A Difficult Situation

Argh, Jesus, I'm sick of people misrepresenting this tweet!

She's not saying that black people can't make racist statements and that they get a completely free pass when it comes to being racists. She's not. Stop saying that she is.

She's defining racism with a particularly sociological bent. She's saying that racism is an act by an oppressor towards the oppressed. When an oppressed person insults an oppressor they are operating within a power structure that has them at a disadvantage.

When she says "black people can't be racist towards white people" she is saying "the oppressed cannot, themselves, oppress their oppressors". That's why they're called "the oppressed".

Regardless of what you or I may say about her character, dragging this tweet out as evidence of her hypocrisy smacks of willful ignorance.

holy shit, common sense

That brings about something interesting. While I completely believe that what SendGrid did was justified, what if it had occurred as a result of some other, more nuanced statement than the accusation in question?

For example, I believe that the second amendment allows Americans ownership of AR-15s, which some people refer to as 'assault rifles'. This is a hot button issue right now, and there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate. If I posted something that somehow offended approximately half of our customers (assuming approximately half of the people fall on either side of the debate) would that be terminable? Where is the threshold? If I post it from a company Twitter feed?

What is the right recourse if I said something that isn't particularly offensive to my employer, but harvests bad will from potential or current customers? Is "Developer Evangelist" a 'star-like' job position where I lose my right to privacy as a result of it?

Note, all these questions are hypothetical, but I'm curious as to exactly what degree of nonsense a company might be expected to put up with.

I would not call using the reporters public forum that they most likely grew out of their career built because of the association with NY Times as a fair medium for candid discussion. This reporter's duty is to the editors and to the readers of the paper until this reporter is no longer employed by NY Times.

Ethics clauses are signed at date of hire for exactly reasons like this one. Companies want you to be part of their brand when you join their ranks. For positions that require a public forum, that includes off-hours as well.

NY Post will most likely be calling that reporter for a high-level visible position within the hour of the firing. So not all hope is lost, but depends on what kind of brand you want to speak for.

What to say about this? The whole thing is a real train-wreck.

Yes, the two guys --if they truly behaved as accused-- were being dumb. No, they were probably not being malicious. They were being guys. We can be morons at times. No they were not going to rape or molest anyone. It was just a dumb moment. And one of them lost his job for it. Probably the wrong outcome.

And then there's this woman. Ready to jump the gun and not realize these dudes were just being idiots. Something which guys can do very well. Someone with more experience could have simply turned around and said something like "Hey, guys, c'mon, spare me the sexual jokes. You are being really rude.". Which would have elicited a red-faced apology from the guys and probably the potential for new friends and "Boy, were we a couple of idiots or what? Conversation". Everyone learns.

I think largely due to her lack of life experience she chose the wrong option. Is this a meme today? Dump your life onto the Internet and let the hordes sort it out? The problem with this choice is that it isn't private in any way and you loose control the minute you do it. As she did. And it cost her a job. Which is a shame.

It reminds me of a story I was told as a kid about telling lies being akin to ripping open a feather pillow atop a windy mountain. Once you do that it is nearly impossible to retrieve every feather.

There are probably multiple lessons to be learned here by all involved, including casual observers:

- Your actions have consequences. Be prepared to accept them as they are a result of your own decisions.

- Don't put your life on display on the Internet. Few of those looking through the glass are your friends. A lot of harm could come from being so open.

- Think before you act. And then think again. I was taught the "10M-10D-10Y" rating scale for the evaluation of situations requiring your response. You ask yourself three questions:

10M = Will this situation have a significant effect on me, my family, friends and loved ones within the next ten minutes?

10D = Same question, ten day period.

10Y = Same question, ten+ year period.

If a situation will become completely and utterly unimportant in ten minutes, it isn't even worth a response. Guy cutting you off on the road. Someone lobbying an insult in your direction. A jerk challenging you on HN. Your kid dropped a glass on the floor and broke it. etc.

If there will be consequences for ten days or so, take a look at the situation and decide on an appropriate and measured response to the problem. Someone stole your credit card of wallet. The IRS wants a tax return. You got a parking ticket. etc.

If, on the other hand, the situation is such that it would affect you, your family and/or those close to you for ten or more years, the response would be vastly different. An extreme example would be that of being held-up at gun-point with your kids next to you. Or, possibly, doing a really stupid thing that affects your career for a long time (maybe not ten years, but years nevertheless).

Anyhow, the point is that our actions have consequences and, unfortunately here are two folks who --fair or not-- will never forget the choices they made that day.