4 ms·

Hard disagree. There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything, and there's not enough time and energy to deal wit

Hard disagree. There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything, and there's not enough time and energy to deal with them. It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?" There are some topics where an issue is a learning opportunity and a discussion can be had. Technical disagreements are a classic case. There are others that are so played out and hurtful that it's not worth it. I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful. They just need to know that they are. If they're interested in getting better, they can go to their nearest search engine and read some history. If they're not, they can just know to keep their mouth shut next time.

whatshisface 4y ago
Assertion with no explanation works great right up until you are wrong. If you changed the situation slightly the person saying "we don't do that here" would sound awful. Turning the clock back a couple decades for example, "My pronouns are he/him." The authority figure, thinking that trans issues de-legitimize feminism: "We don't do that here." Or two decades before that: "My boss is harassing me, I'd like to complain." The authority figure, thinking that dealing with harassment claims is worse for team cohesion than taking them seriously: "We don't do that here."
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ThePadawan 4y ago
  Both of the examples you mentioned seem to me like the best possible outcomes: The trans person or harassment victim immediately realize that the authority figure is untrustworthy and they have to escape or escalate. If the authority figure went on to publicly agree, but privately misgender the trans person, or to publicly agree to investigate the harassment while privately hiding the evidence, this would be far more hurtful and dangerous to the victims.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    A trans person in 2002 doesn't have the options of escape or escalation, because the culture was the same at every company, and up to the top of their current one. Everyone will either privately or explicitly treat them the same way. The only opportunity they'd have is if someone opened a tiny window of hope by dialoguing, instead of pushing their own preconceived notions on them like everybody else would do.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    Hi, trans person here. I agree with you entirely. If anti-trans language is a team norm, I can easily check for support at the top, and then if I don't have it, I can leave. Is this ideal? No. Does it work perfectly fine given that I understand there is a baseline level of transphobia in my society? Yes.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Would a manager every say, "no, we don't support you?"
      - swayvil 4y ago
        No, he would say something clever and unarguable, stated in terms of popular truths. In fact everybody on both sides of the discussion would do that.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
restingrobot 4y ago
>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful. But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.
- Arainach 4y ago
  Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate. For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do: A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you" The point is not to debate. The point is that "no" or "we don't do that" is an answer in and of itself.
  - restingrobot 4y ago
    >Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate. I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them. Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.
    - banannaise 4y ago
      > Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Perhaps you could try the phrase "we don't do that here"
devmunchies 4y ago
> There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything This is healthier than demanding compliance. It's how tech was built in the first place. A "vocal segment" (debatable) that advocates conversation is better than a group that demands compliance. > It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?" now, now, now. comparing colleagues to children for curiosity could be seen as "hurtful". Would you like to be told to "keep [your] mouth shut" for that?
- amalcon 4y ago
  That sounds pretty good until you've had the same discussion 37 times. Having the same discussion for the 38th time does not feel like a conversation; it feels a denial of service attack. "We don't do that here" actually seems like a great way to express this. Discussion is not verboten in general; this is just not the place for it.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    "We don't do that here" usually doesn't mean "not now" or "not in this setting." It usually means "not ever while you are employed at this company."
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Even if it’s not a hassle to have the conversation 37 times, that 38th one could be huge drama! For most people, a short debate is sufficient. But you will spend almost all of your time with that tiny percent of people who rules-lawyer their way through life: Pointing out the lack of written clarity, complaining about 'hidden rules', writing a letter to object, appealing to your boss, appealing to boss's boss, lodging a formal complaint with leadership, getting actual lawyers involved, and on and on and on.
- mcguire 4y ago
  I am suddenly reminded of the sealion Wondermark (http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/). Anyway, "tech" was absolutely not built with group conversations, discussions, and debates. Debates are just ways to show off how smart you are. Tech was mostly built by people who went and did things, and if you didn't like what they were doing, you could either comply or leave. Which they discovered was a great way to get things done. So then they expanded that to every other possible realm which is why you have to "fit the culture" to work in tech. And why we're having this discussion.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
tasuki 4y ago
> Hard disagree. What exactly do you disagree with? I mostly just shared how I'd feel if these techniques were used on me...
SicSemperUranus 4y ago
But every community has their rules. Just because they're cultural rules doesn't make them anymore debatable. You: Break user space. Linus Torvalds: We don't do that here. You: I feel excluded. Good? If you want to do that shit, do it elsewhere. Don't come back. That's all the statement means: This is my standard as a leader and I don't have time to educate you. If you disagree, do it elsewhere.

whatshisface 4y ago

Assertion with no explanation works great right up until you are wrong. If you changed the situation slightly the person saying "we don't do that here" would sound awful. Turning the clock back a couple decades for example, "My pronouns are he/him." The authority figure, thinking that trans issues de-legitimize feminism: "We don't do that here." Or two decades before that: "My boss is harassing me, I'd like to complain." The authority figure, thinking that dealing with harassment claims is worse for team cohesion than taking them seriously: "We don't do that here."

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ThePadawan 4y ago
Both of the examples you mentioned seem to me like the best possible outcomes: The trans person or harassment victim immediately realize that the authority figure is untrustworthy and they have to escape or escalate. If the authority figure went on to publicly agree, but privately misgender the trans person, or to publicly agree to investigate the harassment while privately hiding the evidence, this would be far more hurtful and dangerous to the victims.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  A trans person in 2002 doesn't have the options of escape or escalation, because the culture was the same at every company, and up to the top of their current one. Everyone will either privately or explicitly treat them the same way. The only opportunity they'd have is if someone opened a tiny window of hope by dialoguing, instead of pushing their own preconceived notions on them like everybody else would do.
- banannaise 4y ago
  Hi, trans person here. I agree with you entirely. If anti-trans language is a team norm, I can easily check for support at the top, and then if I don't have it, I can leave. Is this ideal? No. Does it work perfectly fine given that I understand there is a baseline level of transphobia in my society? Yes.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    Would a manager every say, "no, we don't support you?"
    - swayvil 4y ago
      No, he would say something clever and unarguable, stated in terms of popular truths. In fact everybody on both sides of the discussion would do that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

restingrobot 4y ago

>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful. But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.

Arainach 4y ago
Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate. For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do: A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you" The point is not to debate. The point is that "no" or "we don't do that" is an answer in and of itself.
- restingrobot 4y ago
  >Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate. I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them. Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    > Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Perhaps you could try the phrase "we don't do that here"

devmunchies 4y ago

> There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything This is healthier than demanding compliance. It's how tech was built in the first place. A "vocal segment" (debatable) that advocates conversation is better than a group that demands compliance. > It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?" now, now, now. comparing colleagues to children for curiosity could be seen as "hurtful". Would you like to be told to "keep [your] mouth shut" for that?

amalcon 4y ago
That sounds pretty good until you've had the same discussion 37 times. Having the same discussion for the 38th time does not feel like a conversation; it feels a denial of service attack. "We don't do that here" actually seems like a great way to express this. Discussion is not verboten in general; this is just not the place for it.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  "We don't do that here" usually doesn't mean "not now" or "not in this setting." It usually means "not ever while you are employed at this company."
- ryandrake 4y ago
  Even if it’s not a hassle to have the conversation 37 times, that 38th one could be huge drama! For most people, a short debate is sufficient. But you will spend almost all of your time with that tiny percent of people who rules-lawyer their way through life: Pointing out the lack of written clarity, complaining about 'hidden rules', writing a letter to object, appealing to your boss, appealing to boss's boss, lodging a formal complaint with leadership, getting actual lawyers involved, and on and on and on.
mcguire 4y ago
I am suddenly reminded of the sealion Wondermark (http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/). Anyway, "tech" was absolutely not built with group conversations, discussions, and debates. Debates are just ways to show off how smart you are. Tech was mostly built by people who went and did things, and if you didn't like what they were doing, you could either comply or leave. Which they discovered was a great way to get things done. So then they expanded that to every other possible realm which is why you have to "fit the culture" to work in tech. And why we're having this discussion.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

tasuki 4y ago

> Hard disagree. What exactly do you disagree with? I mostly just shared how I'd feel if these techniques were used on me...

SicSemperUranus 4y ago

But every community has their rules. Just because they're cultural rules doesn't make them anymore debatable. You: Break user space. Linus Torvalds: We don't do that here. You: I feel excluded. Good? If you want to do that shit, do it elsewhere. Don't come back. That's all the statement means: This is my standard as a leader and I don't have time to educate you. If you disagree, do it elsewhere.