6 ms·

Google told him to “assume good intent”. This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-p

Google told him to “assume good intent”. This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-page conversations derail due to nothing other than editors assuming bad faith about each others contributions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

villasv 6y ago
It’s good advice for the general public, but it’s a bad policy for HR and a bad response to complaints.
- ramblerman 6y ago
  In this case the complaint was about someone who had said " that their skin was much darker than she expected". Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.
  - villasv 6y ago
    The provided example doesn’t change the fact that it’s bad policy. HR should tell people to assume nothing.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
ketzu 6y ago
The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.
- Griffinsauce 6y ago
  > whenever it is ignored, discussion derails It also derails exactly when people post in bad faith. This rule is self-defeating as long as nothing covers this gap.
- DanBC 6y ago
  We need to remember that the HN rule allows very polite racists to speak about how they feel Black people are genetically inferior, and then bans the people who respond angrily.
  - ketzu 6y ago
    That's an uncharitable reading of HNs guidelines. I would interpret the following part of it differently: > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. My interpretation is more: HN considers polite racists to be a moderation problem, not a hook for angry shouting at each other.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    "be the better person" applies. If they are making a well founded statement but you don't agree with it on a moral level, you CAN try and argue with them, but if you get angry at them you lose the argument by default. You can bring up counter-arguments and sources and the like. You can (and probably should) choose to not engage, and just downvote or flag (if you feel like it violates guidelines). One problem of the internet as a whole (and I am guilty of it too) is that people feel like they HAVE to engage, even if it's futile.
  - effingwewt 6y ago
    Indeed just as with wiki-lawyers, and everything else with humans involved, the rules/politeness will be used as a weapon by some and all of us who abide are beaten by them.
Miner49er 6y ago
This is kind of nitpicky though. That was (sort of) fine, but telling him to take mental health leave and then using it as a way to push him out of the company is the real story here. They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism. Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  We're clearly getting one side of the story and missing the broader context. That's normal for journalism these days. That is, ramp up controversy, and omit countervailing factors and wider context. Let's take a step back and look what this article would have us believe ... namely that in 2021, when race and talk of race is an incredibly sensitive topic (and has been for a couple of decades now but there is certainly extra sensitivity now than before), a tech company in Silicon Valley, based in one of the most progressives areas in the world, would be staffed with people who go around commenting on people's skin color? I need a little bit more journalism to understand the context because at face-value this doesn't pass the 'smell test'. >They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism. How do you know that? Why would you trust that NBC News is accurately and objectively laying out the case here? What is it in their general reporting, especially on highly contentious and sensitive issues, that tells you they will provide you with the facts and context so you can reach a balanced conclusion?
  - Miner49er 6y ago
    Are you just ignoring these two parts of my comment? > seem to > Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way. I think I was pretty clear that this is the picture the article paints, but maybe isn't how it actually is.
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      I did miss that last comment. I apologize. You can interpret my comment as making a general statement about the quality of journalism because I honestly don't think we as readers can come to any conclusions by reading this article.
onei 6y ago
After spending many years editing wikis with a similar policy, I've found good faith is roughly synonymous with Hanlon's razor - never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. It's something to apply in spades for newcomers who may have made a best effort but unfortunately broke something. However, pleading ignorance on rascism or sexism does not hold water. You may think racism or sexism is normal, but if I allow you to claim ignorance, then I implicitly tolerate that behaviour. Tolerating such behaviours can destroy a community, and past experience has taught me to call them out as soon as I see them if you want the community to benefit long term.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  I think this is missing the point. It's to assume good intent when interpreting whether something is racist or sexist, not assume good intent when deciding how to react to racism or sexism.
- sz4kerto 6y ago
  Example: a friend of mine moved to a new country (Central-European capital to large city in Western Europe). At some point he was in the pub with a bunch of colleagues, and he asked one of them who had obvious accent about where they're from (they were a person of color). They asked back 'what do you mean?', and apparently got very offended. The funny part: for my friend, who also had a strong accent, it was odd (and not very nice) if someone didn't ever ask about where's he from -- because he was obviously an immigrant. Just telling this story because something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly.
  - shark_laser 6y ago
    "something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly. " Thank you for your wisdom. I have been saying something along these lines for a long time, but never so eloquently.
  - onei 6y ago
mqrs 6y ago
What “good faith” motivation could possibly arise from pointing out the color of one’s skin in America though?
- Clewza313 6y ago
  Google is an international company with lots of immigrants not familiar with modern American norms, where (say) complimenting a colleague's hair can be a reportable HR offense.
  - mqrs 6y ago
    > Google is an international company with lots of immigrants not familiar with modern American norms Still, doesn’t the responsibility of understanding the sensitivities of an unfamiliar culture fall onto the foreigner who’s coming in?
    - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
      Yes, but that particular quirk is unique to Wokeness which is very new even to most Westerners.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - mqrs 6y ago
        I don’t understand your point here—if I’m traveling to a foreign country and I’m asking about what’s offensive because I don’t want to offend the locals and be an annoying, insensitive tourist, then I’m just automatically being “woke” instead of trying to genuinely learn about the indigenous culture from the point of view of the locals? Are you saying that I should be asserting my own perceptions of the world to the people whom I am visiting?
        Clewza313 6y ago
        Not the previous poster, but the point was that "I love your curly hair!" is not a statement that would cause offense pretty much anywhere in the world except in certain "woke" US corporations. Also, while said companies go to extreme length to tell their employees how to handle any hint of racism, sexism, etc, they do not actually define what any of these terms mean in practice, meaning even the "indigenous" are walking on eggshells. There's also a difficult continual doublethink required to simultaneously celebrate diversity while avoiding any hint of appropriation, all while pretending to ignore everything about the actual people you're working with.
red_admiral 6y ago
Good intent and bad results are not mutually exclusive though. One way to handle this would be for HR to talk to the person who made the original comment about skin color and say, we assume you had a good intent but please try not to do that again (and a short explanation why).

villasv 6y ago

It’s good advice for the general public, but it’s a bad policy for HR and a bad response to complaints.

ramblerman 6y ago
In this case the complaint was about someone who had said " that their skin was much darker than she expected". Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.
- villasv 6y ago
  The provided example doesn’t change the fact that it’s bad policy. HR should tell people to assume nothing.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

ketzu 6y ago

The same is written in the HN guidelines, and whenever it is ignored, discussion derails. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.

Griffinsauce 6y ago
> whenever it is ignored, discussion derails It also derails exactly when people post in bad faith. This rule is self-defeating as long as nothing covers this gap.
DanBC 6y ago
We need to remember that the HN rule allows very polite racists to speak about how they feel Black people are genetically inferior, and then bans the people who respond angrily.
- ketzu 6y ago
  That's an uncharitable reading of HNs guidelines. I would interpret the following part of it differently: > Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did. My interpretation is more: HN considers polite racists to be a moderation problem, not a hook for angry shouting at each other.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  "be the better person" applies. If they are making a well founded statement but you don't agree with it on a moral level, you CAN try and argue with them, but if you get angry at them you lose the argument by default. You can bring up counter-arguments and sources and the like. You can (and probably should) choose to not engage, and just downvote or flag (if you feel like it violates guidelines). One problem of the internet as a whole (and I am guilty of it too) is that people feel like they HAVE to engage, even if it's futile.
- effingwewt 6y ago
  Indeed just as with wiki-lawyers, and everything else with humans involved, the rules/politeness will be used as a weapon by some and all of us who abide are beaten by them.

Miner49er 6y ago

This is kind of nitpicky though. That was (sort of) fine, but telling him to take mental health leave and then using it as a way to push him out of the company is the real story here. They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism. Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way.

macspoofing 6y ago
We're clearly getting one side of the story and missing the broader context. That's normal for journalism these days. That is, ramp up controversy, and omit countervailing factors and wider context. Let's take a step back and look what this article would have us believe ... namely that in 2021, when race and talk of race is an incredibly sensitive topic (and has been for a couple of decades now but there is certainly extra sensitivity now than before), a tech company in Silicon Valley, based in one of the most progressives areas in the world, would be staffed with people who go around commenting on people's skin color? I need a little bit more journalism to understand the context because at face-value this doesn't pass the 'smell test'. >They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism. How do you know that? Why would you trust that NBC News is accurately and objectively laying out the case here? What is it in their general reporting, especially on highly contentious and sensitive issues, that tells you they will provide you with the facts and context so you can reach a balanced conclusion?
- Miner49er 6y ago
  Are you just ignoring these two parts of my comment? > seem to > Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way. I think I was pretty clear that this is the picture the article paints, but maybe isn't how it actually is.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    I did miss that last comment. I apologize. You can interpret my comment as making a general statement about the quality of journalism because I honestly don't think we as readers can come to any conclusions by reading this article.

onei 6y ago

After spending many years editing wikis with a similar policy, I've found good faith is roughly synonymous with Hanlon's razor - never attribute to malice what can be attributed to ignorance. It's something to apply in spades for newcomers who may have made a best effort but unfortunately broke something. However, pleading ignorance on rascism or sexism does not hold water. You may think racism or sexism is normal, but if I allow you to claim ignorance, then I implicitly tolerate that behaviour. Tolerating such behaviours can destroy a community, and past experience has taught me to call them out as soon as I see them if you want the community to benefit long term.

robertlagrant 6y ago
I think this is missing the point. It's to assume good intent when interpreting whether something is racist or sexist, not assume good intent when deciding how to react to racism or sexism.
sz4kerto 6y ago
Example: a friend of mine moved to a new country (Central-European capital to large city in Western Europe). At some point he was in the pub with a bunch of colleagues, and he asked one of them who had obvious accent about where they're from (they were a person of color). They asked back 'what do you mean?', and apparently got very offended. The funny part: for my friend, who also had a strong accent, it was odd (and not very nice) if someone didn't ever ask about where's he from -- because he was obviously an immigrant. Just telling this story because something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly.
- shark_laser 6y ago
  "something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly. " Thank you for your wisdom. I have been saying something along these lines for a long time, but never so eloquently.
- onei 6y ago

mqrs 6y ago

What “good faith” motivation could possibly arise from pointing out the color of one’s skin in America though?

Clewza313 6y ago
Google is an international company with lots of immigrants not familiar with modern American norms, where (say) complimenting a colleague's hair can be a reportable HR offense.
- mqrs 6y ago
  > Google is an international company with lots of immigrants not familiar with modern American norms Still, doesn’t the responsibility of understanding the sensitivities of an unfamiliar culture fall onto the foreigner who’s coming in?
  - Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
    Yes, but that particular quirk is unique to Wokeness which is very new even to most Westerners.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - mqrs 6y ago
      I don’t understand your point here—if I’m traveling to a foreign country and I’m asking about what’s offensive because I don’t want to offend the locals and be an annoying, insensitive tourist, then I’m just automatically being “woke” instead of trying to genuinely learn about the indigenous culture from the point of view of the locals? Are you saying that I should be asserting my own perceptions of the world to the people whom I am visiting?
      - Clewza313 6y ago
        Not the previous poster, but the point was that "I love your curly hair!" is not a statement that would cause offense pretty much anywhere in the world except in certain "woke" US corporations. Also, while said companies go to extreme length to tell their employees how to handle any hint of racism, sexism, etc, they do not actually define what any of these terms mean in practice, meaning even the "indigenous" are walking on eggshells. There's also a difficult continual doublethink required to simultaneously celebrate diversity while avoiding any hint of appropriation, all while pretending to ignore everything about the actual people you're working with.

red_admiral 6y ago

Good intent and bad results are not mutually exclusive though. One way to handle this would be for HR to talk to the person who made the original comment about skin color and say, we assume you had a good intent but please try not to do that again (and a short explanation why).