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

I am an Uber survivor

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 841 posts

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#471

Post by guelo »

1337biz wrote: post #135
jordigh wrote: post #95

> tried to trigger me Man, I really wish the internet hadn't decided that "trigger" means to anger or upset someone instead of the original meaning: provoke an anxiety or panic attack, like lighting firecrackers around war veterans. Not that what Uber is doing here to "Amy" isn't despicable. I'm just a little bothered by this relatively frivolous usage of the word "trigger" compared to the original purpose for using…

I actually think this is a very important process in order to get rid of the weight a word carries. The "triggered" lead us to "triggered snowflakes". "Fake news" has undergone a similar transformation, ie from a term of old media brands branding themselves as the "real news" authority, towards now an ironic term for anything you don't like. What impresses me the most is how fast these tonalities change.

Why is it important to remove the weight a word carries?

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#472

Post by mememachine »

xapata wrote: post #458
mememachine wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to explain? If your "explanation" is just dramatic grandstanding, ill be disappointed.

Some behaviors are generally considered unethical, regardless of whether a victim complains. If you murder someone, that's (generally) unethical, even if the victim's family doesn't seem to mind. Saying the victim was too apathetic to care will not change the verdict. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unethical, even if the (wo)man pretends to like it.

Of course, and I don't disagree about any of this (nor does anything I have said so far). I think you're missing my point here.

Also I'd appreciate a response in the other threads we have!

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#473

Post by gmarx »

diebir wrote: post #354

Without getting into any details this: "Once in a group chat, team members referred to a new Asian American recruit as slanty eye joe" seems very strange to me. The Uber tech org is like 80%+ foreign born, this makes pretty much zero sense. Disclaimer: I work for Uber.

it makes a lot of sense. Americans are taught PC behavior. It is incorrect to assume that our local fetish is considered a universal good. In my experience it is one of the peculiarities of US culture that foreign born, especially Asians, initially struggle with

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#474

Post by sounds »

kristofferR wrote: post #411
bigiain wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also believe your story Amy, and strongly suggest you think _very_ carefully before providing any sort pf "proof" to people who demand it, and view those people with intense suspicion. And reledi? Grow up man - give up on your "not all men" attitude - trying desperately to preserve your own dignity by failing to acknowledge that our industry treats women in ways with should shame all men, and that your "Holy Grail"…

What you think about "not all men" seems to dependent on whether you believe that the concept of original sin is immoral or not. I don't think I should feel shame because someone I had no control over, which incidentally had the same gender/skin color/nationality/ethnicity as me, did something wrong.

I thought his mention of Holy Grail was more in line with the definition "a thing that is being earnestly pursued or sought after." [1]

I don't think his eschatology was at all a part of his argument.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#475

Post by sah2ed »

rodgerd wrote: post #352
Arizhel wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this being modded down? It's the truth. Big companies almost always come out on top in trials because they can afford the best lawyers, and they can afford to game the system to bankrupt their opponents by filing never-ending motions to delay and other tactics which increase the legal costs to the opponent. You're almost never going to get a positive result if you're a rank-and-file employee; your best course…

It's not just the best lawyers. Uber have already started contacting anyone who knows Susan Fowler, digging for dirt on her.

How can you be so sure it was Uber? Susan's tweet was intentionally vague [0].

You are forgetting that some past and present employees that could be directly implicated by Susan's evidence may also choose the smear campaign route to save their hide.

This could range from the women in HR* who might get thrown under the bus by Uber for aiding and abetting, to the men that perpetrated the actual harassment.

*Of course this scenario playing out is highly unlikely given Uber's history.

[0] https://twitter.com/susanthesquark/status/835193441814392833

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#476

Post by gmarx »

jordigh wrote: post #113

"There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart. We are not a charity." OMFG I don't know if this is real or not, but given how Uber acts publicly about everything else (breaking the laws until governments are forced to amend the laws for Uber), I'm not surprised at all if this really is the overall attitude that they have for everything.

I can absolutely imagine an Uber manager speaking against ethics. I find it less plausible that a man in his 40s (my age group) refers to women as "sweetheart"...that seems like a thing someone in his 60s or 80s would say.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#477

Post by xapata »

mememachine wrote: post #454
xapata wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say people should indicate when behavior is inappropriate. Notice the disagreement and downvotes. That's telling you your behavior is inappropriate. Perhaps you should reconsider your position on the issue.

So is your comment basically suggesting that I'm autistic? I'm fairly certain I have no respect for the people who are downvoting me. And when you suggest I should adjust my opinion because its unpopular, obviously no one has respect for you.

> autistic

I wasn't suggesting that, but rather thinking through the logical consequences of your arguments.

I don't like psychological labels, as I think personalities are too varied to form good clusters.

> no respect

An interesting stance. I suppose there's no benefit to further discussion.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#479

Post by mememachine »

xapata wrote: post #477
mememachine wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is your comment basically suggesting that I'm autistic? I'm fairly certain I have no respect for the people who are downvoting me. And when you suggest I should adjust my opinion because its unpopular, obviously no one has respect for you.

> autistic I wasn't suggesting that, but rather thinking through the logical consequences of your arguments. I don't like psychological labels, as I think personalities are too varied to form good clusters. > no respect An interesting stance. I suppose there's no benefit to further discussion.

The "logical consequences" you've throught through dont come from my argument. They sound vaguely like my argument, but theyre not mine, and you know that.

This is why I dont respect you, roughly.

Re: I am an Uber survivor

#480

Post by xapata »

mememachine wrote: post #472
xapata wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some behaviors are generally considered unethical, regardless of whether a victim complains. If you murder someone, that's (generally) unethical, even if the victim's family doesn't seem to mind. Saying the victim was too apathetic to care will not change the verdict. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unethical, even if the (wo)man pretends to like it.

Of course, and I don't disagree about any of this (nor does anything I have said so far). I think you're missing my point here. Also I'd appreciate a response in the other threads we have!

I apparently am missing your point entirely as most of your comments seem directly contradictory to the idea that harassment can be objectively observed.
Post reply on HN