3 ms·

Insulting people wasn't my intention, but I have some uncharitable views of the HN community members that cry meritocracy and find founders blameless. You are

by ygjb 6y ago

Insulting people wasn't my intention, but I have some uncharitable views of the HN community members that cry meritocracy and find founders blameless. You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. That is the biggest challenge for people confronting systemic issues like racism, poverty, homelessness, or any number of topics. It's not enough for victims to stand up for themselves, because there is a systemic imbalance in the ability to pursue remedies through the courts or other means. Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book (and especially in contrast to pocket books of the people or organizations that have made that person a victim). There are so many individuals who have left the tech industry after experiencing bad behaviour, discrimination, and abuse, and any one of those people could be the next Hedy Lamarr or Philip Emeagwali, and the industry is worse for not having those people in it. Again, as a community we do our peers a disservice by not trusting them when they say there is a problem, especially when they are so consistently proven right.

treis 6y ago
>You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. You're arguing against a straw man here. I did not say that the only acceptable proof was an on the record statement. Anonymous corroboration or reporting a general description of an e-mail to preserve anonymity would be fine. There's nothing even like that. >Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book That's not really true. Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. The difference is making specific accusations and providing some level of detail. There's essentially none of that in the NYTimes piece.
- ygjb 6y ago
  > You're arguing against a straw man here. [...] There's nothing even like that. And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. In the second paragraph, the article indicates that 11 of the folks who left notified HR or their managers. In the third paragraph one of the named victims states she made several reports. In the sixth paragraph 5 on the record employees and 18 off the record employees, and internal documents and recordings are claimed as evidence. Despite this, Coinbase only reports three official complaints in the year many of these folks left. Coupled with the stream of hot garbage that Brian Armstrong has proposed trying to position as being "Mission Focused", in the middle of a pandemic, massive, ongoing riots, and political instability just illustrates how utterly tone deaf the leadership at Coinbase is. > Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. Yes, you correct. You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. Coupled with the fact that she was already recognized as a talented engineer and a published author, it's not surprising her blog post was as well received as it was. Susan also wrote about her experience with her own voice and had receipts to show how bad it was. I certainly don't want to down play the issues that women in tech face, but it's also well known that people of color frequently have different social and economic circumstances than white or white-presenting folks (and it's not me saying this -- she calls out in her book the casual anti-semitism she faced from folks who didn't know she is Jewish).
  - treis 6y ago
    >And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. Everything you list is an accusation. What I am looking for is: (1) Person X said this racist thing happened. (2) The event in (1) is (a) true, and (b) backed up by a corroborating witness, this email, some document, etc >You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. If the NY Times doesn't have reporters that can do that then they should fire the ones they have and find some that can.
    - 6y ago
thegrimmest 6y ago
Can I just step in, in defense of individualism and meritocracy here? I would like to challenge the perception of issues as systematic being a universal fact. You first have to accept that groups, as opposed to individuals, are responsible for action. This doesn't seem to hold up. Any delineation of people into any sort of groups is arbitrary. Corporations are legal fiction. Actions are perpetrated by individuals. I would like to live in a society that optimizes for enthusiastic consent in, and at-will termination of all interactions and relationships for any reason whatsoever. This seems to be the only reasonable way to live in a society of people who disagree about fundamental things. To take this to the extreme, if you want to run a company full of racists, and be racist in your hiring policy, you should be able to do so. It is quite possible to support this standard of liberty without being racist oneself. I may disagree with what you say and all.

by ygjb 6y ago

treis 6y ago

>You are correct that the people in the article that either filed complaints, or spoke with the New York Times risked repercussions, but not all of the folks the Times spoke with are identified. People were willing to talk, but not necessarily on the record, or to be identified. That is because they are fearful of reprisal, based on past experiences and observations. You're arguing against a straw man here. I did not say that the only acceptable proof was an on the record statement. Anonymous corroboration or reporting a general description of an e-mail to preserve anonymity would be fine. There's nothing even like that. >Getting justice in civil matters often boils down to the size of a victims pocket book That's not really true. Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. The difference is making specific accusations and providing some level of detail. There's essentially none of that in the NYTimes piece.

ygjb 6y ago
> You're arguing against a straw man here. [...] There's nothing even like that. And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. In the second paragraph, the article indicates that 11 of the folks who left notified HR or their managers. In the third paragraph one of the named victims states she made several reports. In the sixth paragraph 5 on the record employees and 18 off the record employees, and internal documents and recordings are claimed as evidence. Despite this, Coinbase only reports three official complaints in the year many of these folks left. Coupled with the stream of hot garbage that Brian Armstrong has proposed trying to position as being "Mission Focused", in the middle of a pandemic, massive, ongoing riots, and political instability just illustrates how utterly tone deaf the leadership at Coinbase is. > Susan Fowler blew up Uber with a single blog post. Yes, you correct. You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. Coupled with the fact that she was already recognized as a talented engineer and a published author, it's not surprising her blog post was as well received as it was. Susan also wrote about her experience with her own voice and had receipts to show how bad it was. I certainly don't want to down play the issues that women in tech face, but it's also well known that people of color frequently have different social and economic circumstances than white or white-presenting folks (and it's not me saying this -- she calls out in her book the casual anti-semitism she faced from folks who didn't know she is Jewish).
- treis 6y ago
  >And you are arguing in bad faith; there are several parts of the article that detail exactly what you are looing for. Everything you list is an accusation. What I am looking for is: (1) Person X said this racist thing happened. (2) The event in (1) is (a) true, and (b) backed up by a corroborating witness, this email, some document, etc >You also have to look at the facts; Susan is an excellent writer, and based on her book, she already had some measure of experience speaking truth to power. If the NY Times doesn't have reporters that can do that then they should fire the ones they have and find some that can.
  - 6y ago

thegrimmest 6y ago

Can I just step in, in defense of individualism and meritocracy here? I would like to challenge the perception of issues as systematic being a universal fact. You first have to accept that groups, as opposed to individuals, are responsible for action. This doesn't seem to hold up. Any delineation of people into any sort of groups is arbitrary. Corporations are legal fiction. Actions are perpetrated by individuals. I would like to live in a society that optimizes for enthusiastic consent in, and at-will termination of all interactions and relationships for any reason whatsoever. This seems to be the only reasonable way to live in a society of people who disagree about fundamental things. To take this to the extreme, if you want to run a company full of racists, and be racist in your hiring policy, you should be able to do so. It is quite possible to support this standard of liberty without being racist oneself. I may disagree with what you say and all.