Hacker News Reader

Comment by ReptileMan | Hacker News Reader

Since she hasn't filed discrimination lawsuit, I read it as mocking the victim culture that prevades the others.

I don't see how this can be read as mockery:

> There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

This is what claiming victimhood looks like.

Some of the incidents she described sound a lot like a hostile work environment to me...

Note that "hostile work environment" is a legal term related to a pattern of behavior taken to intimidate someone based on a protected trait (e.g., age, sex, religion, race, disability, etc.).

Notedly, political viewpoints are not a protected trait.

Does it have to be a protected trait? If someone (or several someones) decide they dislike me because, say, I'm ugly and they're just tired of seeing my face, and they start saying that I need to be fired, and putting ax icons next to my name, and going on Twitter to tell everyone how ugly I am and how it ruins their appetite for lunch when I walk into the breakroom, is that not a "hostile work environment" just because ugliness is not a legally protected trait?

If you did that kind of stuff at most places I've worked, you'd get fired for it, regardless of whether it fit the legal definition of "hostile work environment".

It may be a good idea to fire someone who participates in that behavior, but there isn’t a legal obligation to do so (IANAL).

If the behavior is because of your race and they aren’t fired, you can (successfully) sue your employer. That’s the difference.

In her letter, she asserts that behavior that fits the first scenario is illegal- it’s not.

Funny how a generic "toxic behaviour" is an accusation good enough against those with a different ideology, but when it's our ideology we go all legalistic.

There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim. The problem is exaggerating everything to make oneself appear to be a victim, especially appeals to one's identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, to exploit the social protections we afford to bona fide victims. If Bari's claims (that she was unlawfully discriminated against, subjected to a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged) are substantiated, then she's a bona fide victim. And given what has come out about NYT internal culture in recent months and years as well as the supporting evidence she provides for her claims, I find it hard to disbelieve her.

> There's nothing wrong with "claiming victimhood" when one is rightly a victim.

Agreed, I only mean it pejoratively inasmuch as the parent ("victim culture that pervades the others") did as well.

That said, she has provided no evidence in this letter, and she is appealing to her identity as a member of a historically oppressed group, so I'm curious as to why her claims of victimhood seem to be believed by people who otherwise tend toward incredulity for such things.

I probably shouldn't have said "evidence" as much as "examples she cited"--specifically colleagues posting axe emojis next to her name and the general public smearing as a bigot (while this is free speech, it's also pretty clearly a 'hostile work environment' and I doubt it would fly if the target were, say, an Asian progressive instead of a Jewish liberal).

> mocking the victim culture

So, intimidation?

Hard to find a bigger proponent of victim culture than Bari Weiss herself, though.

I can't definitively determine her exact intent with that paragraph. However the downvotes and response to your comment indicate your interpretation is likely the minority opinion here. Weiss's job is to communicate with the written word. If the most common interpretation of her writing is the opposite of her intent, doesn't that inherently mean she is bad at her job?

It is impossible to guard against every possible misinterpretation, especially when there are people who are determined to interpret your words in the least charitable way possible.

For example, I might uncharitably interpret your previous comment.

> it always amazes me when the people who champion "the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society" will also turn around and say something like their political beliefs being mocking by coworkers is "unlawful discrimination".

This appears to mean you think it's perfectly reasonable for a talented Jewish woman to be hounded out of her job by co-workers indulging in blatant anti-semitism with comments like "writing about the Jews again"? Would you support someone who asked a black writer if they were "writing about the blacks again?" No? Why is it OK when it's a Jew then? You appear believe that it is reasonable workplace behavior to call a Jewish colleague "a Nazi". Now, what can I deduce about your attitude to Jews from your support for this behavior? Perhaps your employer should be told about it. Etc, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com