3 ms·

Sorry, try again. We're talking about a company being criticized (in part) for the treatment of female engineers. You're making assertions that this article isn

Sorry, try again. We're talking about a company being criticized (in part) for the treatment of female engineers. You're making assertions that this article isn't believable. The author is a female. Pretty big stretch to say I'm being sexist by suggesting you have _no clue_ what is or isn't a believable experience for a female engineer at Uber.

mjolk 10y ago
You're trying to play identity politics in an attempt to discredit any disagreement based on another layer of subjective criteria that you decide. What you just suggested -- that men are incapable of considering the credibility of an anonymous story told from a female point of view -- is sexist. When I believed in Susan Fowler's account, was I allowed to have an opinion then? Racism and homophobia were also brought up and you're going as far to claim that the "baseline" for having an opinion is being female, as well as working at the same company at which the an anonymous author claims to have been employed. I don't fault you as I believe you're trying to make things better, but you're arguing against evidence and objectivity.
- ubercore 10y ago
  I'm not playing identity politics. And I didn't mention racism and homophobia because that's not the perspective the author wrote from. Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I understand your doubts about the story. Really. I'm just calling attention to the way you chose to raise them. Claiming they're "absurd" as a way to present your argument that we should be skeptical is hard to take to seriously unless you're willing to say you worked on her team, or were another female engineering at Uber. And yes, I probably escalated things talking about privilege, but I think this is a good example of how we don't always realize the ways our viewpoints affect our opinions. I personally have no basis with which to offer an opinion about the validity of the story. I welcome someone that reminds us to be skeptical because everything written was written anonymously. And to be clear, I'm not talking about allowing anyone an opinion. I'm talking about how we discuss these things productively in public forums.
  - mjolk 10y ago
    > I'm not playing identity politics. And I didn't mention racism and homophobia because that's not the perspective the author wrote from. You suggested I'm not qualified to decide if the claims are believable (to me) and suggested that I would be if I was a woman that worked at Uber. "You don't understand X because you're not a Y" is a textbook attempt to reframe an argument away from objective considerations. > Claiming they're "absurd" as a way to present your argument that we should be skeptical is hard to take to seriously unless you're willing to say you worked on her team, or were another female engineering at Uber. Please note that I didn't claim the author was a liar. I wasn't careful with my words, but: "This submission is just anonymous accusations. Absurd, unrealistic-sounding accusations." It's truthful to say the accusations are anonymous. The level of misconduct described by the author is absurd and sounds unrealistic -- if these events were proven to have happened, they would still be _absurd_ and _sound unrealistic_. > And yes, I probably escalated things talking about privilege, but I think this is a good example of how we don't always realize the ways our viewpoints affect our opinions. It's not escalation; invoking claims of "privilege" is head's up that you want to talk in subjective terms ("he/she feels", "other group experiences"), which is fine, but not fitting when I'm suggesting that I have a hard time believing an anonymous author's claims (e.g. "guys" at work writing sexual fantasy stories in private chat that the author somehow read). An an aside, from reading between the lines, we have similar wants for the future culture of tech, but we're working with different strategies.

mjolk 10y ago

You're trying to play identity politics in an attempt to discredit any disagreement based on another layer of subjective criteria that you decide. What you just suggested -- that men are incapable of considering the credibility of an anonymous story told from a female point of view -- is sexist. When I believed in Susan Fowler's account, was I allowed to have an opinion then? Racism and homophobia were also brought up and you're going as far to claim that the "baseline" for having an opinion is being female, as well as working at the same company at which the an anonymous author claims to have been employed. I don't fault you as I believe you're trying to make things better, but you're arguing against evidence and objectivity.

ubercore 10y ago
I'm not playing identity politics. And I didn't mention racism and homophobia because that's not the perspective the author wrote from. Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I understand your doubts about the story. Really. I'm just calling attention to the way you chose to raise them. Claiming they're "absurd" as a way to present your argument that we should be skeptical is hard to take to seriously unless you're willing to say you worked on her team, or were another female engineering at Uber. And yes, I probably escalated things talking about privilege, but I think this is a good example of how we don't always realize the ways our viewpoints affect our opinions. I personally have no basis with which to offer an opinion about the validity of the story. I welcome someone that reminds us to be skeptical because everything written was written anonymously. And to be clear, I'm not talking about allowing anyone an opinion. I'm talking about how we discuss these things productively in public forums.
- mjolk 10y ago
  > I'm not playing identity politics. And I didn't mention racism and homophobia because that's not the perspective the author wrote from. You suggested I'm not qualified to decide if the claims are believable (to me) and suggested that I would be if I was a woman that worked at Uber. "You don't understand X because you're not a Y" is a textbook attempt to reframe an argument away from objective considerations. > Claiming they're "absurd" as a way to present your argument that we should be skeptical is hard to take to seriously unless you're willing to say you worked on her team, or were another female engineering at Uber. Please note that I didn't claim the author was a liar. I wasn't careful with my words, but: "This submission is just anonymous accusations. Absurd, unrealistic-sounding accusations." It's truthful to say the accusations are anonymous. The level of misconduct described by the author is absurd and sounds unrealistic -- if these events were proven to have happened, they would still be _absurd_ and _sound unrealistic_. > And yes, I probably escalated things talking about privilege, but I think this is a good example of how we don't always realize the ways our viewpoints affect our opinions. It's not escalation; invoking claims of "privilege" is head's up that you want to talk in subjective terms ("he/she feels", "other group experiences"), which is fine, but not fitting when I'm suggesting that I have a hard time believing an anonymous author's claims (e.g. "guys" at work writing sexual fantasy stories in private chat that the author somehow read). An an aside, from reading between the lines, we have similar wants for the future culture of tech, but we're working with different strategies.