3 ms·

It’s absolutely relevant. Whether it’s a public open source project or a fight over sports in a pub, there is a line you cannot cross if the other person is a c

It’s absolutely relevant. Whether it’s a public open source project or a fight over sports in a pub, there is a line you cannot cross if the other person is a co-worker. Context is everything.

baddox 6y ago
Of course there is a line you can't cross. But asking someone to do something, then saying they didn't do, does not seem to be past that line to me. That seems like something that would happen very routinely.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  You’re purposefully using language to make it seem like not a big deal. It was clearly more aggressive than simply asking. And, again, context for where you are “saying they didn’t do it” matters. If it’s an internal company board vs Twitter or github matters.
  - baddox 6y ago
    It is not clearly more aggressive. What part of his language do you think are in any way aggressive?
    - sebastialonso 6y ago
      > Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil. This part right here, pal. Asking is proposing something, and politely accepting whatever answer is given back. What he said was closer to coercing and appealing to community shaming, which is evidently not professional.
      - baddox 6y ago
        That is not coercion or appealing to community shaming. Those are both terms that have meanings. Telling people to consider the actions of the developers of a software project is not coercion or an appeal to community shaming.
        defen 6y ago
        At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No one's rights were violated. Apparently you have a different definition of what constitutes appropriate public speech for employees than Facebook does, but so what? You're not his employer. This guy said something and got fired for it. That is the system working how everyone wants it to.
        baddox 6y ago
        Whether Facebook has the legal right to fire him is not what is being discussed.
        defen 6y ago
        What are we discussing? Whether Facebook was justified in firing him? By definition if they didn't fire him for a prohibited reason, it was justified, right? Is your argument that it was "unfair" to fire him for an act of speech?
    - kortilla 6y ago
      Mentioning a private conversation on Twitter that didn’t go your way is 100% aggressive. There is no purpose other than to drum up harassment for the person you mentioned.
      - baddox 6y ago
        The purpose is to inform interested people of the reason for the action (or lack thereof). That is the purpose of communication. Beyond that, you are only speculating about secret intentions, with absolutely no evidence.
        kortilla 6y ago
        There is no legitimate reason to inform the public of someone else’s private conversations in this scenario. It’s not the public’s business to begin with. I’m not speculating about secret intentions. It is the only reason to call out a private conversation that didn’t go your way.

It’s absolutely relevant. Whether it’s a public open source project or a fight over sports in a pub, there is a line you cannot cross if the other person is a co-worker. Context is everything.

baddox 6y ago

Of course there is a line you can't cross. But asking someone to do something, then saying they didn't do, does not seem to be past that line to me. That seems like something that would happen very routinely.

devmunchies 6y ago
You’re purposefully using language to make it seem like not a big deal. It was clearly more aggressive than simply asking. And, again, context for where you are “saying they didn’t do it” matters. If it’s an internal company board vs Twitter or github matters.
- baddox 6y ago
  It is not clearly more aggressive. What part of his language do you think are in any way aggressive?
  - sebastialonso 6y ago
    > Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil. This part right here, pal. Asking is proposing something, and politely accepting whatever answer is given back. What he said was closer to coercing and appealing to community shaming, which is evidently not professional.
    - baddox 6y ago
      That is not coercion or appealing to community shaming. Those are both terms that have meanings. Telling people to consider the actions of the developers of a software project is not coercion or an appeal to community shaming.
      - defen 6y ago
        At the end of the day it doesn't matter. No one's rights were violated. Apparently you have a different definition of what constitutes appropriate public speech for employees than Facebook does, but so what? You're not his employer. This guy said something and got fired for it. That is the system working how everyone wants it to.
        baddox 6y ago
        Whether Facebook has the legal right to fire him is not what is being discussed.
        defen 6y ago
        What are we discussing? Whether Facebook was justified in firing him? By definition if they didn't fire him for a prohibited reason, it was justified, right? Is your argument that it was "unfair" to fire him for an act of speech?
  - kortilla 6y ago
    Mentioning a private conversation on Twitter that didn’t go your way is 100% aggressive. There is no purpose other than to drum up harassment for the person you mentioned.
    - baddox 6y ago
      The purpose is to inform interested people of the reason for the action (or lack thereof). That is the purpose of communication. Beyond that, you are only speculating about secret intentions, with absolutely no evidence.
      - kortilla 6y ago
        There is no legitimate reason to inform the public of someone else’s private conversations in this scenario. It’s not the public’s business to begin with. I’m not speculating about secret intentions. It is the only reason to call out a private conversation that didn’t go your way.