5 ms·

I learned to stay the fuck away from any company where Andrew Hsu or relatives are involved. And until we see a bunch of ex Airy folks saying this article is f

by earl 15y ago

I learned to stay the fuck away from any company where Andrew Hsu or relatives are involved. And until we see a bunch of ex Airy folks saying this article is full of lies, it's fair to assume it's accurate.

potatolicious 15y ago
I'm not quite so ready to believe terrible things about Andrew Hsu - there's a non-zero chance that this is a hit-job by disgruntled ex-employees. Nor do we know if 100% of the accusations are 100% true, so assuming complete and utter factual accuracy would be unwise. But I take issue with jfarmer framing this as vigilantism. TC has brought up specific, verifiable claims of abuse, they have interviewed ex-employees, and they have given Hsu a chance to respond. I don't see how this is "vulgar" or "vigilantism".
- jfarmer 15y ago
  Well, right then, let's all enjoy our Two Minutes Hate. The claims are hardly specific or verifiable, for what it's worth, and I don't think Anthony sees it as his job to determine what "actually happened." What "actually happened" is incredibly boring, most likely. Instead we get a Fox News style report where two sides say contradictory things and we cheer on the one we identify with the most. For example, does Anthony really know that there is an email address that goes to the three adults? Did he do anything to verify it? I think all he knows is that an anonymous employee said there is one. And even if there is, it's still lurid. "A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." I mean, yes, by definition. "The group" has decided Andrew Hsu should be punished publicly for being a terrible manager -- allegedly. Before the internet, maybe a group of people would go over to his house, force him to put a sign around his neck, and march him around the town square for a while? (This is my last response in this part of the thread. I'll let you have the last word if you'd like.)
  - potatolicious 15y ago
    Okay, I was hoping to keep this civil and dispassionate, but I'm really strongly taking issue with your words. "Two Minutes Hate", "Romans chanting for gladiatorial blood", "Vigilantism", what are you on about? You seem more interested in throwing as many weasel words and colorful, fear-mongering imagery into your comments than actual commentary. Are you writing "1984" or are we talking about the article? Let's dive into the article first, though, and list out some verifiable, specific claims being made: - Hsu's family is the actual senior management, despite not holding any officially recognized position. - The unofficial/family senior management sequestered themselves in an office inaccessible to other employees, and in fact acted so collectively that there was a single email address to reach all of them. - Employees were forced to commit to 9-6pm quiet hours. Promised breaks of this silent period were not honored. - Some employees were forced to give lengthy debriefings at the end of the day to senior management, keeping them at the office until 9-10pm. - The expectation from senior management is to work 6-7 day weeks. - Management actively discouraged documentation of complaints. - Management told employees to not speak to ex-employees. These are concrete claims that the founder and startup can refute definitively. These are also factual findings that one can discover interviewing past and current employees. This is a long way from making vague, non-specific accusations about a company. So much for your "the claims are neither specific nor verifiable". You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about myself and others who have commented in this thread. You accuse us all of "taking smug delight in the bruising... of another person", and likened people commenting on this article to Roman gladiatorial spectators. As an Asian I'd rather that these accusations not be true, since they inevitably raise stereotypes that I have to live with every day, and I certainly do not want people to check my office for my parents when I do business in the future. Far from taking schadenfreude in these accusations, these sadden me, and if they pan out to be true, will mean a genuine step back for Asian founders. And yet, if these accusations are true, they deserve to be aired. The bruising of one's reputation is entirely deserved if the claims being leveled are true. You have an incredibly wide definition of the word "vigilantism", and I suggest you look into its historical uses before trying to weasel that word into anything where any group takes any action against anyone.
  - jfarmer 15y ago
    I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts" any more than Hannity and Colmes is designed to uncover the facts. I also think, even if the claims in the article were true, it's tantamount to an article about someone seeing Jack Nicholson yelling at a waitress and making her break down in tears. We like that article because it makes us feel righteous. It's still vulgar, though. (This is actually my last response. I hope the above was sufficiently civil and dispassionate. I'm not sure why being dispassionate is a virtue, though.)

by earl 15y ago

potatolicious 15y ago

I'm not quite so ready to believe terrible things about Andrew Hsu - there's a non-zero chance that this is a hit-job by disgruntled ex-employees. Nor do we know if 100% of the accusations are 100% true, so assuming complete and utter factual accuracy would be unwise. But I take issue with jfarmer framing this as vigilantism. TC has brought up specific, verifiable claims of abuse, they have interviewed ex-employees, and they have given Hsu a chance to respond. I don't see how this is "vulgar" or "vigilantism".

jfarmer 15y ago
Well, right then, let's all enjoy our Two Minutes Hate. The claims are hardly specific or verifiable, for what it's worth, and I don't think Anthony sees it as his job to determine what "actually happened." What "actually happened" is incredibly boring, most likely. Instead we get a Fox News style report where two sides say contradictory things and we cheer on the one we identify with the most. For example, does Anthony really know that there is an email address that goes to the three adults? Did he do anything to verify it? I think all he knows is that an anonymous employee said there is one. And even if there is, it's still lurid. "A vigilante is a private individual who legally or illegally punishes an alleged lawbreaker, or participates in a group which metes out extralegal punishment to an alleged lawbreaker." I mean, yes, by definition. "The group" has decided Andrew Hsu should be punished publicly for being a terrible manager -- allegedly. Before the internet, maybe a group of people would go over to his house, force him to put a sign around his neck, and march him around the town square for a while? (This is my last response in this part of the thread. I'll let you have the last word if you'd like.)
- potatolicious 15y ago
  Okay, I was hoping to keep this civil and dispassionate, but I'm really strongly taking issue with your words. "Two Minutes Hate", "Romans chanting for gladiatorial blood", "Vigilantism", what are you on about? You seem more interested in throwing as many weasel words and colorful, fear-mongering imagery into your comments than actual commentary. Are you writing "1984" or are we talking about the article? Let's dive into the article first, though, and list out some verifiable, specific claims being made: - Hsu's family is the actual senior management, despite not holding any officially recognized position. - The unofficial/family senior management sequestered themselves in an office inaccessible to other employees, and in fact acted so collectively that there was a single email address to reach all of them. - Employees were forced to commit to 9-6pm quiet hours. Promised breaks of this silent period were not honored. - Some employees were forced to give lengthy debriefings at the end of the day to senior management, keeping them at the office until 9-10pm. - The expectation from senior management is to work 6-7 day weeks. - Management actively discouraged documentation of complaints. - Management told employees to not speak to ex-employees. These are concrete claims that the founder and startup can refute definitively. These are also factual findings that one can discover interviewing past and current employees. This is a long way from making vague, non-specific accusations about a company. So much for your "the claims are neither specific nor verifiable". You also seem to be making a lot of assumptions about myself and others who have commented in this thread. You accuse us all of "taking smug delight in the bruising... of another person", and likened people commenting on this article to Roman gladiatorial spectators. As an Asian I'd rather that these accusations not be true, since they inevitably raise stereotypes that I have to live with every day, and I certainly do not want people to check my office for my parents when I do business in the future. Far from taking schadenfreude in these accusations, these sadden me, and if they pan out to be true, will mean a genuine step back for Asian founders. And yet, if these accusations are true, they deserve to be aired. The bruising of one's reputation is entirely deserved if the claims being leveled are true. You have an incredibly wide definition of the word "vigilantism", and I suggest you look into its historical uses before trying to weasel that word into anything where any group takes any action against anyone.
- jfarmer 15y ago
  I lied. :) I'm not interested in the article's claims, so I'm not going through them point-by-point. I apologize for my metaphors. They aren't weasel words, though. I'm not equivocating about anything. They're direct, if non-literal, expressions of my opinion. I think the article is lurid and vulgar. I think it's designed to stoke a mob response (cf. earl's comment). I don't think the goal was to uncover "the facts" any more than Hannity and Colmes is designed to uncover the facts. I also think, even if the claims in the article were true, it's tantamount to an article about someone seeing Jack Nicholson yelling at a waitress and making her break down in tears. We like that article because it makes us feel righteous. It's still vulgar, though. (This is actually my last response. I hope the above was sufficiently civil and dispassionate. I'm not sure why being dispassionate is a virtue, though.)