16 ms·

Let's simplify the rules to basic decency. Don't Be a Dick. Oh wait, I guess I can't say that now. Well, fuck me. Whoops, can't say that either. I hope mr-hank

• niggler 14y ago
  Keep in mind that PlayHaven probably sponsored his participation in PyCon and he would have been treated as a representative of the company. If they have standards of conduct (probably codified in some employee manual) there are probably contingencies for this exact circumstance which allow them to fire him.
  • michaelochurch 14y ago
    Actually, sexual harassment laws that actually exist are reasonable and conservative. There are a few women who try to sue over dick jokes, and "men's rights" characters who make a big deal out of it when that happens-- just like people blow the McDonalds case out of proportion (short synopsis: McD was in the wrong for bad cup design and serving over 160F/70C, the court assigned her partial blame, and she originally only wanted her medical bills paid, not "legal lottery" nonsense)-- but the stuff that's actually covered by sexual harassment law in most jurisdiction is leagues beyond mere dick jokes. No court would consider him guilty of anything for a joke about a dongle. I doubt his company had a sexual harassment policy that was substantially more aggressive than what the law provides. If she asked him to stop, and he kept going, then I'd say that he did something wrong. If he made a dick joke, then no. People make dick jokes in semi-private conversations. Women do, men do, because dicks can be funny. If she says "I wish you wouldn't make jokes like that around me", then he should have stopped and would be in the wrong, but I've seen no evidence of that. The termination suit is uncertain. It's far from a slam dunk, obviously, especially since he admitted making comments that he considered wrong and embarrassing. Bad move to discuss this in the public so soon. He should be able to get defamation, at least with good enough odds to get a settlement that'll cover him till he gets his next job, given what PlayHaven's management said about the termination and about him.
    • niggler 14y ago
      "No court would consider him guilty of anything for a joke about a dongle." I'm not an employee of playhaven, but I'm sure new employees sign employment agreements. Usually those agreements reference standards of conduct and that violations can result in termination. The court would have to establish that the employment agreement is null and void, which is a much harder challenge. "I doubt his company had a sexual harassment policy that was substantially more aggressive than what the law provides." What we don't know is if employees of playhaven complained about his banter. If they did, and he was informed and asked to stop, then it's his fault. "He should be able to get defamation" He might get defamation from her but not from PlayHaven.
      • michaelochurch 14y ago
        PlayHaven implied strongly that: (a) mr-hank did or said something sexually inappropriate. (He lost ground by admitting some degree of guilt on HN. Otherwise, it'd all be hearsay and he could say he was just talking about a literal dongle.) (b) mr-hank's conduct was so bad that there was no choice other than to fire him: "having to let this employee go". It wasn't we decided to fire him. It was we had to fire him. Important distinction, and quite likely, technically false. They probably fired him to save face, not because of an objective violation of any law or ethical principle that left them no other option. It's not a clear-cut case, and it's less so in the light of his HN admission, but he can certainly argue that the press release (a) misrepresents his behavior, (b) in a way that will damage his reputation and future employability. He has a lot of options here. He may settle for an amazing reference and introductions to investors. Or he might get a six-figure sum out of it. Or he might walk away. Depends what he wants. PlayHaven fucked up big time. These companies (especially PlayHaven; SendGrid has more of a case) should be more embarrassed than the people involved.
        • ryanmolden 14y ago
          >He may settle for an amazing reference and introductions to investors Honest question: if you essentially blackmail someone for an "introduction to investors" what makes you think the person introducing doesn't pull them aside before or after and say "this guy basically threatened to sue me if I didn't introduce him to you"? I have to imagine anyone in that position would likely do that, you could never prove they did it, and the investors would likely in no way take you seriously. That seems like the worst possible parlay I can imagine.
• knowtheory 14y ago
  If you did in fact read the article, you must have missed the point. You're right that there are more serious problems to deal with, but feigning offense isn't helping the situation.
• samiur1204 14y ago
  Agreed. Even though I'm sure Adria has been putting up with tons of real sexism over the years in the tech industry, and that this may have been the figurative straw on the camel's back, this is definitely the wrong thing to focus on. Sex jokes are definitely not necessarily sexist. These guys were perhaps a little crude, and their puns maybe horrible, but they were essentially harmless and at worst, just annoying. What we should focus on is the terrible response from the tech community towards Adria. There is horrifying sexism in the comments that have been posted over the past 24 hours, and it just brings to light the pervasive sexism in our industry. Let's focus on that and denigrate those comments, not some random crude comments a couple guys said in private.
  • WalterSear 14y ago
    Not puns - just one pun. The repo forking was, though informal, a thoroughly unpurient and non-sexual comment that she read meaning into.
    • michaelochurch 14y ago
      Repo forking is kid stuff. Back in my day, we fscked and we meant it.
      • ghshephard 14y ago
        I'm curious - did you consider whether mentioning the name of that filesystem check utility in a public forum might be considered inappropriate? I'm really (honestly) not judging either way, I'm just curious as to whether you checked yourself before posting?
        • michaelochurch 14y ago
          I'm just curious as to whether you checked yourself before posting? Between the anti-authoritarian and cynical writing, the 2002-10 trolling habit (long story; kids, don't fucking troll), the leak of Google's "calibration score" mess, the liberal use of profanity, the knowledge of altered consciousness (looked into doing a startup helping treat addictions w/ binaural beats), the blog post that cost VC-funded startups millions, and the fact that the CEO of a prominent startup made a personal campaign out of ruining my reputation (for, one year ago tomorrow, refusing to perjure myself on his behalf)... I don't think Michael O. Church is worried about saying fsck on the Internet. Chaotic good FTW. Except for the trolling, which was halfway between chaotic neutral and chaotic stupid.
• cheald 14y ago
  You could just say "Don't be an asshole". Assholes are gender-neutral! :D
  • sergiotapia 14y ago
    As a dolphin I am offended. I'm gonna sic my twitter followers on you.
• zeteo 14y ago
  >I hope mr-hank gets a huge severance out of PlayHaven It's interesting that the story is about Adria and mr-hank when, in fact, it should be about their respective companies. There are probably thousands of tweets posted everyday by people who got offended with inappropriate jokes - many of them at work. The real story is about the decisions of the respective HR / management to fire them. Aria didn't overreact more than PlayHaven HR, and she was less affected by mr-hank than by the SendGrid CEO laying her off. These people took the real decisions and they're hardly in the public eye.
  • iamtherockstar 14y ago
    I saw a tweet yesterday that said "We test life in production". I'm ashamed of companies that don't let their employees make little mistakes. If I made a mistake and the internet decided to DDoS my employer's site, I'd hope my employer thought the internet needed to cool off.
    • devilshaircut 14y ago
      I hope you are referring to the men and not Ms. Richards. Because her "little mistake" resulted in the firing of a decent human being with a wife and 3 kids.
      • zeteo 14y ago
        She posted a tweet. Even had she called for his resignation (which she didn't), she didn't have any power to effect it. What about the overreacting HR people who actually fired him over that tweet (knowing about the 3 kids and all)?
        • tatsuke95 14y ago
          How would you like to wake up one day and discover that your picture is all over the internet along with sexist/misogynistic accusations, and for all intents and purposes, you have no idea what you did wrong? Then you go to work and get canned. This was a pretty scary scene she perpetrated, at least to me. You can really do damage to someone with a mere tweet. Over a dumb, overheard joke? Come on. Judging by the public sentiment, it'll probably be okay for this guy. He's been incredibly gracious publicly. But had he gone home and hung himself, what story would we be talking about?
• rdl 14y ago
  Apparently it's ok to post offensive jokes/sexual innuendo if you're a woman (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriarichards/sets/72157616941814947/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/adriarichards/sets/721576169418...) or (https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425), just like you can only be racist if you're white (https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858)
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  • georgeorwell 14y ago
    Tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) is a fallacy, but this annoys me too. The pictures she took at PyCon of her playing a game of Cards Against Humanity are perhaps the most galling: https://www.facebook.com/adriarichards https://www.facebook.com/adriarichards e.g. the one on March 14th where she's holding a card that says, "Eating all of the cookies before the AIDS bake-sale."
    • girvo 14y ago
      I honestly didn't know Appeal To Hypocrisy was a fallacy! Probably one I'm going to continue to make; hypocrisy is the one thing that drives me insane.
      • georgeorwell 14y ago
        Yeah, it's a kind of ad hominem, because it says, "This person's arguments are not worth listening to because this person's behavior is not in line with what they are arguing for." But if arguments are rational things with inherent truth then it doesn't matter who says them. Her argument about overheard dongle jokes being sexist is weak enough as it is. The added hypocrisy just makes for sadly entertaining drama / gossip / whatever. In a way, by focusing on the hypocrisy, it lends credence to her claim of sexism, because there's the subtle implication that if she weren't a hypocrite then the sexism claim would be valid. Anyway, whatever, her reputation is kinda ruined now, I hope she makes it out of this okay.
• tptacek 14y ago
  In what specific way do you believe at-will employment is likely to be insufficient to allow someone's employers to fire them over a Twitter message?
  • michaelochurch 14y ago
    Well, let's start with the fact that it wasn't his Twitter message. SendGrid is probably home free on firing Adria Richards, because she did something objectionable-- harassed someone and cost him his job. PlayHaven, on the other hand, doesn't have a defensible cause for firing him. This would be even more true if he hadn't admitted to the comment as Mr Hank. Then he'd have been fired on her hearsay.
    • tptacek 14y ago
      It is in fact lawful to fire in the US on hearsay.
      • michaelochurch 14y ago
        This might be technically true. So, then, if you're fired over hearsay, your next step is to mandate that the firing employer cooperate fully in your suit (defamation, tortious interference) against the originator of the hearsay. If not, then there will be a termination suit. If they don't want to cooperate in your suit against the libelous person, or be sued, then they pony up a settlement. Termination suits often come down to image, especially of the employer's conduct. An employer that's cooperative and fair usually wins. An employer that seems dodgy (by, for example, firing someone on hearsay and not cooperating with proceedings against the person who supplied the information) is at risk, and looks bad even if victorious. This is a very gray area of law, at least in practice. There are few termination cases that are clearly black or white. That's why severance packages and those hideous PIPs exist.
        • tptacek 14y ago
          Exactly what legal risk for the employer are you referring to? "Termination suit"? You've assembled a series of statements that certainly do sound credible, but I can't figure out how to actually attach them back to employment law. Firing someone without cause or even for a demonstrably faulty cause is not a tort, Michael.
• evo_9 14y ago
  I think SendGrid should hire mr-hank to square up the Karma on this situation.
• eurleif 14y ago
  >given that they discussed the termination in the public (disclosing an opinion that he is guilty) The actual wording is: "The result of this investigation led to the unfortunate outcome of having to let this employee go." It's not explicitly stated what (if anything) they determined he did; just that the end result was firing him.
  • steveax 14y ago
    And what a classic passive-evasive BS way of saying it. "Mistakes were made."
• honri 14y ago
  Too bad the "77 cents on the dollar" feminist mantra has been debunked ad nauseam. If you're looking for real sexism to fight, you might want to start from the morally bankrupt and misandric family court system...
  • yarrel 14y ago
    Hello MRA.
• Tichy 14y ago
  The 77 cents on the dollar thing is just a symptom of the same thing, blaming men for all and everything and portraying women as victims (to excert special compensation for women). If you research the paygap issue a little bit, you'll find that it really isn't an issue of discrimination at all (hint: among other things, women chose other professions than men). I admit that I have started to become very angry about this constant misrepresentation of men as oppressors of women and women being the victims. In reality women are the privileged "class" in our society. Actually I am willing to shoulder more, as had been men's ordained role for quite a while (in exchange women risk their lives for childbirth), but to then be derided and spat on is galling. WSJ: there is no male-female wage gap http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870441510457625... Why the pay gap is a sham: http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1 http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-i... Women in tech earn more than men: http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money-and-land-better-jobs-than-men-2010-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/women-in-tech-make-more-money...
  • flyinRyan 14y ago
    Oh here we go. Didn't realize there was a "Men's rights" section on HN. "People just don't understand how hard it is to be a white male!"
    • Tichy 14y ago
      Your argument being...?
      • flyinRyan 14y ago
        That you're being an idiot. White male is the most privileged thing to be, not some down trodden, exploited minority. Posts like yours belong in /r/mensrights with the other crap. And from your other posts, I think you're much better than this.
        • 14y ago
• rmc 14y ago
  There are real problems and whatever Adria just tripped on is not one of them. How do you know they aren't related? What if women are being excluded from tech events due to the sexual objectification, and what if that's harming their carrer?
  • linkn2 14y ago
    That may be true, however what really hurts Adria's argument is a tweet she made earlier: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 Now, if women are being excluded due to sexual jokes (and I'll note that the joke she responded to was specifically about comparing technology to a part of the male anatomy, not the female anatomy, so it's not objectification of women that's the issue here), then Adria's tweet here is causing the exact same problem she's crusading against.
• rmc 14y ago
  Of course you can say "Don't be a dick". Just don't treat a conference like a (straight) male's locker room and have all the talk about sex,.
• Crake 14y ago
  Single women age 20-30 actually make more than men do. The 77 cents thing is an oft repeated myth based on an old study with shoddy methodology.
• sdgwerwer 14y ago
  Man, this is such a fucking confusing case. I don't want to support harassment in a professional context, but I find it really hard to think of what those guys did as harassment. I want to live in a world where you can make crude jokes with your work friends and not be afraid about who is listening in. Harassment shouldn't be defined by a list of taboo subjects or stupid rules. Harassment should mean intentional actions that make someone feel uncomfortable or afraid. That means there needs to be some reasonable leeway made for situations where you don't know you're making someone uncomfortable. It makes sense that we should be careful about the kind of jokes we make directly to people but we shouldn't by default have to assume that someone with absolutely zero sense of humour is listening in. People should be free to make jokes and flirt and do whatever they like at the work place, as long as no-one minds. We have to spend half our life at work, what's the fucking point of having to be a robot the whole time? Sexual jokes aren't necessarily sexist, nor are they necessarily harassing. Neither is flirting, or kissing or flat out having sex, for that matter. (Might be inappropriate for a work environment, but doesn't have to be sexual harassment, does it?) On the other hand, if you do it in an inappropriate way, looking at someone could be genuinely terrifying harassment. I bet if you were careful and sadistic enough, you could turn any innocuous interaction into something that, over time, makes someone feel deeply uncomfortable. Imagine if we work together. Imagine I am perfectly normal with everyone else, but when I put my reports on your desk, I slide them on gently, looking you in the eye, then I just hold them there, palm flat on the desk and I smile. I let the smile last just a second too long, then I go off and carry on being relatively normal with everyone else. I do that every single day, and each time you look less and less comfortable, and each time I either don't react or seem to enjoy your discomfort. How long would it take before that became very unpleasant for you? What kind of possible rule structure could be in place that could conceivable prevent me from doing this without requiring some communication from you? What would you ban? Looking someone in the eye and smiling for too long? How many seconds is too long? How would you time it? Moreover, how the fuck would this rule structure be able to distinguish intentional harassment from the situation where it turns out I am slightly autistic and I happen to really enjoy looking over your shoulder at your screensaver when I drop my reports on your desk? We have to set the rules at a place of compromise and rely on explicit communication to sort everything else out. Otherwise we'll end up with segregated offices or women in fucking Burkhas or some other retarded solution to the general problem of otherwise clever people being unable to cope with social interaction.
• davver 14y ago
  "I think we should care more about women earning 77 cents on the dollar" This is a faulty study and its well known. Why even cite it? "unfairly hard time recovering their career progress after maternity" They lost skills and their market value is lower. You can't force people to pay them more then they are worth. Someone has to actually raise children. The under the table immigrant nanny that's watching the kid is taking a break from her self-actualization career too. This is a cost people just have to deal with. --- I find your self flagellation going a little far. Nearly all the people in your industry are men. They are men because they are generally nerds that feel they need to go into a boring profession because it pays more and providing for women is their only way to get a mate. Women, who have natural value as the evolutionary bottleneck, don't have to do the shitty jobs. That's why they shy away from the boring, dangerous, or tough jobs men do for the sole reason that they pay more. Women that are good programmers will do as well or better then the men. I've never seen a good woman programmer (or anything) get held back just for being a woman. Women who are bad programmers will still be kept around to add some diversity. And women who don't program or have any discernible job skills at all will get HR/PR lady jobs like Adia. Adia forgot she was the token, she was getting a paycheck to do nothing to shuffle some paperwork and make the employment statistics look good. Or maybe she knew it all too well and that was what really pissed her off. Of course it didn't piss her off enough to learn how to program and get a better job, but it did piss her off enough to blame some imaginary patriarchy keeping her down. The stuff your complaining about in the corporate world applies to men just as much. They just put up with it more because they HAVE TO. Because men are a disposable gender and always have been.