3 ms·

> offensive to a small vocal minority I really don't see how this is an excuse. it's like saying "black people are a minority in the US so who cares if they sa

> offensive to a small vocal minority I really don't see how this is an excuse. it's like saying "black people are a minority in the US so who cares if they say they are oppressed"

ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is going to like everything that you say. I don't think this is an issue. If there's a specific demographic that is consistently affected by what you're saying, there might be an issue though.
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is going to like everything that you say. Sure but it's really not that hard to keep things under control in the work place. I have my own opinions, sometimes I share them at work, sometimes people may disagree, however, I don't "rack up multiple HR complaints" like this guy did.
  - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
    "After the acquisition, I was invited to speak on many different Google panels and events and very quickly, I began racking up my HR complaints. I used a four letter word, my analogy was not PC, my language was not PG" Firstly, these came from events he was _invited_ to speak at. If you invite someone to speak and then don't let them speak their mind what was the point in inviting them? Secondly, as a non-american none of the things he mentions are egregious. A bit unprofessional? Yeah, probably. But not worthy of being reported to HR.
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      I'm sorry but this makes no sense. So what if he was invited to speak? Can we not hold people accountable for their actions just because they were invited to speak? How do you know whether or not the things he said were worthy of reporting to HR? He didn't say what they were for a reason
      - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        It seems like we're at an impasse. To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise. And I don't know, but the article makes me believe he is not out to attack people. Some people have also pointed out cultural differences that are likely at play here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26168899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26168899. Again, you clearly think differently given one of your other comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170030.
        thethethethe 6y ago
        > To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise No this is exactly what I think. I think it is valid for people to air the grievances. I think the difference here is that you are skeptical of the validity if their complaints. If I am right, this is a pretty fundamental difference in world view that I doubt can be reconciled on a HN thread at this point unless you disagree
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Yes, that's what I meant and I agree it's probably not going to be reconciled in a HN thread.
dshpala 6y ago
This analogy is a bit careless. You can't just throw BLM around, or we'll end up with stuff like: "So yeah, this code is bad and I'm the only one who thinks so, but not caring about my opinion is like not caring about oppression of black people!".
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > This analogy is a bit careless. I disagree. The OP was essentially arguing that being offensive to a group of people is okay if that group is a minority. I was simply demonstrating how absurd that argument is when directly applied to a specific group of people. I honestly don't even understand your analogy, it isn't similar to what I was saying at all. It is pretty safe to assume the author of the article was saying offensive things to a group of people, not having an unpopular opinion about something in general. These are two very different things that any sensible person with empathy would be able to differentiate. So, because of these inherent differences, your slippery slope argument makes no sense and is not be reflected in actual social interactions

> offensive to a small vocal minority I really don't see how this is an excuse. it's like saying "black people are a minority in the US so who cares if they say they are oppressed"

ZephyrBlu 6y ago

I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is going to like everything that you say. I don't think this is an issue. If there's a specific demographic that is consistently affected by what you're saying, there might be an issue though.

thethethethe 6y ago
> I think it's reasonable to assume that not everyone is going to like everything that you say. Sure but it's really not that hard to keep things under control in the work place. I have my own opinions, sometimes I share them at work, sometimes people may disagree, however, I don't "rack up multiple HR complaints" like this guy did.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago
  "After the acquisition, I was invited to speak on many different Google panels and events and very quickly, I began racking up my HR complaints. I used a four letter word, my analogy was not PC, my language was not PG" Firstly, these came from events he was _invited_ to speak at. If you invite someone to speak and then don't let them speak their mind what was the point in inviting them? Secondly, as a non-american none of the things he mentions are egregious. A bit unprofessional? Yeah, probably. But not worthy of being reported to HR.
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    I'm sorry but this makes no sense. So what if he was invited to speak? Can we not hold people accountable for their actions just because they were invited to speak? How do you know whether or not the things he said were worthy of reporting to HR? He didn't say what they were for a reason
    - ZephyrBlu 6y ago
      It seems like we're at an impasse. To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise. And I don't know, but the article makes me believe he is not out to attack people. Some people have also pointed out cultural differences that are likely at play here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26168899 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26168899. Again, you clearly think differently given one of your other comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26170030.
      - thethethethe 6y ago
        > To me, it sounds like people wanted to "hold him accountable" for upsetting them. You clearly think otherwise No this is exactly what I think. I think it is valid for people to air the grievances. I think the difference here is that you are skeptical of the validity if their complaints. If I am right, this is a pretty fundamental difference in world view that I doubt can be reconciled on a HN thread at this point unless you disagree
        ZephyrBlu 6y ago
        Yes, that's what I meant and I agree it's probably not going to be reconciled in a HN thread.

dshpala 6y ago

This analogy is a bit careless. You can't just throw BLM around, or we'll end up with stuff like: "So yeah, this code is bad and I'm the only one who thinks so, but not caring about my opinion is like not caring about oppression of black people!".

thethethethe 6y ago
> This analogy is a bit careless. I disagree. The OP was essentially arguing that being offensive to a group of people is okay if that group is a minority. I was simply demonstrating how absurd that argument is when directly applied to a specific group of people. I honestly don't even understand your analogy, it isn't similar to what I was saying at all. It is pretty safe to assume the author of the article was saying offensive things to a group of people, not having an unpopular opinion about something in general. These are two very different things that any sensible person with empathy would be able to differentiate. So, because of these inherent differences, your slippery slope argument makes no sense and is not be reflected in actual social interactions