4 ms·

I'd say they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical. Look at your own post: the culture here in startup-land

by crux_ 17y ago

I'd say they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical. Look at your own post: the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist* that you feel a need to express worries (however tongue-in-cheek) about retaliation. * Yes, this is an odd double negative, but also the best way I can think of to express the phenomenon. It's also not the same thing as sexism, but it sure does create an extremely friendly environment for bigots.

akkartik 17y ago
"they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical." Why's that reason to anonymize? Racism was typical once. You have to start somewhere. Or are you claiming there's too many such un-anonymized stories in the media? I don't see that. "the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist that you feel a need to express worries about retaliation." I was describing the consequences whistleblowers have to deal with in general. It's good for the potential consequences to exist; they prevent frivolous charges and increase the impact when a real whistleblower comes forward risking such stigma. None of this has anything to do with sexism in particular.
- crux_ 17y ago
  The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your comment. "Why's that reason to anonymize?" Giving their names makes the story about a couple of exceptionally bad eggs; omitting their identities makes the story about a broad trend.
  - akkartik 17y ago
    Fair point. I still think she should publicize their names, but the NYTimes shouldn't include them. Even if you're responding to my parenthetical first sentence, I don't see how that has anything to do with 'anti-anti-sexism'. I was just articulating the concern anybody should have for seeming like a troublemaker. There's a fine distinction between being outspoken and a troublemaker. The latter is just looking for a reason to seem outspoken - a distracting influence at a startup.

by crux_ 17y ago

akkartik 17y ago

"they're anonymized not because they are horrible, but because they are probably rather typical." Why's that reason to anonymize? Racism was typical once. You have to start somewhere. Or are you claiming there's too many such un-anonymized stories in the media? I don't see that. "the culture here in startup-land is so vehemently anti-anti-sexist that you feel a need to express worries about retaliation." I was describing the consequences whistleblowers have to deal with in general. It's good for the potential consequences to exist; they prevent frivolous charges and increase the impact when a real whistleblower comes forward risking such stigma. None of this has anything to do with sexism in particular.

crux_ 17y ago
The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your comment. "Why's that reason to anonymize?" Giving their names makes the story about a couple of exceptionally bad eggs; omitting their identities makes the story about a broad trend.
- akkartik 17y ago
  Fair point. I still think she should publicize their names, but the NYTimes shouldn't include them. Even if you're responding to my parenthetical first sentence, I don't see how that has anything to do with 'anti-anti-sexism'. I was just articulating the concern anybody should have for seeming like a troublemaker. There's a fine distinction between being outspoken and a troublemaker. The latter is just looking for a reason to seem outspoken - a distracting influence at a startup.