Comment by anon54321 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by anon54321 | Hacker News Reader

Absolute BS. She sent an email to the entire company about this "incident", which I'll include here (names redacted).

> 8:53:41 AM Person1: so am I the only one who thinks of the Bed Intruder auto-tune song everytime Person2 warns us of undisclosed persons in the building?

> 8:54:47 AM Person3: hide yo wife?

> 8:54:57 AM Person1: and yo kids

> 8:56:02 AM Person3: well, you're not any more

> 8:56:13 AM Person1: #winning

> 9:02:13 AM Person5: hilarious. Now the song is stuck in my head!

> 9:08:08 AM Person4: -_-

> 9:09:43 AM Person4: No

> 9:11:10 AM Person4: Could do without having songs referencing sexual assault mentioned.

> 9:12:04 AM Person1: fair enough

> 9:13:39 AM Person4: Especially joking about it. -_-

> 9:18:25 AM Person4: Does not exactly endear me to working during the day when the first thing I see is someone joking about rape in work chat.

> 9:18:46 AM Person1: my appologies

> 9:33:18 AM Person4: It's completely unacceptable, and creates a very toxic atmosphere.

> 9:36:45 AM Person1: obviously that wasn't my intention. it won't happen again.

> 9:37:24 AM Person4: Compounded by the fact I am the only woman in the [org], and I have several guys joking about it as well, in work chat.

> 9:37:32 AM Person4: It would be unacceptable even if that weren't the case.

And then claims to still not feel safe coming back to work after taking a month off due to PTSD from the above incident.

There is undoubtedly sexism in the tech industry, and we should all strive towards eliminating it. This, however, is stirring up drama in response to a joke made in poor taste.

Person 4's fascist solipsism is astounding. She has transferred the "toxicity" and "unacceptability"in her own mind onto the whole team.

A song was referred to but there was no actual mention of sexual assault. The song is not "completely unacceptable" as it is obviously commonly known and legally sold. It is therefore acceptable in the workplace, referred to as it actually was.

Person1 seems to be genuinely sorry as well. Probably person1 was fearing for his job over what seems to me to be a harmless joke.

Sending an email to the entire company instead of talking to the person in a private message is probably the height of Shame Culture. Oh and then publishing this in the news too.

It's also clear that she has listened to the song enough to know the words too. So she was happy offending herself.

Good point.

I don't know the song myself. If I worked at Apple I'd have reported person 1 for not being inclusive enough...

I'm aware of lots of offensive things that don't belong at work.

The question here is was what was written in that email offensive and not to be written in the workplace...

Well, this was a chatroom. I do think it's important to recognize the level of planning which goes into what someone is saying and adjust expectations accordingly.

Now that our communication tools are capturing everything we are saying in real-time, do we truly expect 30,000 people to never make a comment that could possibly offend someone else?

I do wonder if just reading a comment like this in a company chatroom (along with an immediate apology) requires taking a month off, if perhaps there isn't a reasonable accommodation that could be made here to help Danielle be successful at Apple.

How many songs do you find offensive but listen to often enough to memorize the words?

Where does it say that she memorized the words? I've never heard the song but I've heard about it and know the "hide your kids" bit. It's not like she's reciting the Gettysburg Address here.

> It's also clear that she has listened to the song enough to know the words too.

I've never listened to the song, and the exchange in the thread was sufficient to inform me of the information that it complained about, to wit, that it was a song referencing sexual assault.

Its not like the exchange was at all subtle or opaque.

Lots of things are sold legally and commonly known, but are still not acceptable to discuss in a workplace.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be. What is sold legally bu unacceptable to discuss in the workplace?

errr sex toys?

But why should that be inappropriate to discuss?

I'm struggling to think of some examples. Perhaps you could tell us what you have deemed to be "unacceptable".

Thanks for posting the actual event so we can draw our own conclusions.

This reminds me of how you read a story in the news about something you know, and you just shake your head and are shocked about how wrong every single piece of it is... then you go on reading all the other articles on topics you don't know about and genuinely believe they are informative.

Really, shame on Mic for their terrible reporting on this story. There is an interesting phenomenon going on here, but I think it has nothing to do with inappropriate jokes causing a toxic atmosphere.

> And then claims to still not feel safe coming back to work after taking a month off due to PTSD from the above incident.

And this case of "i'm right and everyone else around me is wrong" is considered normal ?

This is a western syndrome of "our lives aren't in imminent danger, we don't have to think about harvesting food and information is at reach" boredom.

If this is sexist, what isn't?

This particular comment could be perceived as being insensitive to victims of sexual violence, which disproportionately effects women.

However, I can think of a lot of things that would completely avoid any chance of being perceived as offensive! How about,

> 8:53:41 AM Person1: so am I the only one who feels uncomfortable/unsafe everytime Person2 warns us of undisclosed persons in the building?

> 8:53:41 AM Person1: so am I the only one who takes a coffee break everytime Person2 warns us of undisclosed persons in the building?

> 8:53:41 AM Person1: so am I the only one who wonders why there are so many undisclosed persons in the building everytime Person2 warns us of undisclosed persons in the building?

Person1 should have just held their tongue. Both Person1 and Person4, along with others potentially, would have benefitted from the 8:53:41 AM message merely having never been sent.

Can anyone express the argument against this position?

That is the "Heckler's Veto". The notion that if an action leads to a hostile response, then that action is to blame. For example, in a civil rights march in the deep south in the 60's, police tried to argue it's the marchers fault if people riot.

Yes - had the first message not been sent everyone would have been better off. That does not mean that the initial message bears the blame for what happened.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com