251–260 of 485 posts
This is the most reasonable statement I've seen so far in this whole fiasco. It's a shame he took so long to post it; it should have been the first SendGrid comment this morning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An interesting question. I think in an ethical sense, there would be no blame to someone like Richard Dawkins for publishing an anti-religious book. I do agree there could be a causal link: Dawkins's university or publisher might receive threats as a result of his atheist advocacy. But who is really to blame for these threats? I would argue it is the people who would make threats in response to atheist advocacy who a…
I agree that those offering the threats would be to blame but what we were discussing was the cause , who in this case is Adria. Ethics are tricky, and I don't think there are blanket wrong or right answers here. I agree that simply placating a baying mob by tossing someone (metaphorically) to the wolves is not necessarily ethically right from all perspectives, but therein lies the problem: it's about perspective. We…
This is not really the case, either as a matter of ethics or a matter of law. It's a widespread myth that there is an overriding legal responsibility to "maximize shareholder value", but that is not the case, and the myth is based on an over-reading of a century-old Supreme Court case that is no longer valid law. Companies have quite broad discretion to operate how their executives see fit, with expansive authority to take into account ethical or PR/brand considerations in their decisions. In modern caselaw, the shareholders are presumed to agree with their actions by the fact that they continue to keep the executives in place, rather than replacing them, as they have the power to do. Courts refuse to second-guess decisions absent very specific showings of conflict, such as insider dealings; if an executive thinks that a company should pursue a particular ethical strategy, and the shareholders keep him in place, courts are satisfied that they implicitly believe the strategy is in their interests.
As far as publishers go, I do think it would be ethically irresponsible for a publisher to drop Dawkins. A publisher that only wants to make money is a worthless social cancer. They may be legally entitled to do what they do, but nobody should support them.
It's also worth noting that these kinds of decisions can negatively impact reputation as well. I now consider SendGrid to be unethical cowards who I will not do business with, whereas previously they were a company I was strongly interested in using. I will not use them now. I may well be outnumbered by people who think the opposite, but the PR effect is not only in one direction. It's particularly relevant to an email firm, because I now believe they would sell me out as a customer as well, if anything I sent angered anyone. I suspect they would blame me for a DDoS rather than sticking up for their customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it's a lack of consistency. This is required of every person making a claim, not her specifically, so this has nothing to do with ad hominem.
If this is about lack of consistency, then where's the lack of consistency? Did Adria go to a conference (or other professional space) and start telling lewd jokes? I don't think so. Your argument is basically akin to saying that, because I told some dirty jokes to my friends in private, I'm never allowed to complain when someone tells a dirty joke in public.
Ah, Twitter is now considered private but two devs speaking in their chairs are pretty much delivering a speech.
Besides, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you're not allowed to do these things, but you shouldn't be allowed to complain about it, just like senators who watch porn lose credibility when passing laws against all forms of porn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c This is an excellent example of why you should never use Twitter to have a nuanced discussion. It depends on your definition of racism, and most scholarly definitions are "power and prejudice." In other words, a white person who is in the majority has more power than a black person (think Silicon Valley[1]), so the actual impact of the prejudice has a greater magnitude that turns it into "r…
> It depends on your definition of racism racism - dictionary 1.The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. 2.Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief. This is the original definition of the word - 1 year ago, 10 years ago, 100 y…
A dictionary only outlines common usage (it does not provide context), and I indicated the common usage in my comment as well. If you ever want to make a nuanced argument, you must clearly define (and sometimes re-define) the words you are using! Otherwise, someone with a dictionary or a thesaurus can quickly distort your intentions by distorting the original meaning outside of its original context.
Take a look at my other response below -- it may clear things up a little, but my point still stands: Adria was not using "racism" the same way you are defining "racism," and just because she did a poor job of explaining her position on Twitter does not automatically invalidate her opinions (it just means her opinions were not adequately explained).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions
Or do you accept this definition as superior to one in a Physics textbook? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gravity?s=t
They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, making the reader think otherwise - that she was the victim. At the same time (or around that time) this was happening, here is a conversation she was having - http://i.imgur.com/nRC5J7f.png Another gem from years ago - http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c I'd imagine she was…
> http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c My first thought was that this quote must be something made up by 4chan users to smear her or something, but it appear to be for real: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven't paid too much attention to this story and completely missed it when it first occurred (though I've been a Sendgrid customer are their product is great) but your highlights are very relevant. This is the kind of employee you would refer to as a wild card. You just don't know what they are going to do and you have to do your best to keep them out of your company. Unfortunately for Sendgrid, if she files a sex…
Such a lawsuit would be a confirmed kill on her career though. At least now she has a chance to someday salvage her work. Adding a lawsuit to the mix will probably mean she'll never be hired by anyone (who can read and is on the web) again.
It's actually illegal to research job applicants in some jurisdictions. For instance, Finland.
https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/15/finnish-emp...
FTA: "Publicly shaming the offenders – and bystanders – was not the appropriate way to handle the situation." So you publicly fire your employee? You hypocrites! If an employer decides it's necessary to let someone go because of a debacle like what's happened here, that's fine. But let the person go with dignity and respect, even if the person doesn't deserve it. If you publicly throw your employees under the bus, wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such a lawsuit would be a confirmed kill on her career though. At least now she has a chance to someday salvage her work. Adding a lawsuit to the mix will probably mean she'll never be hired by anyone (who can read and is on the web) again.
Adding a lawsuit to the mix will probably mean she'll never be hired by anyone (who can read and is on the web) again. It's actually illegal to research job applicants in some jurisdictions. For instance, Finland. https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/infolaw/2006/11/15/finnish-emp...
I don't have to tell you I'm not hiring you because I Googled your past and did't like it. I can just tell you that you're not a good fit for our company.