Hacker News Reader

Comment by MyHypatia | Hacker News Reader

Yes, I was paraphrasing. But my point still stands.

Mr. Garcia Martinez did publish those remarks. I don't know that I would use the word "unsafe", but definitely uncomfortable and less meritocratic if people can go around saying things like that with no consequences.

When leaders make that behavior ok, it gives a pass for others to behave that way as well, and creates a terrible work environment.

We can argue about whether "unsafe" is the ideal word choice. But I don't think it changes that Apple has every reason to fire him if their employees don't want to be led by him.

View on HN

Isn't this a bit like "pre-crime”? He hasn't said anything about his colleagues at Apple. He's allowed to think things of them, and allowed to say what he wants (if he wants) later.

We are all potential future publishers of a tell-all.

Apple could have done the smart thing and had him option all future books about his time at Apple for $1.

Re: his past statements: It seems like the baseline assumption is that nobody ever exaggerates their own opinion, changes an opinion, grows as a person, etc. So if there's any proof that you said something unfavorable at any time, well, you're "a dyed in the wool X".

I can see why his coworkers are uncomfortable. I don't see why the knee must jerk so swiftly.

I don't think it's like pre-crime. What he wrote isn't a crime. No one is calling for him to be jailed. He exercised his right to free speech, wrote a book that disparaged his former colleagues, and now his current colleagues are exercising their right to free speech and declaring that they are uncomfortable working with him.

When I apply for jobs, my past work is the main factor in determining whether I am the right fit for the job. His job at Apple was working in ads, his book was about shitting all over the people he used to work with in ads at Facebook. I think it's perfectly reasonable for Apple to say, "Based on your previous work, we no longer think you are a good fit for our team."

He is not being uniquely screwed. The idea that he should get to disparage people, and that everyone else needs to accommodate his rude behavior and work with him anyway sounds really entitled to me. We teach this concept to children: if you behave like an asshole, don't be surprised if you don't have friends to play with.

>saying things like that with no consequences.

Should I be allowed to deny the sanctity of Christ in public without consequences? You would be hard pressed to find in all of Tudor England a man to defend such an outrageous proposition.

In all seriousness, this new religious struggle will probably tear the US apart over the next two decades. Hopefully it wont be as bad as the reformation was in Europe.

So words should have no consequences whatsoever?

If I go to an interview and I'm rude, I probably won't get hired even if I am the most qualified candidate. If I mock people and create an atmosphere people don't want to be in, my colleagues will leave and find other places to work.

Yet, my behavior should be tolerated? This isn't a religious struggle or a medieval concept. People don't want to work with people who behave like assholes. Respect and trust is critical for a well-functioning team. This is fundamental to human relationships, it's not a religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com