5 ms·

You kind of had me until you used someone's salary and work opportunities as an excuse for their harassment mattering less, or being overlooked. Harassment is

by sbarre 10y ago

You kind of had me until you used someone's salary and work opportunities as an excuse for their harassment mattering less, or being overlooked. Harassment is harassment.

geofft 10y ago
Yup. There are things in the world that are kinda bad, but worth imposing on people for the greater good of society (e.g., taxes, jury duty, bans on raw milk). There are things in the world that are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them. Harassment is one of them. Part (but not all!) of the reason for this is that not every $150K/engineer is getting harassed, only some are, and some are doing the harassing, and in particular, those who are doing the harassing are, by all reports, not actually helping Uber's social mission effectively. If you're willing to sacrifice something about engineers to help Uber change the world for the better, sacrifice the people who take time out of their workday to proposition the people they manage, or who ignore their boss because they're trying to get themselves promoted, or who create and cancel projects to create the illusion of work, or who interpret people who sabotage their teammates as high performers. (And sacrifice them by firing them or better yet not hiring them, not by harassing them.)
- jolux 10y ago
  This harassment calls to mind the most negative possible stereotypes of silicon valley tech bros. Misogynistic, rude, deeply unpleasant people to be around. The question is how did those people get into Uber in the first place, and why are they allowed to stay while all of their victims leave? I don't give a fuck how much that woman was getting paid, it is not conditional on her receiving sexual harassment from her supervisors. It is conditional on her doing her goddamn job, and making people feel unsafe by directly propositioning them obviously interferes with that.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  How do you decide which things are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them? As a society, we've made the decision that traffic regulation, gun regulation or preventing the sale of loose cigarettes does justify the police gunning people down or choking them to death. (Note that after Eric Garner and Philando Castille, no one advocated eliminating the rules that got them killed.) So why is an unpleasant work environment somehow one of those things that are unjustified no matter what?
  - mfringel 10y ago
    Allow me to rephrase: "So why is a hostile work environment somehow one of those things that are unjustified no matter what?" Words matter.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      Ok. Why is a hostile work environment unjustified no matter what, but strangling people to death in the pursuit of causes like cigarette regulation isn't?
      - rz2k 10y ago
        This seems like a really strange argument to double down on. There is an overlap of people who discount harrassment based on salary, and people who discount fatal brutality by citing an unimportant crime. Instead it's the same outlook on how society should work that opposes both abuses. While people can choose to work harder on one problem, ranking them and deciding one should be ignored is a good tactic for insuring there isn't a critical mass of people fighting any injustice. Furthermore, the type of people that want to invest in companies that decrease systemic racism and harassment experienced by their riders should also be concerned about similar problems at places closer to home. Framing these abuses as though they are not all different manifestations of failing to recognize other people's humanity on some level really undermines any progress.
        yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm not making an argument, I'm merely questioning a philosophical claim I think is probably wrong. Specifically, if you think (1) "There are things in the world that are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them. Harassment is one of them." but you also favor cigarette regulation, then you must implicitly think the inevitable shooting/strangling people/other violence is NOT one of those things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them". Or alternatively, the stated principle (1) is not your real justification and merely a post-hoc rationalization. I suspected the latter. But I was wrong - as it turns out geofft is internally consistent and also opposes cigarette regulation, firearm regulation, and all the other rules who's enforcement involves doing things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725372
jasode 10y ago
>as an excuse That part wasn't an excuse for harassment. And it also wasn't about programmers' salaries as justification. He was using rhetorical hyperbole to emphasize that the utilitarian benefit of Uber for brown and female riders is still true. That was a response to tyre's comment, "So now you have a company that isn't actually what it pitched itself to be. Yes, harassment is harassment but it looks like yummyfajitas was responding to a specific business claim by tyre.
- TorKlingberg 10y ago
  It was an excuse. "It's just that their personality doesn't appeal to the zeitgeist." Harassment is not a personality.

by sbarre 10y ago

You kind of had me until you used someone's salary and work opportunities as an excuse for their harassment mattering less, or being overlooked. Harassment is harassment.

geofft 10y ago

Yup. There are things in the world that are kinda bad, but worth imposing on people for the greater good of society (e.g., taxes, jury duty, bans on raw milk). There are things in the world that are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them. Harassment is one of them. Part (but not all!) of the reason for this is that not every $150K/engineer is getting harassed, only some are, and some are doing the harassing, and in particular, those who are doing the harassing are, by all reports, not actually helping Uber's social mission effectively. If you're willing to sacrifice something about engineers to help Uber change the world for the better, sacrifice the people who take time out of their workday to proposition the people they manage, or who ignore their boss because they're trying to get themselves promoted, or who create and cancel projects to create the illusion of work, or who interpret people who sabotage their teammates as high performers. (And sacrifice them by firing them or better yet not hiring them, not by harassing them.)

jolux 10y ago
This harassment calls to mind the most negative possible stereotypes of silicon valley tech bros. Misogynistic, rude, deeply unpleasant people to be around. The question is how did those people get into Uber in the first place, and why are they allowed to stay while all of their victims leave? I don't give a fuck how much that woman was getting paid, it is not conditional on her receiving sexual harassment from her supervisors. It is conditional on her doing her goddamn job, and making people feel unsafe by directly propositioning them obviously interferes with that.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
How do you decide which things are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them? As a society, we've made the decision that traffic regulation, gun regulation or preventing the sale of loose cigarettes does justify the police gunning people down or choking them to death. (Note that after Eric Garner and Philando Castille, no one advocated eliminating the rules that got them killed.) So why is an unpleasant work environment somehow one of those things that are unjustified no matter what?
- mfringel 10y ago
  Allow me to rephrase: "So why is a hostile work environment somehow one of those things that are unjustified no matter what?" Words matter.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Ok. Why is a hostile work environment unjustified no matter what, but strangling people to death in the pursuit of causes like cigarette regulation isn't?
    - rz2k 10y ago
      This seems like a really strange argument to double down on. There is an overlap of people who discount harrassment based on salary, and people who discount fatal brutality by citing an unimportant crime. Instead it's the same outlook on how society should work that opposes both abuses. While people can choose to work harder on one problem, ranking them and deciding one should be ignored is a good tactic for insuring there isn't a critical mass of people fighting any injustice. Furthermore, the type of people that want to invest in companies that decrease systemic racism and harassment experienced by their riders should also be concerned about similar problems at places closer to home. Framing these abuses as though they are not all different manifestations of failing to recognize other people's humanity on some level really undermines any progress.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I'm not making an argument, I'm merely questioning a philosophical claim I think is probably wrong. Specifically, if you think (1) "There are things in the world that are really bad, and no amount of greater good justifies them. Harassment is one of them." but you also favor cigarette regulation, then you must implicitly think the inevitable shooting/strangling people/other violence is NOT one of those things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them". Or alternatively, the stated principle (1) is not your real justification and merely a post-hoc rationalization. I suspected the latter. But I was wrong - as it turns out geofft is internally consistent and also opposes cigarette regulation, firearm regulation, and all the other rules who's enforcement involves doing things that are "really bad and no amount of greater good justifies them". https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725372 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13725372

jasode 10y ago

>as an excuse That part wasn't an excuse for harassment. And it also wasn't about programmers' salaries as justification. He was using rhetorical hyperbole to emphasize that the utilitarian benefit of Uber for brown and female riders is still true. That was a response to tyre's comment, "So now you have a company that isn't actually what it pitched itself to be. Yes, harassment is harassment but it looks like yummyfajitas was responding to a specific business claim by tyre.

TorKlingberg 10y ago
It was an excuse. "It's just that their personality doesn't appeal to the zeitgeist." Harassment is not a personality.