5 ms·

I really hope you're just trolling, I hope no one here is actually this obtuse. But just in case... Referring to them as "gang bang interviews": * implies an

by MBlume 15y ago

I really hope you're just trolling, I hope no one here is actually this obtuse. But just in case... Referring to them as "gang bang interviews": * implies an equivalence between having several people take it in turns to overpower and rape you, and having several people take it in turns to ask you questions * brings up the topic of rape in a context where people are expected to laugh * brings up the topic of rape for no good reason Can you really not see how this would create an unpleasant experience for someone (ie most women) who's been taught since age 12 to fear the possibility of being raped at any moment? Can you not see how this would create a potentially triggering experience, one which would wipe out any benefit from attending the conference, for an assault survivor?

droithomme 15y ago
Not trolling and I take exception to the implication that my point is so worthless. There are many parallels. As you point out the interviewee cornered in a room and find themselves attacked by one person after another. Most of the interviewers have the agenda to discredit and intimidate the interviewers whose looks or ethnicity they just don't like. If the person "looks cool" though then they go easy. It's hostile and confrontational and the interviewer is expected to take the abuse and not fight back or they are not demonstrating teamwork, where teamwork in many of these companies means being a passive beta that accepts abuse. Very different from talking one on one and having a chance to document one's competency. Gang bang interviews are a form of violence, they are wrong, and they should be stopped. No one should defend gang bang interviews in tech. Or in any other fields, but gang bang interviews are prevalent in tech mostly, I've never seen the practice in any other field.
- MartinCron 15y ago
  The point isn't worthless, but it's being presented in a jaw-droppingly insensitive way. Would you dare to say what you just said to an actual rape survivor? Are you that emotionally tone deaf or just misanthropic? Having a bunch of people ask you questions in a way you don't like, in a context where you're free to leave at any time, is not a form of violence. Maybe it's a form of aggression but not one that can credibly be compared to rape.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    My problem with your line of thinking is that as more and more people are silenced because of insensitivity, our freedoms are eroded away. What he says is insensitive, by why can't we just be adults and ignore it? After all, pretty much any article on HN involving legalizing MJ offends me, but I wouldn't go to my HR department if I heard people talking about it in the workplace. Or are you saying I should? When does it end?
    - MartinCron 15y ago
      I agree with Phillip Pullman when he says that "nobody has a right to never be offended." and that people should be free to say things that may be offensive, especially on their own time. The simple fact that you've been offended isn't reason to go to HR. You go to HR if you're being harassed or if people are actively creating a hostile work environment. It correlates with being offended, but it's not exactly the same thing. If people were harassing you about your MJ legalization stance (or anything, for that matter), then it probably would be appropriate to go to HR about. When does it end? Right there. Easy. As far as "silencing" goes, I'm assuming that the commenter above isn't trolling and honestly doesn't know that what he's saying is profoundly insensitive. In an intellectually honest community, people can have discussions around what would and wouldn't be considered insensitive, especially when that's the basic context of the discussion.
      - droithomme 15y ago
        It's a fair hypothesis. I know a few rape victims. I was able to get ahold of two of them and talk it out. Their opinion was the described interview tactic does not sound like something they would want to go through and it is reasonable to speak against them. Both also mentioned that gang bangs are not equivalent to gang rapes, differing in consent.
        koeselitz 15y ago
        That sort of seems to dissolve the parallel between interviews-by-committee and actual gang bangs, though.

by MBlume 15y ago

droithomme 15y ago

Not trolling and I take exception to the implication that my point is so worthless. There are many parallels. As you point out the interviewee cornered in a room and find themselves attacked by one person after another. Most of the interviewers have the agenda to discredit and intimidate the interviewers whose looks or ethnicity they just don't like. If the person "looks cool" though then they go easy. It's hostile and confrontational and the interviewer is expected to take the abuse and not fight back or they are not demonstrating teamwork, where teamwork in many of these companies means being a passive beta that accepts abuse. Very different from talking one on one and having a chance to document one's competency. Gang bang interviews are a form of violence, they are wrong, and they should be stopped. No one should defend gang bang interviews in tech. Or in any other fields, but gang bang interviews are prevalent in tech mostly, I've never seen the practice in any other field.

MartinCron 15y ago
The point isn't worthless, but it's being presented in a jaw-droppingly insensitive way. Would you dare to say what you just said to an actual rape survivor? Are you that emotionally tone deaf or just misanthropic? Having a bunch of people ask you questions in a way you don't like, in a context where you're free to leave at any time, is not a form of violence. Maybe it's a form of aggression but not one that can credibly be compared to rape.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  My problem with your line of thinking is that as more and more people are silenced because of insensitivity, our freedoms are eroded away. What he says is insensitive, by why can't we just be adults and ignore it? After all, pretty much any article on HN involving legalizing MJ offends me, but I wouldn't go to my HR department if I heard people talking about it in the workplace. Or are you saying I should? When does it end?
  - MartinCron 15y ago
    I agree with Phillip Pullman when he says that "nobody has a right to never be offended." and that people should be free to say things that may be offensive, especially on their own time. The simple fact that you've been offended isn't reason to go to HR. You go to HR if you're being harassed or if people are actively creating a hostile work environment. It correlates with being offended, but it's not exactly the same thing. If people were harassing you about your MJ legalization stance (or anything, for that matter), then it probably would be appropriate to go to HR about. When does it end? Right there. Easy. As far as "silencing" goes, I'm assuming that the commenter above isn't trolling and honestly doesn't know that what he's saying is profoundly insensitive. In an intellectually honest community, people can have discussions around what would and wouldn't be considered insensitive, especially when that's the basic context of the discussion.
    - droithomme 15y ago
      It's a fair hypothesis. I know a few rape victims. I was able to get ahold of two of them and talk it out. Their opinion was the described interview tactic does not sound like something they would want to go through and it is reasonable to speak against them. Both also mentioned that gang bangs are not equivalent to gang rapes, differing in consent.
      - koeselitz 15y ago
        That sort of seems to dissolve the parallel between interviews-by-committee and actual gang bangs, though.