4 ms·

> So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Because she's not talking about the misconduct, but about the respons

by DanBC 8y ago

> So why does this post then obfuscate these facts as 'an incident of sexual misconduct'? Because she's not talking about the misconduct, but about the response to the misconduct. One of the reasons she's not talking about the misconduct is because misogynists will seek to relitigate the orginal event with the predictable victim-blaming concern-trolling.

minimaxir 8y ago
This is extremely important. There are three elements here. 1) The actual incident. 2) The need for instructors to persuade DataCamp to make a response. 3) The response itself. (3a: the noindex tag) #1 is very bad on its own, but #2 and #3 are its own problems and the ones being highlighted in recent discussions. (and provide more context for #1)
teddyh 8y ago
While all this is very probably true, there’s also the possibility that it actually really is about the nail (so to speak). I can easily imagine that people have been burned before by being assured that the “nail” is not the problem, and initially believing it. This, I think, is why many people want to hear some amount of detail. Not too much, just enough to make it seem plausible to them. Which shouldn’t be too much to ask, and if someone refuses, that’s a bad sign.
- DanBC 8y ago
  All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. Well, they did try, and they got fired.
  - teddyh 8y ago
    > All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. True, but it was not adequately summarized in the article which is the topic of discussion, and this was the issue discussed in this subthread. > This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. That’s not what I meant, or what anyone else in this subthread meant. I have no idea what you’re responding to.
  - throwaway1994 8y ago
    One of the “fired” has come forward with a clarification to state he was a shite employee for 7-8m before being let go. It wasn’t until the NDA that he piped up about the incident. Maybe he’s dragged other former employers online before. Regardless, wouldn’t be surprised if the company got smart and frontloaded NDAs at the beginning of employment instead of the end.
  - throwaway19948 8y ago
    They did not get fired for speaking up. One has come out to “clarify” and if you follow his timeline, he himself stated he was a bad employee for several months, THEN his brother passed away, THEN several months later he was fired for still being a bad employee/unproductive, AND at the time of firing they asked for an NDA in exchange for $, THEN he brought up the incident (for more $ maybe??). He brought up the incident to mgmt AFTER finding out he was being fired for poor performance.

by DanBC 8y ago

minimaxir 8y ago

This is extremely important. There are three elements here. 1) The actual incident. 2) The need for instructors to persuade DataCamp to make a response. 3) The response itself. (3a: the noindex tag) #1 is very bad on its own, but #2 and #3 are its own problems and the ones being highlighted in recent discussions. (and provide more context for #1)

teddyh 8y ago

While all this is very probably true, there’s also the possibility that it actually really is about the nail (so to speak). I can easily imagine that people have been burned before by being assured that the “nail” is not the problem, and initially believing it. This, I think, is why many people want to hear some amount of detail. Not too much, just enough to make it seem plausible to them. Which shouldn’t be too much to ask, and if someone refuses, that’s a bad sign.

DanBC 8y ago
All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. Well, they did try, and they got fired.
- teddyh 8y ago
  > All the detail has already been shared, by the very many people within the org talking to senior management. True, but it was not adequately summarized in the article which is the topic of discussion, and this was the issue discussed in this subthread. > This is what people always say in these threads: don't talk about it in public until you've tried to deal with it in private. That’s not what I meant, or what anyone else in this subthread meant. I have no idea what you’re responding to.
- throwaway1994 8y ago
  One of the “fired” has come forward with a clarification to state he was a shite employee for 7-8m before being let go. It wasn’t until the NDA that he piped up about the incident. Maybe he’s dragged other former employers online before. Regardless, wouldn’t be surprised if the company got smart and frontloaded NDAs at the beginning of employment instead of the end.
- throwaway19948 8y ago
  They did not get fired for speaking up. One has come out to “clarify” and if you follow his timeline, he himself stated he was a bad employee for several months, THEN his brother passed away, THEN several months later he was fired for still being a bad employee/unproductive, AND at the time of firing they asked for an NDA in exchange for $, THEN he brought up the incident (for more $ maybe??). He brought up the incident to mgmt AFTER finding out he was being fired for poor performance.