6 ms·

Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely dam

Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely damning towards Adria's actions is this one: She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture. Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect. She publicly shamed the wrong guy! She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.

misnome 14y ago
It wasn't him? The one, obvious, center of attention of the photograph? That makes it even worse!
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  See what I mean? No, it's the guy in the grey shirt staring off.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    Apparently not. It's the other guy wearing the PH shirt, on way far out in the picture.
anigbrowl 14y ago
the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Research link: http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggressor-revealed http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggre...
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    ...which I think is also wrong. the person sitting to the left of Reid (not to the left of the picture) is also wearing a PlayHaven shirt, which is what was described in the offending blog post. I don't really feel like revisiting the whole thing, but I'll bet $5 that the fellow in the grey shirt is not 'Mr-Hank.'
    - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
      You may very well be right. All the more damning to her.
    - zshprompt 14y ago
      he is. I found him and he was indeed fired.
gaylemcd 14y ago
Have you read the article? I agree that Adria screwed up here. Absolutely. However, Amanda Blum paints a pattern of behavior that just isn't there when you really read into those stories. THAT is what the "teardown" is about. It's not saying that Adria did nothing wrong.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Yea I did. I think you did a poor job of defending her in the case of the podcast. From TFA: "In the blog post, Adria even admitted that she made a mistake in mentioning it on her podcast prior to talking with the organizers, and apologized for doing so." In that case, she did something wrong and apologized for it, and there wasn't a public shit-storm. In this case, before she had an opportunity to really apologize, she got attacked by the Internet. So, AFAICT, there are two publically known instances of her doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in the exact same way: "going to the public before confronting someone privately". How many times do you need before it's a pattern? Edit: clarification
  - gaylemcd 14y ago
    To be clear, what she did was this: she saw something she thought was utterly vile and morally reprehensible being seemingly "celebrated" in a talk. The talk wasn't necessarily happening yet; it was still being voted on. She mentioned in her podcast that there was a talk on this and suggested that her listeners vote on it. Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way? Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it. If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.
    - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
      "If this was wrong" - well, since she later admitted it was wrong and apologized for it, then yea - it was wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.

misnome 14y ago

It wasn't him? The one, obvious, center of attention of the photograph? That makes it even worse!

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
See what I mean? No, it's the guy in the grey shirt staring off.
- YuriNiyazov 14y ago
  Apparently not. It's the other guy wearing the PH shirt, on way far out in the picture.

anigbrowl 14y ago

the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
Research link: http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggressor-revealed http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggre...
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  ...which I think is also wrong. the person sitting to the left of Reid (not to the left of the picture) is also wearing a PlayHaven shirt, which is what was described in the offending blog post. I don't really feel like revisiting the whole thing, but I'll bet $5 that the fellow in the grey shirt is not 'Mr-Hank.'
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    You may very well be right. All the more damning to her.
  - zshprompt 14y ago
    he is. I found him and he was indeed fired.

gaylemcd 14y ago

Have you read the article? I agree that Adria screwed up here. Absolutely. However, Amanda Blum paints a pattern of behavior that just isn't there when you really read into those stories. THAT is what the "teardown" is about. It's not saying that Adria did nothing wrong.

YuriNiyazov 14y ago
Yea I did. I think you did a poor job of defending her in the case of the podcast. From TFA: "In the blog post, Adria even admitted that she made a mistake in mentioning it on her podcast prior to talking with the organizers, and apologized for doing so." In that case, she did something wrong and apologized for it, and there wasn't a public shit-storm. In this case, before she had an opportunity to really apologize, she got attacked by the Internet. So, AFAICT, there are two publically known instances of her doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in the exact same way: "going to the public before confronting someone privately". How many times do you need before it's a pattern? Edit: clarification
- gaylemcd 14y ago
  To be clear, what she did was this: she saw something she thought was utterly vile and morally reprehensible being seemingly "celebrated" in a talk. The talk wasn't necessarily happening yet; it was still being voted on. She mentioned in her podcast that there was a talk on this and suggested that her listeners vote on it. Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way? Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it. If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.
  - YuriNiyazov 14y ago
    "If this was wrong" - well, since she later admitted it was wrong and apologized for it, then yea - it was wrong. We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.