5 ms·

The opening example this article gives is preposterous. Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? Who would want to work with a person wh

The opening example this article gives is preposterous. Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? Who would want to work with a person who would? I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent coming from other people until they prove that wrong, and I don't think that standard was applied here.

wombatmobile 6y ago
Is it preposterous? We don't have enough information on the actual exchange, or the context from this article. "a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected." That might be benign, or hostile, or just candid and clumsy. It's hard to tell. It's also not clear whether Google was asked to put forward a defence to the accusations made in the article. "Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment." Again, the article doesn't provide enough context for us to know. Was the statement in response to a request to answer the allegations in the article, or was it a generic statement made without the context of these specific allegations?
- psychiatrist24 6y ago
  Yes it is.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  Of course it might be any of those things. Any comment, even one that sounds completely innocuous, may have subtle malicious connotations that people without context cannot infer. As the Google HR person suggested though, we should assume good motives where we don't have evidence to the contrary. You can't effectively work with other people if you're always assuming what they say is a veiled insult. If there is context that makes this clearly malicious then the article should provide it. It's not reasonable to assume that context exists though. While it is reasonable to acknowledge it might exist - there's no evidence of it. Perhaps a teapot is in space orbiting the sun by itself.
soneca 6y ago
By your standards a lot of very toxic people would get a pass by saying toxic stuff and they later saying _”I was just joking”_, thus ever denying their bad intent. And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  No, I don't think so. I think it's perfectly appropriate to say stuff like "Hey, comments about my skin color are kind of uncomfortable for me. I'd prefer we not discuss it." If the person keeps talking about your skin color you can say - "Hey, remember we talked before about how I feel this is inappropriate?" And if they can't stop bringing it up it seems like you've ruled out good intent, or based on how they react when you bring it up you might rule out good intent. Assuming good intent at first doesn't mean you're infinitely gullible or a doormat for people to walk on. It just means not being a landmine that is going to try to get people in trouble.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- tryonenow 6y ago
  Offense is taken, not given. Counterpoint: we are devolving into a hyper-sensitive society (or rather a small but vocal minority is imposing such a culture onto the rest of us) and bending over backwards to pretend we're all identical is going to lead to an resurgence of racism as people lose faith in our institutions, becoming aware that we are effectively being gaslit. >And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces. Or perhaps you are looking for issues where they do not exist.
- zimbatm 6y ago
  It's just as toxic as people seeing *ism everywhere. They create an atmosphere of suspicion that is not conducive to free thinking. Unfortunately in big groups you will have both of those types and HR is not good at managing finer-grained inter-personal issues. Without all of the context it's hard to judge group dynamics.
villasv 6y ago
> I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent That’s probably because you can afford to. Imagine you’re someone who had to file a grave complaint but the person got off the hook because “it was a one time thing, it’s his first offense”. It’s important to document all microagression if you really want something to happen out of these complaints. The accuser maybe felt the perp would likely be a repeating offender and is not open to feedback, so the effort to pile up complaints got initiated. This is how it’s done. I’d be happy to work with this person.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  No, it's not important to document all "microagressions". It sounds like it would be a nightmare to work with any person who thought or acted like that. The concept of microagressions is backwards and pernicious. People are imperfect communicators. Getting offended at cryptic, imagined, or unintended slights is something that children and crazy people do. Adults, especially in the workplace, should be able to understand people have different ways of expressing themselves and that's not bad and you don't need to get HR involved. One example comes to mind - I had a coworker who frequently wrote "..." After messages on our instant messenger. Once I asked him a question and he just replied "..." And then 20 minutes later told me the answer. I read this as kind of a sarcastic thing, like an exasperated sigh that he'd have to explain something so obvious. I thought this guy was a real jerk. One day after he sent me a "..." I asked him what it meant. I said "What does '...' signify?" And the guy answered that it meant "More to follow" and I realized that he wasn't being a jerk, he was just trying to signal to me that he couldn't complete the answer at the moment, but would send more to follow. The point of my little story is that it just doesn't make sense to assume hostile motives. Lots of times people just communicate differently. Trying to document all the times you can interpret someone as being negative is just a bad idea in addition to being unfair and unproductive. It's also way more likely to make people genuinely aggressive and hostile towards you.
  - villasv 6y ago
    You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.
emptysongglass 6y ago
At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with or if I do it's to respond with an, "I'm doing great, thanks, and how are you?" No after-work drinks or else I'll have one for the sake of appearing affable. I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that. I can't count on anyone assuming good intent with me because everyone is so fired up on their crusader trains. I'll give a personal example: when I was a Buddhist renunciate--this was right at the beginning of cancel culture--someone I thought to be a close friend posted a negative experience she had with a man. It didn't stop there: she proceeded to blast all men for not immediately talking to every man they knew about their inherent violence. I commented that from the perspective of peace, her exhortation would result in more anger, more rage in the world, not less. My last name on Facebook at that time was my own creation, for the sake of my privacy. Immediately after my call for calm, I was doxxed and Facebook locked me out of my account until I could prove my last name. In hindsight, she did me a great favor as I never returned to Facebook, which I now see as poison to the human mind.
- matsemann 6y ago
  > At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with (...) I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that If potentially anything you say will blow up on you, you should consider if it's you that are in the wrong in how you conduct yourself and what's coming out of your mouth when you're not self censoring, or if everyone else is wrong. Edit: Never had such a down voted comment before. What are you all saying about your weekend to co-workers that makes people so offended?
  - Hnrobert42 6y ago
    I upvoted you, but I think people who are downvoting you see your comment as a kind of victim-blaming. Namely that GP was the victim of a doxxing, and you are blaming them.
    - matsemann 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
throwawaygulf 6y ago
>Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? It's painfully obvious you haven't been exposed to Bay Area/West Coast start-up culture (I envy your lack of exposure). I've seen people getting reported to HR for the following things: - Using a photo of a Sherpa (an actual photo, not a character or drawing) in a presentation to describe the concept of guiding people and systems to their desired outcome and state. They were reported for using racist caricatures of marginalized minorities - Discussing shooting sports in a thread about hobbies. They were reported for making people feel unsafe - Someone posted a screen shot of a Tweet in support of BLM, but the screen shot was from Blacktivist, a Twitter account that was part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Someone replied to the screen shot that maybe it should be taken down since it was literally created and pushed from a propaganda account. They were reported for being insensitive to PoC employees These are just a few out of the dozens upon dozens. I'm sure many others here on HN could provide examples.

wombatmobile 6y ago

Is it preposterous? We don't have enough information on the actual exchange, or the context from this article. "a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected." That might be benign, or hostile, or just candid and clumsy. It's hard to tell. It's also not clear whether Google was asked to put forward a defence to the accusations made in the article. "Google said in a statement that the company is committed to supporting employees who raise concerns about workplace treatment." Again, the article doesn't provide enough context for us to know. Was the statement in response to a request to answer the allegations in the article, or was it a generic statement made without the context of these specific allegations?

psychiatrist24 6y ago
Yes it is.
ALittleLight 6y ago
Of course it might be any of those things. Any comment, even one that sounds completely innocuous, may have subtle malicious connotations that people without context cannot infer. As the Google HR person suggested though, we should assume good motives where we don't have evidence to the contrary. You can't effectively work with other people if you're always assuming what they say is a veiled insult. If there is context that makes this clearly malicious then the article should provide it. It's not reasonable to assume that context exists though. While it is reasonable to acknowledge it might exist - there's no evidence of it. Perhaps a teapot is in space orbiting the sun by itself.

soneca 6y ago

By your standards a lot of very toxic people would get a pass by saying toxic stuff and they later saying _”I was just joking”_, thus ever denying their bad intent. And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces.

ALittleLight 6y ago
No, I don't think so. I think it's perfectly appropriate to say stuff like "Hey, comments about my skin color are kind of uncomfortable for me. I'd prefer we not discuss it." If the person keeps talking about your skin color you can say - "Hey, remember we talked before about how I feel this is inappropriate?" And if they can't stop bringing it up it seems like you've ruled out good intent, or based on how they react when you bring it up you might rule out good intent. Assuming good intent at first doesn't mean you're infinitely gullible or a doormat for people to walk on. It just means not being a landmine that is going to try to get people in trouble.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tryonenow 6y ago
Offense is taken, not given. Counterpoint: we are devolving into a hyper-sensitive society (or rather a small but vocal minority is imposing such a culture onto the rest of us) and bending over backwards to pretend we're all identical is going to lead to an resurgence of racism as people lose faith in our institutions, becoming aware that we are effectively being gaslit. >And that kind of toxic-then-deny people are very, very common in workplaces. Or perhaps you are looking for issues where they do not exist.
zimbatm 6y ago
It's just as toxic as people seeing *ism everywhere. They create an atmosphere of suspicion that is not conducive to free thinking. Unfortunately in big groups you will have both of those types and HR is not good at managing finer-grained inter-personal issues. Without all of the context it's hard to judge group dynamics.

villasv 6y ago

> I agree with Google here that you should assume good intent That’s probably because you can afford to. Imagine you’re someone who had to file a grave complaint but the person got off the hook because “it was a one time thing, it’s his first offense”. It’s important to document all microagression if you really want something to happen out of these complaints. The accuser maybe felt the perp would likely be a repeating offender and is not open to feedback, so the effort to pile up complaints got initiated. This is how it’s done. I’d be happy to work with this person.

ALittleLight 6y ago
No, it's not important to document all "microagressions". It sounds like it would be a nightmare to work with any person who thought or acted like that. The concept of microagressions is backwards and pernicious. People are imperfect communicators. Getting offended at cryptic, imagined, or unintended slights is something that children and crazy people do. Adults, especially in the workplace, should be able to understand people have different ways of expressing themselves and that's not bad and you don't need to get HR involved. One example comes to mind - I had a coworker who frequently wrote "..." After messages on our instant messenger. Once I asked him a question and he just replied "..." And then 20 minutes later told me the answer. I read this as kind of a sarcastic thing, like an exasperated sigh that he'd have to explain something so obvious. I thought this guy was a real jerk. One day after he sent me a "..." I asked him what it meant. I said "What does '...' signify?" And the guy answered that it meant "More to follow" and I realized that he wasn't being a jerk, he was just trying to signal to me that he couldn't complete the answer at the moment, but would send more to follow. The point of my little story is that it just doesn't make sense to assume hostile motives. Lots of times people just communicate differently. Trying to document all the times you can interpret someone as being negative is just a bad idea in addition to being unfair and unproductive. It's also way more likely to make people genuinely aggressive and hostile towards you.
- villasv 6y ago
  You definition of microagression isn’t usual or useful. That’s why the rest of the argument made sense, but missed the point.

emptysongglass 6y ago

At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with or if I do it's to respond with an, "I'm doing great, thanks, and how are you?" No after-work drinks or else I'll have one for the sake of appearing affable. I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that. I can't count on anyone assuming good intent with me because everyone is so fired up on their crusader trains. I'll give a personal example: when I was a Buddhist renunciate--this was right at the beginning of cancel culture--someone I thought to be a close friend posted a negative experience she had with a man. It didn't stop there: she proceeded to blast all men for not immediately talking to every man they knew about their inherent violence. I commented that from the perspective of peace, her exhortation would result in more anger, more rage in the world, not less. My last name on Facebook at that time was my own creation, for the sake of my privacy. Immediately after my call for calm, I was doxxed and Facebook locked me out of my account until I could prove my last name. In hindsight, she did me a great favor as I never returned to Facebook, which I now see as poison to the human mind.

matsemann 6y ago
> At this point I just don't discuss my personal life with anyone I work with (...) I'm a nice person but that any comment is potentially a landmine to me professionally, I'd just rather not expose myself like that If potentially anything you say will blow up on you, you should consider if it's you that are in the wrong in how you conduct yourself and what's coming out of your mouth when you're not self censoring, or if everyone else is wrong. Edit: Never had such a down voted comment before. What are you all saying about your weekend to co-workers that makes people so offended?
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  I upvoted you, but I think people who are downvoting you see your comment as a kind of victim-blaming. Namely that GP was the victim of a doxxing, and you are blaming them.
  - matsemann 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

throwawaygulf 6y ago

>Who would make an HR complaint over one ill-considered remark? It's painfully obvious you haven't been exposed to Bay Area/West Coast start-up culture (I envy your lack of exposure). I've seen people getting reported to HR for the following things: - Using a photo of a Sherpa (an actual photo, not a character or drawing) in a presentation to describe the concept of guiding people and systems to their desired outcome and state. They were reported for using racist caricatures of marginalized minorities - Discussing shooting sports in a thread about hobbies. They were reported for making people feel unsafe - Someone posted a screen shot of a Tweet in support of BLM, but the screen shot was from Blacktivist, a Twitter account that was part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Someone replied to the screen shot that maybe it should be taken down since it was literally created and pushed from a propaganda account. They were reported for being insensitive to PoC employees These are just a few out of the dozens upon dozens. I'm sure many others here on HN could provide examples.