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

Apology

felleisen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 282 posts

Re: Apology

#251

Post by okaram »

JadeNB wrote: post #109
nyokodo wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one owes it to any of us to "put up" with how we treat them. No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away.

> No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away. I think this is a key word, though— we owe it to ourselves . We can say "boy, I did a poor job confronting that bully today." But no-one else owes it to us; we are, I think, unjustified in saying, "boy, Matth…

I'd modify that statement a little. If I'm in a position of power, I owe it to less-powerful people in my 'team' to protect them from bullies.

In a work situation, I would expect my boss to 'defend' me, or at least defuse the situation if somebody was berating me.

Re: Apology

#252

Post by haswell »

threepio wrote: post #250
haswell wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can only speculate on whether he attempted to resolve this in private or not. My preference is that things like this should be addressed privately. I realize that this is not always possible, and at times, a public "shaming" is the only way to make progress. My objection is to Matthew's insistence on taking a private email and making it public without permission, and then acting like he holds some authority to "pe…

1) No, you don't need to speculate. He describes three years of events that all happened in private (with no resolution). Starting from the very first sentence of the piece ("In January 2020, I told two members of Racket’s core team …") 2) The private email is relevant because its message is so starkly at odds with the public statement. It goes directly to the whole thesis of the piece: that bullies gain power throug…

1) Nowhere does he say he ever attempted to address this in private. You could argue that "Matthias should have apologized unprompted", and I agree, but I think it's clear that this was behavior that had to be confronted. My comment about speculating is about prior attempts to resolve this privately, and as far as we can tell, that never happened (we also don't know it didn't happen, because Matthew never comments on this).

2) I'm reacting here because Matthew's message regarding the private communication is also starkly self-contradictory.

He starts by saying:

> I believe in the norm that private commu­ni­ca­tions should remain so, unless everyone agrees. So I’m going to para­phrase his message. If Felleisen feels mischar­ac­ter­ized, I give him permis­sion to publish it.

He seems to believe that by not publishing the exact words, he's somehow free of his own belief that "unless everyone agrees, private communication should remain so". What he's actually doing is proceeding to publish the private communication anyway by using a technical workaround, despite not having the agreement he called out moments before.

Again, I want to be extremely clear: I'm not defending Matthias here, at all. But Matthew is not being true to his own statements, and while this shouldn't invalidate his message, it certainly doesn't look great as a tactic, either.

Re: Apology

#253

Post by YuriNiyazov »

gautamcgoel wrote: post #116
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #79

@dang could we please unflag this? If the original message stayed up and was not flagged, this should remain too.

Dumb question: does the @ actually do anything on HN?

No; it's just that "dang" it's also a word in English, so the "@" is there to disambiguate.

Re: Apology

#254

Post by JadeNB »

okaram wrote: post #251
JadeNB wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away. I think this is a key word, though— we owe it to ourselves . We can say "boy, I did a poor job confronting that bully today." But no-one else owes it to us; we are, I think, unjustified in saying, "boy, Matth…

I'd modify that statement a little. If I'm in a position of power, I owe it to less-powerful people in my 'team' to protect them from bullies. In a work situation, I would expect my boss to 'defend' me, or at least defuse the situation if somebody was berating me.

Yes, I agree with this amendment.

Re: Apology

#255

Post by vanderZwan »

boredtofears wrote: post #111
jwcacces wrote: post #19

The only one who can judge the worthiness of this apology is Matthew Butterick himself. As for me, this sounds like the first steps of the self realization process Matthias should go through in an effort to better himself. Let's not judge it to harshly. Rather let's encourage him to keep on walking down that path of self improvement that we all should be on.

> first steps of the self realization process Every time I see a well written apology letter, I cringe at all the self-actualization rhetoric people respond to it with. As if they must do more and become some kind of Buddhist monk before true retribution is to be awarded to them.

The apology is in response to being called out on one example in decades of behavior so toxic that a significant number of people have left academia, an otherwise amazing open source project and who knows what else, as a result of it. This has been confirmed by many people at this point.

An apology in that context is a starting point, a request to open a door that has been shut by the abuser themselves. An apology doesn't actually fix anything regarding the toxic behavior, and not getting the benefit of doubt that ths behavior, again, with a track record of decades, is suddenly over is not just completely justified, it would be naive to do otherwise.

And to think that this kind of hesitance at trusting someone who has so systemically violated it for. decades. has anything to do with "awarding retribution" or "becoming like a Buddhist monk" is incredibly tone deaf.

Re: Apology

#256

Post by WalterBright »

jolux wrote: post #245
WalterBright wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't blaming the victim any more than taking a self-defense class is blaming the victim. Nor is it making excuses for bullies any more than locking your door at night is excusing thieves.

I mean you said that behavior that offends is partially the fault of the person taking offense, I don’t understand how that’s not blaming the victim here. Having a thick skin is important but I question your priorities when your response to somebody not wanting to be woken up by a screaming phone call at 3am is “there’s no crying in baseball.”

> you said that behavior that offends is partially the fault of the person taking offense

I did not say that. Please read more carefully.

Re: Apology

#257

Post by dalmo3 »

blagie wrote: post #212
goto11 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard from people close to him that that's just the way he is and you have to get used to it. Perhaps, but usually bullies are only bullies when they are in a position of power and are perfectly capable of behaving different to people who have power over them. How often to you hear about employees calling their boss and screaming at the boss at 3 in the morning? Strangely this rarely happens. > What if not und…

I know a lot of people like that. I'm from a culture which is perceived as abrasive, harsh, critical, and aggressive in the US. That goes up, down, and sideways. We're often perceived as bullies until we learn to code-switch. African Americans get a pass here, since most people are familiar enough with African American culture and mannerisms to know how (or at least that) people use language differently, body languag…

If you're trying to equate "fake smiling" to "waking people up at 3am" then you're presenting a great argument against cultural relativism.

Re: Apology

#258

Post by WalterBright »

throw3456548 wrote: post #226
WalterBright wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> what should be done with people who interact poorly with others but are talented and driven? Just do not take their behavior personally. So what if he insults you. It takes two to make an offense - one to give offense, the other to take offense. Don't take offense, and there is no offense. > makes students cry There's no crying in baseball. If you live to be my age, you'll experience the death of people you love. S…

You're getting downvoted, but there is some truth to this. Many years later, when I was much more confident in my career, I took a very well paid but short contract gig with a horrible boss. I found that the best way to deal with his outbursts was to find them funny. Screaming at the team for not making an arbitrary deadline he never told anyone about -- there's something comical about that. HOWEVER I would never wan…

You bring up a good point - a third category. The hardass who pushes you to be your best. The other two:

1. the bully who enjoys hurting others

2. the socially inept person who means no harm

They're very different.

As for a hardass, there's a story about Chuck Yeager who was assigned to command an Air Force base during the Korean War. Upon arrival, he went out to the field to watch the airmen land. Afterwards, he laid into them for their sloppy landings. He got some paint and laid down two lines cross-wise across the runway, and said they were going to take off and land with the wheels touching down between the lines.

One of the pilots told him that was impossible and unreasonable.

Yeager then got into an airplane, took off, made a circuit and touched his wheels down dead center between the lines. He didn't get any more crap from the pilots.

Me, I'd want to work for a hardass like that. Yeager wanted his pilots to be successful, and that means demanding perfection. I don't want a cake and ice cream commander, I'd want one who was a hardass, and keep me and my buddies alive.

You might also want to read "With The Old Breed" by Sledge. He thought boot camp was unreasonable, the drill sergeants too harsh, etc. In his combat at Tarawa, which was horrific, he realized that what kept him alive was the hardass training he got in boot camp.

On a gentler note, one of my profs at Caltech was demanding and a bit harsh. Other students had a bit of a negative opinion of him, but frankly I thrived in his class because of that. Working with demanding and "no excuses" people brings out the best in me.

Re: Apology

#259

Post by wolverine876 »

RobertKerans wrote: post #201
wolverine876 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've heard from people close to him that that's just the way he is and you have to get used to it. It's an issue of power. If they didn't have power, nobody would say that. If a student behaved that way toward Felleisen, certainly nobody would say that to Felleisen. Power corrupts.

Or it reveals?

No more than opportunities to do good reveal. We all have good and bad in us. Today you have an opportunity - do some good!

Re: Apology

#260

Post by jolux »

WalterBright wrote: post #256
jolux wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you said that behavior that offends is partially the fault of the person taking offense, I don’t understand how that’s not blaming the victim here. Having a thick skin is important but I question your priorities when your response to somebody not wanting to be woken up by a screaming phone call at 3am is “there’s no crying in baseball.”

> you said that behavior that offends is partially the fault of the person taking offense I did not say that. Please read more carefully.

> It takes two to make an offense - one to give offense, the other to take offense. Don't take offense, and there is no offense.

What else does this mean?

Post reply on HN