This is unironically good advise. On Wikipedia, "assume good faith" is even a rule. This is because many of the talk-page conversations derail due to nothing other than editors assuming bad faith about each others contributions.
However, pleading ignorance on rascism or sexism does not hold water. You may think racism or sexism is normal, but if I allow you to claim ignorance, then I implicitly tolerate that behaviour. Tolerating such behaviours can destroy a community, and past experience has taught me to call them out as soon as I see them if you want the community to benefit long term.
The funny part: for my friend, who also had a strong accent, it was odd (and not very nice) if someone didn't ever ask about where's he from -- because he was obviously an immigrant.
Just telling this story because something that can possibly be interpreted as 'racism' is 'basic niceness/politeness' for someone else. If we're celebrating diversity then let's embrace it properly.
Thank you for your wisdom. I have been saying something along these lines for a long time, but never so eloquently.
Why is there a rule all of a sudden? Why did I not get the memo? Why was it okay for others to ask me but not me someone else? Is there a special exception for this person? Is this a national culture thing? Can I fix this? I didn't mean to offend but I did!
That's what would go on in my head. I don't think that's unreasonable. If you want people to conform to your social or cultural norms, you need to explain them first.
And as is mentioned in the comments, assume good faith first. Educate instead of judge. Live and let live. Was there harm done by the question?
Let's take a step back and look what this article would have us believe ... namely that in 2021, when race and talk of race is an incredibly sensitive topic (and has been for a couple of decades now but there is certainly extra sensitivity now than before), a tech company in Silicon Valley, based in one of the most progressives areas in the world, would be staffed with people who go around commenting on people's skin color? I need a little bit more journalism to understand the context because at face-value this doesn't pass the 'smell test'.
>They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism.
How do you know that? Why would you trust that NBC News is accurately and objectively laying out the case here? What is it in their general reporting, especially on highly contentious and sensitive issues, that tells you they will provide you with the facts and context so you can reach a balanced conclusion?
> seem to
> Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way.
I think I was pretty clear that this is the picture the article paints, but maybe isn't how it actually is.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
Unfortunately I am guilty of violating it, too. But I like the rule a lot and try to apply it more often in real life as well.
It also derails exactly when people post in bad faith. This rule is self-defeating as long as nothing covers this gap.
> Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag, please don't also comment that you did.
My interpretation is more: HN considers polite racists to be a moderation problem, not a hook for angry shouting at each other.
One problem of the internet as a whole (and I am guilty of it too) is that people feel like they HAVE to engage, even if it's futile.
Still, doesn’t the responsibility of understanding the sensitivities of an unfamiliar culture fall onto the foreigner who’s coming in?
Also, while said companies go to extreme length to tell their employees how to handle any hint of racism, sexism, etc, they do not actually define what any of these terms mean in practice, meaning even the "indigenous" are walking on eggshells. There's also a difficult continual doublethink required to simultaneously celebrate diversity while avoiding any hint of appropriation, all while pretending to ignore everything about the actual people you're working with.
But a lot of it will be down to the company, I think.
One big part of moving to my country (the Netherlands) is to partake and graduate in an integration course and exam - you need to have an adequate grasp of both the language and the culture to be able to get a Dutch citizenship: https://www.nt2.nl/en/dossier/kennis_nederlandse_maatschappi...
Indeed. That is a good question. Wouldn't it be nice to know what the context around this kind of statement was instead of trying to guess what it was? Wouldn't that be an example of good journalism to provide this information in a balanced objective way, instead of leaving it out there so that people either assume the worst or dismiss the claim as clearly hyperbolic? After all, there are gradations to these kinds of things - how are we, the readers, supposed to know where on the spectrum this lies (or if this is even true at all)? Are we supposed to use our own biases and lack of knowledge of the situation to guide us to a conclusion?
OK. Let's try that by taking a step back and examining the situation as laid out. Race, in 2021, is a very sensitive topic, and has been for years. Silicon Valley is one of the most progressive areas in the world and regional tech companies as a matter of policy, as well as their employees from a personal perspective (because they live in the present culture and in the progressive area), are highly sensitive to issues around race. Given those facts, are you sure the article is presenting you with enough context to actually make a balanced and objective judgment as to the veracity of the claims? In other words, I don't trust the reporting of NBC News here. I don't think you can read this article and understand the context of these claims and therefore you can't make any sort of judgment and assign fault or blame on any party.
So, when is pointing out a new coworker’s skin color actually okay?
Let's start with the fact that this article is presenting one side of the story. We don't know if this person is truthful. We don't know if this person is hyperbolic, or if they left out some key details or played certain facts and suppressed others, or just misconstrued the comment. We just don't know what the situation actually is. So the first question back to you is, why are you engaging in this creative writing exercise? It's abundantly clear that you don't know happened there because at best, you have a one sentence summary of the situation (actually a half of sentence, literally: "when a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected"). But let's set that aside.
The framing of your question is also absolutely ridiculous. Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them? What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.
Because I'm responding to the very top comment about assuming good intent and the people already agreeing with it. I'm not arguing that what happened in the article is verified true.
> Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them?
I made no claims. I asked the question.
> What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.
Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party in the article based on certain "what ifs" that you conjured, which isn't so different from my engaging in conversation with HN re: the boundaries of workplace racism based on the "what if" that the article is, in fact, true.
And this is the frustrating part about this terrible article. There is simply not enough information to make a value judgment. The principle of "assuming good intent" may be a great general principle but of course, it will not and should not apply in every situation. Should it apply in this situation? I don't know. We're left having to speculate because the journalist in question didn't even bother to do basic due diligence.
>I made no claims. I asked the question.
OK I answered.
>Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party
Like you, I made no claims either way. I wish journalists would be more responsible.
Now this is an insanely stupid, and odd thing to say, but I think it's fair to say it comes from a place of ignorance, and not malice. At least one might assume that if the incident only happens once.