14 ms·
The false equivalence was deliberate! This is one of those subtle things that can be problematic, we don't have a good moral calculus on where to draw the line
by pacaro 10y ago
The false equivalence was deliberate!
This is one of those subtle things that can be problematic, we don't have a good moral calculus on where to draw the line. Slippery slope or reductio, your choice.
Large companies often run a simple financial thought experiment:
"How much liability does this expose us to (a.k.a. how much to make this go away -- hence the popularity of confidentiality clauses in settlements)" vs. "What is this person worth to us"
If we accept that he left Google before they forced him out, then (cynically) Google must have decided that the liability was greater than his value.
But when we consider this from the perspective of someone who has been abused at their place of employment, they may be facing a career change, PTSD, you name it. Both of the women that have written about their experiences at Uber describe stark psychological responses to their experiences - these can/will have lifelong impact. Does a track record of technological innovation excuse even one instance of that?
- mc32 10y agoObviously I can't speak for the affected people, and different people will react differently to a similar event, that said, if it happened to me, I do think I could excuse it, but not forgive it. That is, I'd be willing to "take one for the team". But then again, having been robbed at gunpoint in highschool, while kind of scary hasn't scarred me measurably. As another example, I knew women who complained about sexual harassers to me, but as I encouraged them to seek out HR and report, they said the harassment, in their estimation, didn't warrant getting their supervisor in trouble, that they could handle it. Different people have different tolerances and different ways to address unfavorable circumstance.
- alpha_squared 10y ago> I'd be willing to "take one for the team" > But then again, having been robbed at gunpoint in highschool, while kind of scary hasn't scarred me measurably. A mildly dismissive viewpoint followed by an irrelevant appeal to emotion followed by an anecdote. This feels a little unfair to those who've actually gone through sexual harassment (which is a spectrum and ranges in severity). Surely, there's something to be said of the psychological damage that results from sexual harassment as well.
- thinkt4nk 10y ago> I'd be willing to "take one for the team" How does sexual harassment further the aims of the team?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- rimantas 10y agoOk, so I should probably get fired for saying "Hi" for the female coworker not on my team: because how do you know where to draw the line?
- davidgerard 10y agoIf that's a serious question, then it would indicate you literally have bad enough social judgement that you probably shouldn't. Almost nobody would consider that a serious question, so if you do then the onus is on you personally.
- rimantas 10y agoThat was not a serious question. I just wonder wher it all leads. Immune system, when it has nothing to do starts to attack the body itself.
- davidgerard 10y agoIf it was not a serious question, then it was disingenuous and unhelpful.
- pacaro 10y agoAs someone with an autoimmune disorder this is a poignant metaphor! Putting aside the over-simplification, when we no longer have to contest with discrimination in the workplace, then sure, we have to be cautious about misuse of those protections. But until then we have to fix the situation that we are in now.
- erroneousfunk 10y agoWomen sit around all day, scouring office communication for sexual harassment, trying to meet a quota? I really don't think that's how it works.