Given the context is the dogmatic approach to office culture, this comment is super ironic. Of course the firings were a correct decision from your (insane and skewed) perspective.
>>Given the context is the dogmatic approach to office culture, this comment is super ironic. Of course the firings were a correct decision from your (insane and skewed) perspective.
Without the facts of the matter, you're talking out of your h'arse.
Either firings are legal or not. They have nothing to do with office culture.
Insane and skewed? ... yes, yes you are. Well done for identifying it, it's just your aim is about 180 degrees wrong. I imagine you have that issue frequently in life.
Have a nice day :) (you absolute, unmitigated pr!ck, lol)
I find it funny because they love to talk about implicit bias and microaggressions, and all these other things that "white men" are not aware of, but then cancel them when white men do something wrong. Where is the opportunity to learn and grow?
If you want to make an argument in favor of learning and growing, that's great, but please don't lead with ideological flamebait. That will only produce more flamewar.
I had an experience at work where a coworker (who is black) shared his experience of being told to "stay in his lane" early on in his career. The insinuation was of course racism, he didn't mention it but it was obvious. Then I and someone else (who are white) shared our exact same experiences.
He told me he felt cut off, etc, even though we were sharing the same experience. If we had something similar happen, how can he definitively attribute that experience to racism? Even if it was, that was not the point of the conversation. We were all sharing our experiences on that topic and no one mentioned race. Why do we need to bend ourselves backwards to make sure all minorities feel comfortable all the time?
The point here is you can't talk to minority groups about anything these days, if you are white.
As a non-minority person, I often see people just being assholes. For example, some dominating dude who talks over everyone, who ignores others input, who takes credit for everything, etc. As a white male, when I encounter that behavior, I think to myself, wow, that guy is a fucking asshole. However, and I have experienced this, people who are in a minority often take it personally, that they're an asshole to them, because they're in a minority group. It can be very frustrating to watch that (especially if my group -- white male -- then gets blamed for the behavior, as if its my fault this other dude is an asshole) and I can't really say anything either or it comes across like I'm defending the asshole.
Why would you say something to defend the asshole? In your example, you interpreted the same - the guy was an asshole. Why give them a pass?
In most cases I hear of people that claim they’re afraid of giving “candid feedback” to a minority, it’s almost always the case that the person is an asshole when giving feedback IN GENERAL as well. Maybe evaluating your general behavior first, before going all scared of this or that minority group, would be much more productive? The net result is almost always positive.
Edit: I interpreted this as you having been witnessed situations where you felt someone was an asshole, and someone else did too but ascribed it to sexist or targeted. Apologies for the non-fluency.
> Why would you say something to defend the asshole?
I wouldn't, I'm not sure how you took that from my comment. I'm saying if I defend my group (eg "not all white males are like that" or "that wasn't sexism, he was doing the same to everyone") it often (in my personal experience) gets interpreted as defending the asshole, by going against the claim of sexism/racism/whatever.
In my personal experience, the chances of any comments on the situation getting misinterpreted as negative are too high. Either you get accused of denying the sexism is real (ignoring that you got treated the same way by the assholes), or you get accused of "well actually...". Sure, sometimes people understand, but the risk is real.
I was discussing programming puzzles with a new group of colleagues. The way these discussions typically go is that after most of us solve it, they will start giving hints/spoilers to others to keep the conversation flowing.
So I did this as usual and offered a hint to the last person (who was a woman) to not see the trick this time. It surprised me when she looked visibly upset and asked me why I was explaining it to her. I'm guessing this is because of her own insecurities that she was worried that I thought she was too dumb to solve it on her own otherwise. Up until this point her gender was irrelevant to me. I only explain stuff because the value of discussing interview problems is to get practice solving and explaining stuff to each other. But now I have to question whether I was "mansplaining" or not.
This minor event bothered me so much I never talked to her about programming puzzles ever again.
> This minor event bothered me so much I never talked to her about programming puzzles ever again.
This makes me sad, but it is exactly what I would have done. My life is built on avoiding anything awkward or uncomfortable. And...that's not working for me anymore. Thanks to a mental health professional, I'm working on embracing these "problems".
If I had your experience today, I'd come up with a plan to at least clarify things. I'd probably start with a slack message. Maybe something like:
> I'm sorry.
> When I talk programming puzzles with <person>, we have a routine of the first person to solve waits a short while and then shares the answer.
> I like that system, as spending 45 minutes to come up with the "trick" usually isn't fun for me.
And then see how the conversation goes. I'd expect 70% something with the feeling of apology-accepted, 20% being told that mansplaining is a pattern of mine, 5% things getting very personal/real/vulnerable, and 5% wildcard. Maybe the estimates are wildly off. I'm still new to being honest and real. But today-me looks at those odds and says sum of awkward + fear isn't high enough to beat the expected value of the conversation.
I personally haven’t found this to be the case. I’ve often found that starting out with an apology leads the offended to be much more receptive to what you have to say next. Best case scenario the person you are apologizing too isn’t offended at all and tells you so. Worst case scenario the offended uses your apology as justification that a wrong was committed in the first place. Thankfully I have only ever encountered either the former or people somewhere in the middle.
Opening up with "I'm sorry" sets a tone for the conversation. If my last interaction with someone was a little tense, I need to _reset_ the emotional balance before moving forward.
In this hypothetical, I don't believe I did anything explicitly wrong. But I also didn't handle the situation well. Maybe the "sorry" is "sorry for not addressing your concern". Or maybe it's just "sorry that 'mansplaining' is a situation you encounter frequently". It doesn't have to be BLAME. Just empathy.
All an apology costs you is pride, which is basically free. If it gets you to a place where you can have a normal conversation, who cares who has done what wrong? The point of talking things out isn't about assigning blame.
Can insecurity be ascribed to gender? If it was a man, and they got offended, could we say it's also because he was insecure about not finishing in time? I think it's difficult to say gender as the de facto reason here. I'm not ruling it out, but I don't think it can be labeled a certainty, either.
If it was a man, atleast it won't be about mansplaining - could be insecurity, frustration, personal dislike or such factors. In case of a woman, all of the above + mansplaining comes into play and the last one is a slippery slope to being labelled a sexist which is just too much risk to take.
> Why do we need to bend ourselves backwards to make sure all minorities feel comfortable all the time?
> The point here is you can't talk to minority groups about anything these days, if you are white.
You lost me here.
You had one experience with one person and extrapolated that to multiple entire groups.
You should be able to discern how your conversation with that one person was okay and not a "cancelable" offense, and how your comment that I quoted is not okay and could be a "cancelable" offense. Or if that's not the issue, you should be able to see how to have that conversation.
Can you see that I can't tell if you've been pushed to extreme views where you wind up on websites where other people say the same thing and agree with you, or if you all your experiences are segregated like this to the point you would fit a definition of racist?
That was rhetorical.
The point is that your one experience is something fairly predictable but not an area that validates your complaint. There would be a way to continue that conversation, acknowledge the person's experience and how they conflate that with race-based oppression, while also being able to contribute to the conversation.
1 (usually dealings) a business relation or transaction: they had dealings with an insurance company.
• a personal connection or association with someone: my dealings with David consisted of giving him his late-night formula.
• the particular way in which someone behaves toward others: fair dealing came naturally to him.
A personal connection with someone, not an entire ethnic group / race of people. I really have doubts that you would say it another way.
“This kind of insensitivity always happens when I deal with white people.”
Whether its accurate or not, this comes across as a chore, as if there is a checkbox of trying that I get around to on occasion. As opposed to just socializing with people.
and the second bullet point doesn't even apply as thats not how you used it.
You should really engage in deeper introspection of your interactions to see why this is a chore for you.
So, just to make sure I understand. a minority person reports a story: "That's just one example! That's not racism!"
A white person reports this story and says "see, minorities exaggerate." and you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that it must have happened to more than one person.
The question is whether it’s really the same experience. One could try to give the benefit of doubt and assume the situation isn’t the same. Figure out the difference. Subtle and not so subtle structural racism means situations aren’t the same for people different colors, even if at first sight look the same.
So every article must address both sides? Always? This is like complaining that one picture of black harvard law graduates didn't include black women (yes, I actually saw this on linkedin)
This article is clearly about how all of these false accusations and woke mobs ultimately harm minorities.
Whites are about 70% of American, and half of those are men, so in American, yeah they are. This is an American site, and the context of these conversations are America, so there's nothing exceptional about this.
Ah, I parsed your statement as NOT (white OR male) rather than (NOT white) OR (NOT male). The former being roughly 35% and the latter 85% of the population
>I’m not going to suggest a solution to the problem of men clamming up.
Well gee how about people stop blaming white males for every problem in the world, cancelling them for the slightest "microaggression", etc. Maybe that would make society a bit more equal?
It should would be nice to talk openly with coworkers and peers without worrying about offending someone over the slightest thing.
Please don't take HN threads further into generic ideological flamewar hell. It's against the site guidelines because we're trying for something different here.
Nah there are definitely people who deserve it. If everyone really wants to get rid of the death penalty at least keep this. People like child rapists, mass shooters, etc all deserve lifetime solitary confinement.
I understand the impulse, some crimes are so horrific it gets your blood up, but for me it's not about them, it's about us. I don't want to live in a vengeful, vindictive or cruel society and I don't want anyone doing those things on my behalf. I'm a pragmatist, some killings are essentially unavoidable, as in war. Violence needs to be an option, but I don't think it should be used unnecessarily or to satisfy base urges. Not in my name anyway. These people should serve the sentence they were given according to due process, and this does not seem to be consistent with the intended penalty.
On a personal note an acquaintance of mine served several years for a sentence for which he was later fully exonerated. It was a thoroughly awful travesty of justice. He also underwent appalling abuses as the alleged crime for which he was convicted was sexual in nature. No system is perfect and there will probably always be mistakes made, so lets at least make sure the consequences of such mistakes don't burden our consciences any more than they need to.
I think enhanced and cruel punishments imposed as a result of institutional failures, that have nothing to do with the crime or proscribed punishment, isn't justice either.
Enormous resources are expended attempting to ensure fair trials and the system still fails regularly and often. Fixing one part of the system shouldn't dependent on fixing an unrelated part, we should I think try to do both.
I asked the other person. If it’s cheaper or same price to keep someone mostly isolated with decent accommodations including proper bed, clothing, fresh air, computer/tablet, radio, computer, [limited] tv and internet usage.
Would you be fine with that?
They still have to be alone. Justice is still being served. No sane person would want that life.
What if it’s cheaper to keep these people safely isolated most of the time, but they have a cozy small place with some [limited] tv, radio, computer/tablet + internet access.
You still achieve what you want. Unless you want to be cruel for the sake of it.
You're right, especially now when 10G Ethernet swiches with SPF+ ports can be had relatively cheaply thanks to Mikrotik, but sometimes people need both throughput and mobility.
