidated. You may not be sticking up for Patrick, but you are sticking up for something. In the absence of an attack, it's unclear what.

It's absolutely an attack.
Post reply on HN