10 ms·

They need to update that statement with the fact that the joke was not about her, nor directed at her. Their statement leaves that very important part out, maki

• eridius 14y ago
  Can people please stop bringing up that tweet? It has absolutely nothing to do with what happened at PyCon. Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Especially since the only people who see her tweet are people that have explicitly chosen to do so (either by following her or by following someone's link to it). What is acceptable in an opt-in scenario is wildly different than what is acceptable when unwilling bystanders are listening.
  • seivan 14y ago
    Character flaw.
    • mtrimpe 14y ago
      Also known as the good old ad-hominem attack.
      • devcpp 14y ago
        No, it's a lack of consistency. This is required of every person making a claim, not her specifically, so this has nothing to do with ad hominem.
        • eridius 14y ago
          If this is about lack of consistency, then where's the lack of consistency? Did Adria go to a conference (or other professional space) and start telling lewd jokes? I don't think so. Your argument is basically akin to saying that, because I told some dirty jokes to my friends in private, I'm never allowed to complain when someone tells a dirty joke in public.
          • devcpp 14y ago
            >Your argument is basically akin to saying that, because I told some dirty jokes to my friends in private, I'm never allowed to complain when someone tells a dirty joke in public. Ah, Twitter is now considered private but two devs speaking in their chairs are pretty much delivering a speech. Besides, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you're not allowed to do these things, but you shouldn't be allowed to complain about it, just like senators who watch porn lose credibility when passing laws against all forms of porn.
            • eridius 14y ago
              No, Twitter isn't private, but neither is it forcing anyone to read it. Those two guys forced the people around them to listen to a lewd joke, whether or not they intended to. There's also a matter of context. A personal twitter stream is a very different context than a professional event. If I'm friends with my coworkers, I may hang out with them after work, and a dirty joke then is perfectly acceptable. But with the exact same people, at the workplace, a dirty joke is inappropriate. Exact same people. The difference is context.
              • entropy_ 14y ago
                Well, yes and no. If you're the kind of person who sometimes, in some contexts makes lewd jokes and is not offended by them, then simply being in another context when hearing them shouldn't offend you. It might make you cringe at the incongruence but it won't offend. Furthermore, you wouldn't then see yourself as a "hero" for publicly shaming the people who made said lewd joke. Simply turning around and telling them that what they're doing isn't appropriate. Also, it's not like those two developers were using a microphone or loudspeaker or some such device, they were just chatting away behind her and talking to each other. Sometimes we forget that people may overhear us when we talk to each other in a public setting. In that context is inappropriate speech(not sexist, not outright wrong, just inappropriate for that context) grounds for public shaming and firing when you simply could've forgotten(or not thought about) being overheard? I just think that she went overboard with the reaction and even seeing herself as heroic for doing something like that. The fact that she makes jokes like that in a different context simply shows that it couldn't have been that offensive to her(maybe just cringe-worthy) to warrant such a reaction.
      • OGC 14y ago
        > "Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[10] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words. The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.[11] Olavo de Carvalho, a Brazilian philosopher, has argued that ad hominem reasoning not only has rhetorical, but also logical value. As an example, he cites Karl Marx's idea that only the proletariat has an objective view of history. If that were to be taken rigorously, an ad hominem argument would effectively render Marx's general theory as incoherent: as Marx was not a proletarian, his own view of history couldn't be objective." (wikipedia article on ad hominem) In this case, i'd think it's pretty fucking valid.
        • dinkumthinkum 14y ago
          No, you can say "so and so argues such and such" all you want, that doesn't make it valid. I claim it is not valid and also claim you have not provided any justification for it. It simply does not follow. As for rhetorical value ... Being a sophist is not the same as being logically consistent.
        • WildUtah 14y ago
          Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious Argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy (argument from authority), supporting argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Nicely done.
        • vacri 14y ago
          In those cases, the utterer's circumstances are part of the argument, and it's not 'ad hominem' to point that out - an ad hominem is personally attacking the target rather than attacking the argument. "But Marx was not a prole" is not attacking Marx personally.
  • shock-value 14y ago
    It's the same twitter account she used to "shame" the two guys who made the joke. It's relevant.
    • taligent 14y ago
      Well this is the most ridiculous logic I've seen for a while. Just because I send two emails from my Gmail account doesn't mean they are related and/or relevant.
      • DannyBee 14y ago
        I'm sorry, are we really discussing whether a person having recently made jokes about penises in public is relevant to whether it's okay for that same person to publicly shame two guys she accused of making jokes about penises in public?
        • eridius 14y ago
          Are you really saying that her personal twitter stream, and being in the middle of the audience at a professional event, are the same thing?
          • catshirt 14y ago
            arbitrary and irrelevant. even if she made the joke in the privacy of her own home, and not on Twitter, it would still be a laughable contradiction. penis jokes on twitter = OK penis jokes behind me in public = BAD
          • DannyBee 14y ago
            Yes. In fact, her personal twitter stream is worse, IMHO. Her personal twitter stream has a larger audience than the audience of your "professional event". It's nice that all of the sudden "pycon" is a "professional event" as if people are all walking around in suits and ties and monocoles. Plenty of people go to conferences with friends as social events. Pycon is definitely like that for a lot of folks. That's why it's billed as an "annual gathering for the community". Talking privately in hushed tones at a conference you treat as a social event is, IMHO, much better than blaring it out publicly to 11,210 followers.
  • incongruity 14y ago
    >Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. Except: A) She posted the picture in question on that twitter feed and B) She identifies herself as affiliated with her (former) employer at the top of that feed/in her profile. To me, those make her "personal" feed not so personal and wholly germane to this conversation.
    • _delirium 14y ago
      Lots of people do that. I identify the university I work at in my twitter profile. Obviously I do not tweet on behalf of my university; it's just a way of describing what I do in my day job. Sometimes I tweet negative things about people. It's just words; you know, people talking to other people. Sometimes they even do it in public, like we're doing right here.
      • MJR 14y ago
        It's not obvious who you represent when you have list an employer in your title or bio. The point of listing it is that you're adding that affiliation and connection. Worse are not "just words". If that were true, libel wouldn't exist. Libel can cause significant damage and the connection between your twitter account and your employer makes them a target. So you might want to ask the University's legal department before you assume that they're ok with being connected to you on twitter.
        • _delirium 14y ago
          Yes, I recognize there are some narrow exceptions such as libel, and I'm perfectly fine being held accountable for libel. If I post something which actually libels someone, i.e. something which a court will hold me accountable for having posted, then that's fair, and I'll take full responsibility. What seems to be in question here, however, is whether people may post truthful comments on twitter, which under U.S. law are by definition not libelous.
          • MJR 14y ago
  • adanto6840 14y ago
    I unfortunately don't have time to expand on this right now, but I definitely disagree with you on this. In the current day & age, for better or worse, you have to be very acutely aware of your "surroundings" -- that includes what you post on any social media website, and especially if you explicitly name your employer. IMO, and again, for better or worse, this does currently apply to both personal and business accounts as long as they're visible...
    • AJ007 14y ago
      Agreed. And was she not at the event in an official capacity? If someone's job is to be a public figure or spokesperson for a given company then everything they do publicly online is relevant (I'm a huge advocate of using pseudonyms and anonymous communication online over personally identifiable communication.)
  • HarryHirsch 14y ago
    As a tech evangelist Aria is the public face of her employer; she is of sufficiently high profile for her person to be indistinguishable from her role as employee. Most everyone agrees that she also picked a fight to raise her visibility - the sexism incident was addressed appropiately by Pycon, at least no one has said anything to the contrary. Her employer made the correct decision in firing her.
    • dinkumthinkum 14y ago
      Yeah, to be honest, I hadn't been following all the details until today but it was just a childish little temper tantrum. That seems dismissive but if this was genuine, which I don't think it was, she could have handled it in a much more adult way than just taking pictures of people, and making potentially libelous statements.
      • HarryHirsch 14y ago
        My take on the issue is that she tried wearing two hats, the hat of feminist activist and the hat of company spokesman, and found that the two are quite incompatible. Aria will be fine, she has quite an audience, as her blog shows, and she will be continue to be invited. I am just not sure that I like her methods.
  • azov 14y ago
    That tweet is definitely relevant. The whole point is we're trying to protect people from offensive behavior. The definition of what's offensive is vague at best. Common approach - if someone was offended, it's offensive - assumes that we trust victims accounts that they were in fact offended. While context is important, it is much harder to believe that someone would be seriously offended by a joke when they make the same kind of a joke themselves. That's why the tweet is relevant.
    • dclowd9901 14y ago
      The only problem with this reasoning is it seems dangerously close to the "they were asking for it" argument. If you are raising concern for something, the entire history of your life does not automatically come into question; this is just an unfortunate side effect of the record-everything technological society we now live in. Corollary to the upcoming ubiquity of Google Goggles, what if the recordings of one's personal home life was scrutinized because they were harassed at work? And quite often, we find that something that wasn't offensive yesterday can very well be offensive today.
      • cameronh90 14y ago
        There's nothing wrong with the logic of "they were asking for it" in some contexts. Rape, violence, etc. of course not, but I think when it comes to being insulted, saying that someone was asking for it is fair. I've been attacked verbally before, and often I was asking for it or deserving of it. That said, I don't think this is a case of her asking for it. It's just pointing out hypocrisy, which is a perfectly OK thing to do. It's less extreme but analogous to pointing out someone who complains about domestic violence being themselves an abuser.
      • entropy_ 14y ago
        That's a slippery slope fallacy, and no, it's not dangerously close to that. If you make a certain kind of joke, I would have a very hard time believing you were offended by that same kind of joke when those two events happened within hours of each others. As far as I've seen, people's atitudes towards crude jokes do not change in the space of a few hours. Maybe they might change that quickly if something significant were to happen in that space of time, but I doubt it in this case.
  • phaus 14y ago
    It's relevant because it proves that she wasn't really offended, and that she just felt like throwing a tantrum. Her tantrum got someone fired, so people can and should call her out on her hypocrisy.
  • dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    Wow that's out of touch with reality in a major way. It's not like her twitter feed was private. She's a public "evangelist." I suppose you think the inane tweets from republicans like Michelle Bachman or Sarah Palin are irrelevant to them or their party's message as well. Her twitter account was used as part of her job. As well, you're idea that the only people that see her tweet are those that have explicitly chosen to do so .... REALLLY?? Most of us are not her subscribers and we have seen it ... huh? I'm flummoxed.
  • _debug_ 14y ago
    > Whatever she says on her own personal twitter feed is wholly unrelated to what happens at a professional event. And why doesn't that logic hold for the two people who were joking amongst themselves? The parallel is : just as her twitter feed is public, and other people can "hear" her speak, these guys were making private jokes at a public event, and that is none of her business.
• seivan 14y ago
  Exactly, just two guys making forking jokes (get it?). Even Github sells merch with the words "Fork you". Zealous oversensitive jaded person like her, taking her time to get the phone out, take a picture, possible geo-tagged of two guys who might not want to be on her Twitter. She has no right to do that. Especially when there was no communication between them. You don't like their jokes, tell them or move away. Looking at her tweets, she likes to increase her branding, I can see replies where the @username is a part of the sentence so it's a more public tweet, than when @ is at the start of the sentence. Calling people for bullies. People like that are hard to be around, constantly tip toe. There's a difference between being sexist, and just having crude humour about genitalia and intercourse.
  • incongruity 14y ago
    I'd even offer "contact conference organizers in a non-public way if you don't feel comfortable confronting the other person directly". Some people have a hard time addressing these issues directly – particularly when in the minority (by gender, in this case). It happens, and I'm not going to judge it. The issue here isn't that she was offended, but, rather, that she went from 0 to 100% full-on public on a well-trafficked twitter feed. She certainly skipped a few steps in the ladder of escalation, sure, but I think she had options other than just those you present. Just say'n.
    • mtrimpe 14y ago
      I'm just disappointed that this is the top thread, since it's basically little more than a cheap ad-hominem attack and doesn't contribute anything to resolving or working towards a better understanding of the underlying issues that have caused this all to escalate so badly.
  • mtrimpe 14y ago
    Do you know Adria personally? Saying that "We got an unstable, hypocritical, oversensitive jaded person out of our way. I think this was a win." without knowing her personally would be ... well ... not exactly OK.
• hp50g 14y ago
  Great bit of research there. Thanks for posting. SendGrid did the right thing. I don't think they need to clarify anything - just keep their distance.
• AJ007 14y ago
  I haven't paid too much attention to this story and completely missed it when it first occurred (though I've been a Sendgrid customer are their product is great) but your highlights are very relevant. This is the kind of employee you would refer to as a wild card. You just don't know what they are going to do and you have to do your best to keep them out of your company. Unfortunately for Sendgrid, if she files a sexual discrimination lawsuit they will probably be forced to settle or lose. Because the employee was a wild card any action they take is a loss for them.
  • powertower 14y ago
    I'm not sure she has grounds for a lawsuit. SendGrid received quite allot of customer complaints about her. Customers were quitting them, and/or making threats of going to a competitor. Then they got DDoSed over this. Also, if I'm not mistaken, they are located in a - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment - state.
    • yuhong 14y ago
      I wonder what would happen if the party responsible for the DDoS blackmail was found.
    • geoelectric 14y ago
      California is at-will, but with a good-faith rider. Arbitrarily or maliciously firing someone would probably be grounds for a dispute. I don't think that dispute would be successful in this case, where some demonstrably poor judgment with predictable consequences was used, but IANAL. Edit: but as pointed out below, this company is in CO.
      • khuey 14y ago
        They appear to be based in Colorado.
        • geoelectric 14y ago
• shantanubala 14y ago
  > http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c This is an excellent example of why you should never use Twitter to have a nuanced discussion. It depends on your definition of racism, and most scholarly definitions are "power and prejudice." In other words, a white person who is in the majority has more power than a black person (think Silicon Valley[1]), so the actual impact of the prejudice has a greater magnitude that turns it into "racism." The commonly-used definition of racism, though, is basically the same as prejudice. [1] NOTE: If it is a black person in a position of power (CEO) exercising prejudice against white people, then it would also be classified as racism.
  • dragonwriter 14y ago
    > It depends on your definition of racism, and most scholarly definitions are "power and prejudice." In other words, a white person who is in the majority has more power than a black person (think Silicon Valley[1]), so the actual impact of the prejudice has a greater magnitude that turns it into "racism." I don't know what scholarly sources you've seen that use that definition, but most scholarly sources I've seen define don't factor power into the definition of racism, but do certainly acknowledge that power dynamics have a pretty big impact on the effects of racism. OTOH, the "only people in positions of power can be racists" thing is something I've seen pretty much exclusively in non-scholarly sources.
    • shantanubala 14y ago
      Perhaps I should have been more clear: the definition is fuzzy, but Adria's original tweet is not inherently wrong -- it just lacks context and adequate explanation. I'm definitely not an expert in this, but I'm speaking from reading books on sociology and dominant group psychology. It would take more time for me to look up the original sources, but Wikipedia does agree with me (and they also agree that the definition varies!). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Definitions "David Wellman has defined racism as “culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the subordinated position of racial minorities”." "Sociologists Noël A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern define racism as “...a highly organized system of 'race'-based group privilege that operates at every level of society and is held together by a sophisticated ideology of color/'race' supremacy." Both of these definitions involve power as the main mechanism for preserving prejudice, do they not?
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• runarb 14y ago
  > http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c My first thought was that this quote must be something made up by 4chan users to smear her or something, but it appear to be for real: https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/statuses/6039856858
  • nhangen 14y ago
    Such extreme ignorance to post such a thing. I'm surprised she kept her job as long as she did.
  • ignostic 14y ago
    Wow, yeah, I thought the same thing. That's incredibly unhelpful in dealing with racial issues. I hope that doesn't apply to her view of sexism.
  • drhayes9 14y ago
    Argh, Jesus, I'm sick of people misrepresenting this tweet! She's not saying that black people can't make racist statements and that they get a completely free pass when it comes to being racists. She's not. Stop saying that she is. She's defining racism with a particularly sociological bent. She's saying that racism is an act by an oppressor towards the oppressed. When an oppressed person insults an oppressor they are operating within a power structure that has them at a disadvantage. When she says "black people can't be racist towards white people" she is saying "the oppressed cannot, themselves, oppress their oppressors". That's why they're called "the oppressed". Regardless of what you or I may say about her character, dragging this tweet out as evidence of her hypocrisy smacks of willful ignorance.
    • PagingCraig 14y ago
      I'm black and I have no idea what you, or her, are talking about. I don't see how you can say the tweet is misrepresented when you have the weirdest explaination of it.
    • basqio 14y ago
      "Black people CANNOT be racist against White people." Sounds a lot like a free pass to me. If she is using the sociological definition to racism she is taking a narrow-minded approach to a very broad issue to suit her ideals. Claiming this statement as a truth based on one of the many different definitions of racism is naive.
• matthuggins 14y ago
  > http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c http://imgur.com/5tbXR2c Wow. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that minorities in any group can't be racist/sexist/____ist is more than likely a racist/sexist/____ist him/herself and doesn't realize it. All it takes is discrimination against that other group because they are a member of that group.
  • newnewnew 14y ago
    It's pretty standard Marxist race theory. It's sadly mainstream. You'll find it well-represented on HN.
• vacri 14y ago
  Please stop fuelling the fire, we don't need to rehash the same stuff every time something connected to the event is mentioned.
• ignostic 14y ago
  Why do they "need" to do that? Those who care for the details already know them. Further, they're trying to put the issue behind them without blaming anyone. Rather than fueling the fire further, they shut the door on further argument about who is to blame. In that respect, it's a very wise statement even if it leaves some people unsatisfied.
• rscale 14y ago
  Let's remember: she never asked for him to get fired. And I don't think that was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of her comments. The fact that he was fired leads me to two probable conclusions: 1) that his management was terrible and he'll end up someplace better; or 2) that he was about to be fired anyway. If his management was terrible, it's not a sad story for him in the long-term. If they were going to fire him anyway, it's just blame-shifting. His reputation wasn't even meaningfully harmed, as his name doesn't seem to appear in any of the discussions. So if he's half-decent, he'll be fine. I find the whole thing very strange, because I sure as shit wouldn't fire a good employee just because they'd offended one person, once.
  • runewell 14y ago
    It's not reasonable to assume negative outcomes for people you publicly display as "ass-hat" sexists to 9000+ of their peers?
    • deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  • rdtsc 14y ago
    Let's also not forget her job position -- she lives and breathes Twitter. 1000s of followers. To claim ignorance on her part about the outcome is a little disingenuous. Now the ultimate outcome is that she also got fired, here is where she miscalculated her risk. She didn't immediately react, she pondered her actions and weighed her risk according to her blog. I think she saw a golden opportunity and took, but got too greedy. Ultimately it was a classic sociopath move. > 2) that he was about to be fired anyway. That is why I want to hear more from PlayHeaven. Here is my question, why the heck send a shitty employee to PyCon. Usually top developers get to go, to learn and bring back new technology. If he was out of the door why spend money him. So I discard 2) and just assume 1) until further information (if any) comes out.
  • throwaway0321 14y ago
    The PlayHaven employee was fired because of this event [1]. What led PlayHaven to conduct the investigation? Adria's tweet and blog post to thousands of followers. This isn't the first time she has used her considerable influence as a weapon[2]. [1]http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/ http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/ [2]http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ Edit: Changed a link.
• PagingCraig 14y ago
  Thanks for clearing some of this up.
• ForrestN 14y ago
  This whole situation makes me deeply uncomfortable. First, because it demonstrates the extent to which a company can be brought to its knees by a group of hostile people organized online. Second because hundreds and hundreds of men here and elsewhere seem quite happy to align themselves with an overtly sexist, violently threatening campaign against an individual whose views they disagree with. I am not in a position to comment on the firing, or what qualifies someone to excel as an "evangelist." The statement is right that she probably couldn't do her job well anymore. But this is a sad thing, not a victory, and the further abuse and ignorance happening and being up voted here is really unsettling. Why are so many really so angry? I promise it has nothing to do with this woman. Taking a photograph of someone in a public place and reporting what they said within earshot, without any expectation of privacy, does not warrant vitriol. Joking about big dicks and sex disruptively in the context of a public event held for a profession which continues to struggle with sexism and misogyny means something very different than joking to a friend, and those people who have chosen to listen to what you have to say, about pretending to have a big dick. And guess what, her sentiment about racism, whether I agree with it or not, is shared by many scholars of American race relations who are decidedly more informed on the subject. Instead of shaming a stranger who has a different frame of reference than you (assuming you haven't had much experience as a black woman) why don't we all take a deep breath and think about how we can protect against the kind of fear so palpable in Sendgrid's statement, the kind that cowed them so extremely?
  • keli 14y ago
    But why did she tweet the photo? Why stir up a bunch of shit in public? Apparently she has done it before: http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/ http://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/
    • shiven 14y ago
      Wow! I am speechless. I was so willing let her get away with the way overblown Internet meltdown, but this proves without any doubt that Adria has a pattern of such public misbehavior. Hope all her potential future employers read this one link, if nothing else. What a vindictive sociopath!
• sophacles 14y ago
  You know what would have been a great freaking story? 1) Guys make inappropriate jokes 2) Adria feels offended. Doesn't matter if she "should" or "shouldn't". It happened. OK so far, different people have different opinions on acceptable behavior. This particular one is explicitly unacceptable in the rules of the conference. 3) Adria texts PyCon staff, and they act exactly as they did in this sitution. 4) Adria writes a blog post relaying the event. Basically even starting the same. Her comments even about maybe being frazzled from a rough travel schedule stay in. So do the parts where she decides she's not ok with it and decides it should stop. That is an OK position - I might not feel the same overhearing that conversation, but if she doesn't want to, she should not have to - it is off-topic for the conference (and honestly a freaking repost... forking and dongle jokes were old in the 90s when I first heard them). However instead of going to the hyperbolic bits, where she is saving women from developers[1], she instead writes about how the rules in place helped diffuse an uncomfortable situation, and how there are now two more people who have a better understanding of what is acceptable public behavior in a professional setting. 5) There would still be much internet hate. But now everyone involved could maintain jobs, the much needed [2] cause of sane gender policies would be advanced a lot. 6) The worst fears of people who are strongly apposed to gender politics would not have been confirmed in the crazy shitstorm, and rather than being a divisive event that caused near everyone (it seems) to polarize, it could have been a great example of meeting in the middle. Unfortunately thats not the story. Instead we have this crazy mess. I think SendGrid wrote the right piece. Under no circumstances is the correct action on their part to comment on a situation they were not present for. Taking sides in that is a terrible move - they need to support their employees rights to respond sanely without taking sides. They should in fact defer to the organizers/governance of the conference when it comes to everything that happened there. The do however have a right and responsibility to make sure their name is not associated with inappropriate behavior. The only inappropriate behavior they are associated with is an overreaction by Adria Richards. That is what they address. End of story. [1] There is a time and place for articles on the scale of "seriously fuck this creeper". Unfortunately, those times and places are not uncommon - people act creepy at these conferences a lot. This was not one of them. It was at worst a medium offensive statement. [2] There are a lot of people who oppose the idea of harassment policies. There are a lot of people who cry foul every time a woman mentions anything bad, uncomfortable, or inappropriate that happens around them. This attitude needs to go away, and the opposition to decent policies needs to stop. Examples of the policies working without crazy hyperbole and over-the-top responses on all sides is the way to get to sanity. tl;dr - Everyone needs to take a fucking chill pill, and be reasonable.
• roguecoder 14y ago
  If you say shit in a public place, you can't turn around and say it's not the business of the people forced to overhear you. You made it their business.
• trhtrsh 14y ago
  It's a bit surprising that someone who behaves as screencapped here is capable of getting through an interview and N weeks on the job as a professional PR person. There must be some awkward conversations over at SendGrid HQ about how she got hired in the first place and what might have been happening since that they haven't noticed yet.