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

51–60 of 68 posts

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

#51

Post by aidenn0 »

gress wrote: post #35
aidenn0 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plese educate me on the difference, as (at least in this context) they seem to be interchangable. [edit] To clarify, consider a hypothetical total autocracy, where the autocrat makes a decision, and everyone's behavior is altered by various means. By my reasoning, the autocrat has collected everyone's agency to themself. Maybe it's not a perfect zero-sum, as you have inefficiencies in the system, but it does seem tha…

Your example of the autocrat who has a magical means to alter everyone's behavior is totally artificial and has no corollary in the real world, and therefore isn't relevant to the real world concept of agency.

Given that it is possible to alter people's behavior via non-magical means, I disagree that it's "totally artificial"

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

#52

Post by arzugula »

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…

Please. If his tweet with a naughty word constitutes a "harassment campaign" that contributes to an environment where someone is terrorized then what are we calling the streams of hatred Shanley and her group spew towards Ryan Block, Marc Andreesen, Paul Graham, etc.?

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

#53

Post by gress »

aidenn0 wrote: post #51
gress wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example of the autocrat who has a magical means to alter everyone's behavior is totally artificial and has no corollary in the real world, and therefore isn't relevant to the real world concept of agency.

Given that it is possible to alter people's behavior via non-magical means, I disagree that it's "totally artificial"

Well then specify the means, and make it a real example.

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

#54

Post by arzugula »

tedks wrote: post #3

This isn't the decline of agency, it's feminism and anti-racism creating agency for oppressed people. Traditionally, if a woman or ethnic minority is being harassed in their workplace, they are unable to speak out against it for fear of being fired by their bosses. In this sense, capitalist hierarchies (as the author identifies) are used to enforce gender and race hierarchies. Now that it's become unacceptable to be…

What a load of crap. Shanley spews rude, toxic, curse-laden streams of hatred at people in the tech industry with her every waking-hour.

When someone returns the favor she has them stripped of their livelihood, tries to ensure he can't ever return to the industry, and then tweets her delight over the situation.

You want to talk privilege? How about Shanley is the founder and owner of a successful media company vs. this guy was a lowly contracting programmer at a startup nobody's heard of? How is Shanley at all oppressed in comparison to this dude?

Is this 3rd grade? "I use put-downs on other people to build myself up!" How about you don't reduce _anyone's_ agency and instead work to lift everyone up to the same level. Your zero-sum approach to gender equality solves nothing while increasing resentment, mistrust, and hatred.

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

#55

Post by A_COMPUTER »

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?

If some baseline human right can be defined as a privilege, then there still needs to be terminology to distinguish it from undeserved privilege so that it can be properly addressed. Undeserved male privilege should be eradicated, but basic human rights and dignity should be extended to all. I have seen some people make this distinction and some not when using this term.

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

#56

Post by joesmo »

Livestream firing an employee for off-work conduct is just as morally wrong as Shanley was for tattling. Calling someone a cunt is certainly not nice, but it's miles away from firing someone or getting someone fired. It's not even in the same ballpark.

That said, he should've known better and used an anonymous account if he really wanted to make comments that might be dangerous to his well-being.

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

#57

Post by parasubvert »

opendais wrote: post #23
scarmig wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that particular tweet: this is what we call trolling. Shanley's MVC (which is a very interesting site that everyone should read, its proprietor notwithstanding) has a "feature" where they highlight the worst and most clueless comment on HN of the month. This entire imbroglio has doubtlessly netted MVC a very rich upcoming "worst of HN" piece. Joy. Substantively: why should the previous behavior of the reporter ma…

> Substantively: why should the previous behavior of the reporter matter one bit? If someone is actively baiting people on the basis of gender, it should have equal consequences regardless of the speaker's gender. > My sympathy for the fired guy is very limited. I never said he shouldn't have been fired. I think the problem is trolls can provoke people to the point they get fired and the trolls suffer no repercussion…

She's an entrpreneur, and has a small but healthy Gittip stream. So, she can freely troll without major economic repercussions.

That also presumes the trolling is as bad as the offense, I don't think it is.

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

#58

Post by eqdw »

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.

This doesn't work. It gives the troll and their followers more fodder to troll about.

The only winning move is not to play. Completely ignoring them.

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

#59

Post by tedks »

A_COMPUTER wrote: post #55
tedks wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

If some baseline human right can be defined as a privilege, then there still needs to be terminology to distinguish it from undeserved privilege so that it can be properly addressed. Undeserved male privilege should be eradicated, but basic human rights and dignity should be extended to all. I have seen some people make this distinction and some not when using this term.

For most of feminism "privilege" was not a concept. There is only the concept of oppression and possibly of rights. The introduction of "privilege" came to try to explain oppression to men in ways they could more easily stomach, and is something I personally tend to avoid because I'm not shy about confronting men with the damages of masculinity.

You'll notice that framing many things in terms of privilege removes the concept of the oppressor. Men oppress women though rape and sexual harassment, but a privilege notion frames this in terms of "men have the privilege not to be raped or sexually harassed", is a passive-voice esque weasel.

So, if you're confused, just think in terms of oppression. Oppression needs to be eradicated. Any advantages stemming from oppression of women will be eradicated with the oppression that enforces them.

Of course, if what you really care about is not liberatory social justice, but playing language-lawyer to avoid confronting the ways in which you, personally, oppress women and benefit from the oppression of women, this will not help you; you will not become a wiser and better person; you will be left in the dustbin of history with the people who opposed integration of public schools and gay marriage.

Choose carefully.

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

#60

Post by JoeAltmaier »

tedks wrote: post #59
A_COMPUTER wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If some baseline human right can be defined as a privilege, then there still needs to be terminology to distinguish it from undeserved privilege so that it can be properly addressed. Undeserved male privilege should be eradicated, but basic human rights and dignity should be extended to all. I have seen some people make this distinction and some not when using this term.

For most of feminism "privilege" was not a concept. There is only the concept of oppression and possibly of rights. The introduction of "privilege" came to try to explain oppression to men in ways they could more easily stomach, and is something I personally tend to avoid because I'm not shy about confronting men with the damages of masculinity. You'll notice that framing many things in terms of privilege removes the…

I don't mean to play at anything, and I'm not confused. But its off-putting to begin a conversation by accusing those who are essentially as innocent as the oppressed. And to offend or annoy those who are meant to be recruited to the cause is perhaps not the best process to a desirable outcome. Especially as the premise is, these are the people holding all the cards.

I understand the point of it, and the injustice. But the attitude projected is one of "you are doing it wrong, and you need to be corrected". When I know dang well its right and correct to work hard. I have little control over who gives me 'privileges' which look pretty much like the goal I am working toward (getting the contract, the job, the promotion).

And it never occurred to me to consider not-rape as the right being foisted as a 'privilege'. That's not what it says in the brochure anyway.

Post reply on HN