Hacker News Reader

Comment by ppf | Hacker News Reader

I am not sure that is the intent of this memo.

> Williams wrote that while counterperspectives and unpopular opinions are “always encouraged” to help make decisions, “repeated interactions that are nonconstructive, cast doubt, assume bad intent, make unsubstantiated accusations, or otherwise do not contribute to a positive environment have a massive negative impact on the team and working environment.”

>He added: “These behaviors are not tolerated.”

That doesn't sound like an unbiased removal of politics from the workplace to me. I think I would be out of the door, too.

View on HN

It’s not an unbiased removal — the text of the memo specifically targets the screechiest voices. If you want to put BlackLivesMatter in your Slack status I think you’ll find few complaints but if you present a list of demands starting with “The Company must take a public position in support of reparations” then they’re saying you will be shown the door.

It depends how you interpret it. Someone gets to decide what a "positive workplace" is, and exactly what "casting doubt" and "nonconstructive" mean, and then they are free to be intolerant of those who go against them.

Yeah, the point of leadership is to make decisions. Seems like a win-win for people who can't tolerate each other to separate.

Well of course, companies aren't democracies. The CEO/board or whoever is in charge has all the power.

It might surprise you to know that in some civilized parts of the world, even employees have rights.

Rights != deciding what's a positive environment at work.

You're conflating two different things.

"deciding what's a positive environment at work" != "whoever is in charge has all the power".

You're the conflating one.

I get where you are coming from but arguing with me won't change the facts we're witnessing out there in the world.

That doesn't sound like an unbiased removal of politics from the workplace to me. I think I would be out of the door, too.

Why, do you "assume bad intent" and "make unsubstantiated accusations"? Do you want to, or do you want to work with people that do? I don't think anyone who quits because those "behaviours are not tolerated" will be missed by their former colleagues.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_No_Asshole_Rule

You have just perfectly demonstrated how these new rules can be used to crush even a hint of dissent. I'm out.

In what sense were you crushed by goatinaboat? If somebody publicly disagrees with you, does that mean they have crushed you?

I think a few of the things from the quote are troubling because they were phrased so ambiguously the management could interpret them in disingenuous ways that mean you could theoretically push anyone you wanted out of a company. But at this point isn't it just a memo from the CEO and not a formalized SOP? I would hope the SOP would clarify more.

However, I think lots of people wondered why in the quote you included a few things that don't seem to be anything aside from objectively bad, such as "assuming bad intent" and "making unsubstantiated accusations."

How did someone simply asking you about it "crush" you into silence?

That person used my very questioning of it as an example of something that "assumed bad intent", etc etc, as the memo said, "will not be tolerated". Scale that up to a workplace, and I can see how that could go sideways.

> Why, do you "assume bad intent" and "make unsubstantiated accusations"?

Yes: https://offices.depaul.edu/diversity/education/presidents-bo...

> Attributes of a successful antiracist > 1. Stop saying, “I am not racist.” > 2. Admit racism exists and is ascribed to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com