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

A Difficult Situation

blog.sendgrid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 485 posts

Re: A Difficult Situation

#361

Post by runewell »

rscale wrote: post #278
powertower wrote: post #98

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…

Let's remember: she never asked for him to get fired. And I don't think that was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of her comments. The fact that he was fired leads me to two probable conclusions: 1) that his management was terrible and he'll end up someplace better; or 2) that he was about to be fired anyway. If his management was terrible, it's not a sad story for him in the long-term. If they were going to fire him…

It's not reasonable to assume negative outcomes for people you publicly display as "ass-hat" sexists to 9000+ of their peers?

Re: A Difficult Situation

#362

Post by cheapsteak »

stephengillie wrote: post #326
cletus wrote: post #318

I'm honestly surprised that anyone is attacking Sendgrid, defending Ms Richards, attacking PyCon or defending Playhaven in this incident. The fact is that what you do reflects on your employer to a degree. If you're a developer evangelist, that's quite a high degree, particularly if you drag them into your public spat. Most people in the media (news readers and so forth) have a "morals clause" in their contract becau…

The joke was between 2 people seated behind her -- were both engineers at Playhaven? Was the other person fired? Edit: Why the downvotes? Is there something I've missed? Does this comment really prevent further discussion on the issue?

Yes they were both engineers at Playhaven. The other person was not fired. It would make little sense to fire someone for being told a joke.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#363

Post by khuey »

geoelectric wrote: post #233
powertower wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure she has grounds for a lawsuit. SendGrid received quite allot of customer complaints about her. Customers were quitting them, and/or making threats of going to a competitor. Then they got DDoSed over this. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they are located in a - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment - state.

California is at-will, but with a good-faith rider. Arbitrarily or maliciously firing someone would probably be grounds for a dispute. I don't think that dispute would be successful in this case, where some demonstrably poor judgment with predictable consequences was used, but IANAL. Edit: but as pointed out below, this company is in CO.

They appear to be based in Colorado.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#364

Post by entropy_ »

eridius wrote: post #315
devcpp wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

No, Twitter isn't private, but neither is it forcing anyone to read it. Those two guys forced the people around them to listen to a lewd joke, whether or not they intended to. There's also a matter of context. A personal twitter stream is a very different context than a professional event. If I'm friends with my coworkers, I may hang out with them after work, and a dirty joke then is perfectly acceptable. But with th…

Well, yes and no. If you're the kind of person who sometimes, in some contexts makes lewd jokes and is not offended by them, then simply being in another context when hearing them shouldn't offend you. It might make you cringe at the incongruence but it won't offend.

Furthermore, you wouldn't then see yourself as a "hero" for publicly shaming the people who made said lewd joke. Simply turning around and telling them that what they're doing isn't appropriate.

Also, it's not like those two developers were using a microphone or loudspeaker or some such device, they were just chatting away behind her and talking to each other. Sometimes we forget that people may overhear us when we talk to each other in a public setting. In that context is inappropriate speech(not sexist, not outright wrong, just inappropriate for that context) grounds for public shaming and firing when you simply could've forgotten(or not thought about) being overheard?

I just think that she went overboard with the reaction and even seeing herself as heroic for doing something like that. The fact that she makes jokes like that in a different context simply shows that it couldn't have been that offensive to her(maybe just cringe-worthy) to warrant such a reaction.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#365

Post by marbletiles »

DannyBee wrote: post #207
taligent wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this is the most ridiculous logic I've seen for a while. Just because I send two emails from my Gmail account doesn't mean they are related and/or relevant.

I'm sorry, are we really discussing whether a person having recently made jokes about penises in public is relevant to whether it's okay for that same person to publicly shame two guys she accused of making jokes about penises in public?

Yes, because the contexts are wildly different, and so are the genders of the jokers. In terms of power relations, this is exactly the same as how people of colour can use the N-word and white people can't.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#366

Post by mtrimpe »

vacri wrote: post #263
mtrimpe wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My respect for raganwald just shot through the roof after reading that. As far as I'm concerned that is the most reasonable response so far, by a long shot.

Go read Amanda Blum's piece instead, as it actually has insight and thought behind it. This is just a bit of humour, making egregious errors like "the internet will never forget" (seriously, how many scandals has the internet forgotten?) and "careers are permanently ended" (again, seriously, look at any number of successful public figures and the gaffes they made earlier in life).

I read Amanda's piece and until raganwald's it was indeed the best piece I had read so far.

Amanda however vilifies Aria because she considers her too easily offended and finds her feminist agenda obnoxious.

I don't, because I believe she has the right to be a slightly obnoxious feminist and we should be defending her right to be that, even when we don't personally agree with it.

Raganwald expresses my more deep-seated feelings on the topic much more powerfully in this well crafted piece of satire.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#367

Post by [deleted] »

runewell wrote: post #361
rscale wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's remember: she never asked for him to get fired. And I don't think that was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of her comments. The fact that he was fired leads me to two probable conclusions: 1) that his management was terrible and he'll end up someplace better; or 2) that he was about to be fired anyway. If his management was terrible, it's not a sad story for him in the long-term. If they were going to fire him…

It's not reasonable to assume negative outcomes for people you publicly display as "ass-hat" sexists to 9000+ of their peers?

[deleted]

Re: A Difficult Situation

#368

Post by ceol »

burntsushi wrote: post #354
ceol wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except nothing happened to him. He wasn't reported, he wasn't fired, his photo wasn't taken. So obviously it's not the same as those jokes.

That's irrelevant. Here's the concluding mark from the quote: > but the fact that someone who's "on their side" is concerned that their feet will be held to this fire is evidence that there is a lack of empathy from all sides of the debate, and that's a bad thing. He didn't say it was the same. He was commenting on his feelings and his perception of the social atmosphere.

Yeah, but he tried to use it as an example of something that could lead someone to shame him. But... it didn't happen. I don't know many people who would shame someone for assuming an unknown programmer is a man. It sucks, because it does kind of exclude women, but the default gender in our lexicon is aliased to "male." It was pretty tough for me to stop using it and start using "they" instead. It wasn't as tough for me to stop saying dick jokes in public.

And I'd like someone to link me to where these two guys, who are still anonymous by the way, are being "lambasted around the world." Because there's only one person being lambasted, and I'll give you one guess who it is.

I don't think me disproving their example, which is essential to their point, is irrelevant. I think it's very relevant.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#369

Post by [deleted] »

stephengillie wrote: post #326
cletus wrote: post #318

I'm honestly surprised that anyone is attacking Sendgrid, defending Ms Richards, attacking PyCon or defending Playhaven in this incident. The fact is that what you do reflects on your employer to a degree. If you're a developer evangelist, that's quite a high degree, particularly if you drag them into your public spat. Most people in the media (news readers and so forth) have a "morals clause" in their contract becau…

The joke was between 2 people seated behind her -- were both engineers at Playhaven? Was the other person fired? Edit: Why the downvotes? Is there something I've missed? Does this comment really prevent further discussion on the issue?

[deleted]

Re: A Difficult Situation

#370

Post by [deleted] »

ForrestN wrote: post #327
powertower wrote: post #98

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…

This whole situation makes me deeply uncomfortable. First, because it demonstrates the extent to which a company can be brought to its knees by a group of hostile people organized online. Second because hundreds and hundreds of men here and elsewhere seem quite happy to align themselves with an overtly sexist, violently threatening campaign against an individual whose views they disagree with. I am not in a position…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN