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

I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

decomplecting.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#41

Post by Torgo »

calibraxis wrote: post #26
rrss1122 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's clear he realized soon after he posted that he did something wrong, either because a friend told him he was out of line or he realized it himself. Getting him fired doesn't help him realize more that he did something wrong. I think the main point is the precedent that Jon Snoeder tweeted about. This isn't to just punish the fired guy. It's to set an example to everyone else about what would happen if you…

We saw his retweets and insults, for example retweeting someone calling her "animal". No, he didn't accidentally slip up with a single tweet.

That's straight-up whining. She doesn't deserve to be called a "ct" but insults because of her behavior are perfectly valid.

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#42

Post by opendais »

fleitz wrote: post #34
opendais wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To what? Pointing out a troll's hypocritical behavior seems to be the only one that is effective with both trolls and rational people.

I have no idea because I have no idea what your objective is... Which eludes to my original point of why one would engage with them... what did he hope to accomplish?

> I have no idea because I have no idea what your objective is...

I'd like to see equal, proportional response regardless of gender or the size of your soapbox.

> Which eludes to my original point of why one would engage with them... what did he hope to accomplish?

You'd have to ask him that :/

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#43

Post by opendais »

jacalata wrote: post #38
opendais wrote: post #6

I think the core problem here is we have someone (Shanley) who is allowed to attack people on the basis of their gender, class, profession, etc. [e.g. https://twitter.com/ryan/status/474791621100199936 ] An example relevant to HN is: https://twitter.com/shanley/status/474601030986903552 "HN is fucking obsessed with me lol. what is wrong with you little boys? mad cuz i'm cute and would NEVER talk to you or know you ex…

But that's basically saying "all employers should have exactly the same standards for when to fire someone" which is silly.

If you feel "insulting people on the basis of their gender" isn't something that should be universally vilified and cause for firing someone....I'm really not sure what to say beyond making sure that is what you mean?

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#44

Post by opendais »

tedks wrote: post #33
sqrt17 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a slight difference between name-calling and oppression. Oppression can only be done from a position of power, and it stabilizes the power of the oppressing. Namecalling can be done by any person who wants to do it, because it does not presuppose or enforce any kind of power relation. Pure namecalling can be differentiated from libel/slander (saying things that are discreditable), abuse of employees (which p…

> There is a slight difference between name-calling and oppression. Oppression can only be done from a position of power, and it stabilizes the power of the oppressing. Namecalling can be done by any person who wants to do it, because it does not presuppose or enforce any kind of power relation. A man using misogynist slurs against a woman seems to be oppressive by any reasonable metric. Based on the rest of your com…

Would you say a woman using gender-based insults against a man to be considered oppressive when she has the power to have men fired?

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#45

Post by baddox »

opendais wrote: post #19
fleitz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No no, don't cower in fear, change tactics.

To what? Pointing out a troll's hypocritical behavior seems to be the only one that is effective with both trolls and rational people.

Not if the troll's entire audience doesn't care if (or won't accept that) their troll leader is hypocritical.

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#46

Post by tedks »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #36
tedks wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a slight difference between name-calling and oppression. Oppression can only be done from a position of power, and it stabilizes the power of the oppressing. Namecalling can be done by any person who wants to do it, because it does not presuppose or enforce any kind of power relation. A man using misogynist slurs against a woman seems to be oppressive by any reasonable metric. Based on the rest of your com…

I think many bristle against feminism for exactly the reasons you give: they want tolerance and respect instead of blame. The blame-language is endemic to the feminist literature - e.g. men are 'privileged' when they exercise ordinary rights that women would like to share.

>The blame-language is endemic to the feminist literature - e.g. men are 'privileged' when they exercise ordinary rights that women would like to share.

I don't follow. Is the act of being able to exercise basic human rights not a privilege if others are denied those rights? Why the scare quotes?

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#47

Post by tedks »

gress wrote: post #37
tedks wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right that agency is not zero sum, but in this case we can see privilege as having enhanced agency in some areas (ability to call women names on social media with impunity, ability to command higher salaries, ability to get into better schools, etc.) and oppression as not having agency in those areas. Resisting oppressive behavior is limiting the agency of privileged people to oppress others. You can construct…

You are conflating agency and privilege. In the case of resisting oppression, the available actions are unchanged, but the consequences are different.

This is a weak sort of agency. Indeed I'm able to resist capitalist oppression by not working, but if the consequences are that I starve to death than I hardly see that as a reasonable outcome.

I think this is an uninteresting definitional question at this point, though. If I'm misusing agency than so is the author of this piece; the important thing is that we be able to communicate, which I think is possible. If you want to further nitpick specific words to garner karma, do it with someone else.

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#48

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tedks wrote: post #46
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many bristle against feminism for exactly the reasons you give: they want tolerance and respect instead of blame. The blame-language is endemic to the feminist literature - e.g. men are 'privileged' when they exercise ordinary rights that women would like to share.

>The blame-language is endemic to the feminist literature - e.g. men are 'privileged' when they exercise ordinary rights that women would like to share. I don't follow. Is the act of being able to exercise basic human rights not a privilege if others are denied those rights? Why the scare quotes?

That's the dirty word, used to explain that men aren't owed anything, its all unearned respect and undeserved rights.

If they aren't owed then I guess women don't need them either, right?

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#49

Post by lsaferite »

calibraxis wrote: post #40
lsaferite wrote: post #39

Honest question, how does a comment like this get you fired? I mean, beyond the person calling for your head. Since when do personal statements translate into firing offenses at your place of work? I'm from the "I May Not Agree With What You Say, But I’ll Fight For Your Right to Say It" camp and things like this honestly confuse me. To clarify, I think what he said was morally wrong.

The article omits a lot which might cause people to disagree with it. For instance, @zivcjs aggressively harassed her, retweeting attackers calling her "animal" and I believe "psychob---h". He also deleted many of his tweets. Furthermore, such harassment campaigns generally cause an increase in the violent threats they already normally receive. It contributes to an environment where women are terrorized and chased ou…

But that still leave my original question.

Assuming his job is not PR (I don't know or care to know him), how would his behaviour during non-company time translate into being fired?

Mind you, it sounds like he's a real pleasant person that I'd totally get along with. /s

Re: I'm Telling: Employer-Tattling and the Decline of Agency

#50

Post by gress »

tedks wrote: post #47
gress wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are conflating agency and privilege. In the case of resisting oppression, the available actions are unchanged, but the consequences are different.

This is a weak sort of agency. Indeed I'm able to resist capitalist oppression by not working, but if the consequences are that I starve to death than I hardly see that as a reasonable outcome. I think this is an uninteresting definitional question at this point, though. If I'm misusing agency than so is the author of this piece; the important thing is that we be able to communicate, which I think is possible. If you…

There are lots of other things you can do to resist capitalist oppression - e.g. Unionize, or create other kinds of social support. A strawman isn't very useful.

I'm sorry you've chosen to be accusatory instead of reasonable.

Post reply on HN