3 ms·

What, exactly, do your personal feelings and values have to do with the question of whether Jeremy was "a dick" to Joel? Isn't that between Jeremy and Joel? Joe

What, exactly, do your personal feelings and values have to do with the question of whether Jeremy was "a dick" to Joel? Isn't that between Jeremy and Joel? Joel didn't have a problem with Jeremy's talk. Why do you think you know better than Joel whether it was appropriate to criticize Joel in the way that Jeremy did? Your belief that, whatever Joel may have thought, your perspective is the one of "regular human empathy" is indicative of a certain narcissism about the superiority about your own moral sentiments. The same narcissism that motivated this farcical CoC accusation and persecution mess to begin with.

bawolff 6y ago
I disagree in principle. The "victim" doesn't have to be offended for the behaviour to potentially be inappropriate. Behaviour has second order effects beyond the direct "victim" (e.g. people watch and think its ok, so more people do it, and it becomes "normal"). Its also entirely possible for the victim to be hurt, without him admitting it for a variety of reasons (E.g. social pressure, not wanting to be seen as weak or a crybaby, etc). To be clear, I'm speaking in principle. I don't agree in the particular case that the behaviour was inappropriate.
- civilized 6y ago
  That's fair. I would hope we can recognize that some things just can't be done in public, while other "offenses" are more subjective and their validity can depend on the relationship of the individuals involved as well as how the supposed target/victim took it. For example, whether it's OK to hug someone in public depends on things like whether it was your life partner or a stranger, and whether the recipient was OK with it.
- glangdale 6y ago
  This is a very good point. I worked with a group (when we were a very small team at a startup) where we would say terrible things about each others code/ideas more or less for fun, as we had a long-running relationship and understood that everyone respected everyone else. Once we were in a bigger company, we had to stop talking like that (at least in venues where others could hear us) as the perception that we were "ripping each other apart" could be perceived as very threatening to people who didn't have that rapport nor the understanding of the background. The perception would be that we were mean people who might turn on them at any moment. The argument that "oh, X can both dish it out and take it (with respect to criticism from Y)" often ignores the fact that somewhere, "Z" is quietly watching this interaction and deciding that they don't want to participate in this apparently hostile environment.
  - civilized 6y ago
    Yes yes, these are all fine points, but to apply them in a one-size-fits-all universal way is inhuman. Curse words might be considered inappropriate at work regardless of the people involved, but things like hugs or negative feedback aren't that simple. However well-intentioned, aggressively universalized conduct rules become a boot stamping on the face of perfectly normal human relationships and communication styles.

bawolff 6y ago

I disagree in principle. The "victim" doesn't have to be offended for the behaviour to potentially be inappropriate. Behaviour has second order effects beyond the direct "victim" (e.g. people watch and think its ok, so more people do it, and it becomes "normal"). Its also entirely possible for the victim to be hurt, without him admitting it for a variety of reasons (E.g. social pressure, not wanting to be seen as weak or a crybaby, etc). To be clear, I'm speaking in principle. I don't agree in the particular case that the behaviour was inappropriate.

civilized 6y ago
That's fair. I would hope we can recognize that some things just can't be done in public, while other "offenses" are more subjective and their validity can depend on the relationship of the individuals involved as well as how the supposed target/victim took it. For example, whether it's OK to hug someone in public depends on things like whether it was your life partner or a stranger, and whether the recipient was OK with it.
glangdale 6y ago
This is a very good point. I worked with a group (when we were a very small team at a startup) where we would say terrible things about each others code/ideas more or less for fun, as we had a long-running relationship and understood that everyone respected everyone else. Once we were in a bigger company, we had to stop talking like that (at least in venues where others could hear us) as the perception that we were "ripping each other apart" could be perceived as very threatening to people who didn't have that rapport nor the understanding of the background. The perception would be that we were mean people who might turn on them at any moment. The argument that "oh, X can both dish it out and take it (with respect to criticism from Y)" often ignores the fact that somewhere, "Z" is quietly watching this interaction and deciding that they don't want to participate in this apparently hostile environment.
- civilized 6y ago
  Yes yes, these are all fine points, but to apply them in a one-size-fits-all universal way is inhuman. Curse words might be considered inappropriate at work regardless of the people involved, but things like hugs or negative feedback aren't that simple. However well-intentioned, aggressively universalized conduct rules become a boot stamping on the face of perfectly normal human relationships and communication styles.