Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This is intentionally vague to the point of being dishonest. Take this quote:

> They asked about my whereabouts that involved this co-worker, all of which happened outside the workplace. I asked why these events mattered, and they told me that an issue has been brought to their attention in such a way that is has entered the workplace, and thus is now a workplace matter.

So something happened outside of the workplace with a co-worker, they aren't saying what, and HR got involved. HR said "stay away from this person inside of work" (paraphrasing). They they tack on this:

> If this co-worker wasn’t my friend at the time and wasn’t friends with my other friends, this could have been simple to follow.

And then:

> However, one evening in late July, we found ourselves walking home at the same time. I took this as an opportunity to bring up the HR issue raised last month.

And then:

> A week later, I sent a text to this co-worker asking if the HR issue was followed up on their end.

I just stopped reading at that point. I don't know why this person posted this if they're going to try and hide the core facts. They're clearly framing this story to make Google into the bad guy (and I legitimately don't know who they "bad guy" is since we lack too much information!).

The whole tone of this article irritates me since it feels so carefully worded politi-speak and half truths.

You missed the part where he clearly explains what "the event" was:

> The event that prompted this co-worker to go to HR was because of hearsay about me regarding actions claiming I’ve done something, to which I refuted.

Edit: /s :)

"I've done something" isn't very clear

Are you being sarcastic? There is nothing clearly explained in that quote. It is more half-truth doublespeak nonsense.

They never say what they're accused of, including that.

Clearly?

I think cube00 is making a joke. :)

Agreed. His language tells a lot. From the beginning he is distancing himself from this person by saying "this coworker" and "that coworker" but then later on gives a weak implication of friendship. So what is it, friend or co-worker?

If they were actually friends outside of work situations, you would expect less distancing language to that person from the beginning. First sentence mentioning 'coworker', emphasis mine:

> The first meeting involved being asked a series of questions about me and another co-worker.

You would expect "about me and a friend who also works at google" or even "about me and a co-worker". I think "another" places greater distance between the two.

> If this co-worker wasn’t my friend at the time [...].

You would expect a less convoluted sentence, something along the lines of "If [him|her] and I weren't friends" or "If my coworker and I weren't friends".

> and wasn’t friends with my other friends, this could have been simple to follow

This sounds redundant, and kind of shows the need to convince the reader that there was a healthy social relationship prior to the HR incident.

I'm not saying the person had or has any malicious intent, but is probably — as others have commented — not aware of his own impropriety.

Disclaimer: I am not a linguist or anything, take with a grain a salt.

Based on the photo of him draped in a rainbow colored cape at what appears to be a Pride parade, I suspect that this involves a case of a homosexual advance on a straight coworker, which, depending on the person, could make it more sensitive.

Despite huge progress in gay rights and public acceptance, not everyone is so accepting.

I'll admit that I have nothing to base this on other than pure speculation, but the lack of detail in the post makes wild speculation possible. As a manager, I once had a similar situation between two coworkers - too much alcohol at a Holiday party led to an unwanted advance that was not accepted well at all, there was almost a physical altercation. Though in this case, both parties wanted nothing more than to stay away from each other so a reassignment to a team that was based in a building across town was an "easy" solution (keeping them socially separated was self-fulfilling), though one party left the company within a year ostensibly for unrelated reasons.

The way it is written made me think that the author was deliberately avoiding (gendered) pronouns, either to be as vague as possible as to who the other person was, or to avoid the implication that homophobia played a role in this.

Regardless of the actual reason, the style just made me distrust the author to some extent - it felt deliberately vague, leading to the (possibly unfair) conclusion that certain facts/events don't fit the narrative presented.

The whole post is filled with convoluted language and vague words like "interactions." I suppose it's possible that a co-worker who is just part of a group of drinking buddies or whatever heard some (purportedly false) story about the author one day and promptly headed over to HR. But that seems... unlikely.

I tend to agree. I also can't see any mention of the sex of the co-worker which I think is relevant considering events happened outside work. For example asking a co-worker out who is not interested can end badly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com