7 ms·

I remember when this story happened and after reading it all again, I still think that what makes it so terrible is the fact both sides were fired. One of them

I remember when this story happened and after reading it all again, I still think that what makes it so terrible is the fact both sides were fired. One of them because he was behaving immaturely at a conference and another because her employer was getting ddosed. Is it just me or are those both terrible overreactions from the companies' sides? The whole sexism discussion is perfectly valid and very important, we need to talk about what is wrong, but those layoffs were nothing but selfish pragmatic decisions. Hank's company didn't want the bad PR and Adria's didn't want the security trouble...

Cthulhu_ 12y ago
> Is it just me or are those both terrible overreactions from the companies' sides? No it's not just you, the responses from the companies were, as far as I'm concerned, illegal; the guy was fired for something he said (freedom of speech?), and she was fired through 4chan blackmailing her employer (as far as I could tell). Of course, I don't know what kind of employee protection people have; IIRC the IT business isn't unionised yet, so there's little to fall back on. Well, besides the internets, which is what caused kind of a giant backlash.
- coob 12y ago
  Freedom of speech only apply to the state. The state cannot restrict your freedom of speech. Your employer can.
  - digi_owl 12y ago
    And by making more and more communication channels "corporate" the government can wash their hands...
  - iopq 12y ago
    But there are laws against unlawful termination. What his company did could be considered unlawful termination.
    - cantankerous 12y ago
      Maybe so. I think this could be made more confusing if he was at the conference while on the company dime.
    - tbrownaw 12y ago
      I thought that here in the US only applied to a specific list of disallowed reasons (race/gender/etc). Which don't include "being targeted by the Internet Lynch Mob".
      - iopq 12y ago
        It depends on your contract. If it guarantees employment and you're not an at-will employee, the contract will state reasons for why your employment can be terminated. It's possible that the contract might include "being targeted by the Internet Lynch Mob" as one of the reasons, but I doubt it.
        tbrownaw 12y ago
        People actually use those (employment contracts) here?
        iopq 12y ago
        I so far worked as an at-will employee, but some of the positions I'm interviewing for are explicitly 6 month or 12 month contracts.
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Of course, I don't know what kind of employee protection people have It's the US, and it's tech. So "none whatsoever" is about right.
weland 12y ago
At the risk of sounding insensitive, in what freezing hell is a remark about forking a guy's repo or something sexist? Rather unprofessional, yeah, maybe -- which is why it wasn't spoken aloud on stage, but whispered between two colleagues. But sexist? Can someone draw me a diagram about how that conveys any form of discrimination, prejudice, violence, dislike or oppression of women? This sounds like completely selfish bullshit to me. It's a bloody overheard remark. And better yet, it was handled in a very childish way: there are laws against discrimination. If someone feels they were subjected to any kind of -ism, there are courts of law that decide that, you just have to go to the police. But sure, why not settle it the cutthroat way, involving employers and family on the way.
- Dewie 12y ago
  Let me tell you what sexism means nowadays: saying or doing anything that makes a woman that is concerned with gender equality feel uncomfortable at all, even if it has nothing to do with sexism, discrimination, or even your own gender. It's maddening.
  - briandear 12y ago
    That's the whole basis so the alleged "War on Women."
  - IneffablePigeon 12y ago
    It can feel maddening, I know. What's important to realise is that we live in a society that is inherently sexist (that much is clear simply from the statistics), without really having many 'sexists' in it as you would normally define them. Nobody walks around saying (or even thinking, I suspect) that they hate women. The only sensible conclusion is that the bias is a product of our inherent subconscious prejudices, and unfortunately that's really hard to combat because it means we have to inspect every part of our behaviour to try to make sure we're not doing something that puts minorities at any more of a disadvantage. I'm not defending the really extreme feminists who can definitely go way overboard, but I can understand where they're coming from -- how else do you fight this institutionalised bias that puts you at a significant disadvantage for your entire life? I don't think anyone has a great answer right now, and that has to be so frustrating. As a white male who's never faced much discrimination, it took me a very long time to empathise with that, but I think it's important.
aragot 12y ago
It often happens in US to fire executives because of bad PR, undepending on their work. It doesn't have to be - How do they do on other continents? And this kind of be-perfect-or-be-banned rule doesn't have to extend to LTEs or even contractors.

Cthulhu_ 12y ago

> Is it just me or are those both terrible overreactions from the companies' sides? No it's not just you, the responses from the companies were, as far as I'm concerned, illegal; the guy was fired for something he said (freedom of speech?), and she was fired through 4chan blackmailing her employer (as far as I could tell). Of course, I don't know what kind of employee protection people have; IIRC the IT business isn't unionised yet, so there's little to fall back on. Well, besides the internets, which is what caused kind of a giant backlash.

coob 12y ago
Freedom of speech only apply to the state. The state cannot restrict your freedom of speech. Your employer can.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  And by making more and more communication channels "corporate" the government can wash their hands...
- iopq 12y ago
  But there are laws against unlawful termination. What his company did could be considered unlawful termination.
  - cantankerous 12y ago
    Maybe so. I think this could be made more confusing if he was at the conference while on the company dime.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    I thought that here in the US only applied to a specific list of disallowed reasons (race/gender/etc). Which don't include "being targeted by the Internet Lynch Mob".
    - iopq 12y ago
      It depends on your contract. If it guarantees employment and you're not an at-will employee, the contract will state reasons for why your employment can be terminated. It's possible that the contract might include "being targeted by the Internet Lynch Mob" as one of the reasons, but I doubt it.
      - tbrownaw 12y ago
        People actually use those (employment contracts) here?
        iopq 12y ago
        I so far worked as an at-will employee, but some of the positions I'm interviewing for are explicitly 6 month or 12 month contracts.
masklinn 12y ago
> Of course, I don't know what kind of employee protection people have It's the US, and it's tech. So "none whatsoever" is about right.

weland 12y ago

At the risk of sounding insensitive, in what freezing hell is a remark about forking a guy's repo or something sexist? Rather unprofessional, yeah, maybe -- which is why it wasn't spoken aloud on stage, but whispered between two colleagues. But sexist? Can someone draw me a diagram about how that conveys any form of discrimination, prejudice, violence, dislike or oppression of women? This sounds like completely selfish bullshit to me. It's a bloody overheard remark. And better yet, it was handled in a very childish way: there are laws against discrimination. If someone feels they were subjected to any kind of -ism, there are courts of law that decide that, you just have to go to the police. But sure, why not settle it the cutthroat way, involving employers and family on the way.

Dewie 12y ago
Let me tell you what sexism means nowadays: saying or doing anything that makes a woman that is concerned with gender equality feel uncomfortable at all, even if it has nothing to do with sexism, discrimination, or even your own gender. It's maddening.
- briandear 12y ago
  That's the whole basis so the alleged "War on Women."
- IneffablePigeon 12y ago
  It can feel maddening, I know. What's important to realise is that we live in a society that is inherently sexist (that much is clear simply from the statistics), without really having many 'sexists' in it as you would normally define them. Nobody walks around saying (or even thinking, I suspect) that they hate women. The only sensible conclusion is that the bias is a product of our inherent subconscious prejudices, and unfortunately that's really hard to combat because it means we have to inspect every part of our behaviour to try to make sure we're not doing something that puts minorities at any more of a disadvantage. I'm not defending the really extreme feminists who can definitely go way overboard, but I can understand where they're coming from -- how else do you fight this institutionalised bias that puts you at a significant disadvantage for your entire life? I don't think anyone has a great answer right now, and that has to be so frustrating. As a white male who's never faced much discrimination, it took me a very long time to empathise with that, but I think it's important.

aragot 12y ago

It often happens in US to fire executives because of bad PR, undepending on their work. It doesn't have to be - How do they do on other continents? And this kind of be-perfect-or-be-banned rule doesn't have to extend to LTEs or even contractors.