Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

>I actually think that is a really, really bad thing to do in a university. That is because unversities are full of seniority and dependency relationships, and in an unequal relationship informal conflict resolution puts the weaker party at a disadvantage.

I could not disagree more.

Going Full Karen(TM) and narcing to HR, the cops, etc (whatever the applicable authority is) at the drop of a hat without even attempting to communicate with the other party typically results in unnecessary frustration for both you and the other part of the disagreement and wastes all three parties time and effort. The root cause of most disagreements are simple unintentional miscommunication or misinterpretation of a situation. You should at least make a good faith effort to rule those out before you get external authority involved.

View on HN

Please don't do the "Karen" thing on HN. I know there are lots of different arguments about such things but on HN the bottom line is that it's (a) a tired trope, and (b) a predictable provocation, and we don't need either of those.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Can you suggest a similarly compact (doesn't even have to be one word, I'll settle for three or four words) I alternative that conveys similiar meaning?

The reason the term gained popularity overnight is that it fills a hole in the (informal) English language.

The phrase "Going Full Karen(TM)" in your post didn't add any information; it was just a gratuitous trope. Your comment says the same thing when that bit is deleted, and says it better. Therefore my suggestion for an alternative phrasing would be the empty string :)

So there's only "private conversation" and "full karen"?

There's only the option for "full bureaucratic hell" as the 3rd party involvement?

Most attempts to work together are just complaints about misunderstanings?

Nothing about this seems right. I've experienced nothing but middle grounds for each of your extreme positions. For example, going to your direct supervisor to mediate is not bureaucratic hell, nor is it "full karen". Asking the mediation team for $workplace to help out isn't usually a bureaucratic hell, nor is it "involving an authority" in the way you suggest, since they usually do not have termination powers (or police powers or whatever else you're imagining), its the step before going to those authorities.

Also, you seem to completely ignore the basic truth that sometimes when people have hard feelings towards each other a third party can serve as a catalyst for productive communication.

I think there is most definitely a line where there can be no reasonable or safe way for someone to try and communicate privately and should definitely go to a third party to sort this out as a first step. I've heard of stories in academia where freshmen are literally physically cornered by staff, where someone is being stalked by a student who is unstable, where a student is physically threatened, where a student is offered extremely inappropriate quid pro quo for grades/research opportunities, etc.

The point being made is that you are not "narcing to the cops before talking to the other party". The other party is a cop. You are at a massive disadvantage.

The option to escalate up doesn't go away simply because you've tried to right things privately. If someone with power over you wrongs you you should still make a good faith effort to reconcile it with them directly, they might not even know they've done so(!).

I fail to see how the other party having power over you has any bearing on how the situation (beyond setting the norms of how you'd approach them about it or potentially limiting your communication channels to them, which would apply to any topic you approach them about regardless of if you've been wronged).

The option to escalate can severely get compromised if you give your superior the opportunity to approach their superior first.

Not only have you given your boss a chance to compromise your position but you won't have the rapport with their boss that they do. You are just a complaint and until there is a trend of these complaints they most likely will be handwaved away.

Maybe you haven't been through the circlejerk enough but the politics of a place totally shoot down your argument.

Oh, you know throwaway0a5e, they are a troublemaker. I have been trying to deal with some of their performance issues off the book to keep their record clean but you know don't like that and are now calling me out for whatever. You trust me, right boss?

If that boss is of the opinion that you unnecessarily escalated the situation, you can easily get the troublemaker label completely on your own, plus get some bad faith from the accused party if said boss talks to them.

In my opinion, this depends a lot on the severity of the issue anyway. If we're talking about workload assignment or some comments, talking directly will be the best solution. If the issue is serious (sexual harassment, academic fraud etc), directly escalating is warranted.

It might be instructive for you to try to think of some situations where not making that effort might justified for yourself.

Such as? You clearly have something in mind.

The only way I can see justifying the "narc first, negotiate later" approach is if I don't expect the "negotiate later" part to ever happen and am simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk and want to cause problems for them.

No, I am asking you to engage with the argument in good faith, and making some token effort to understand what the argument actually is.

And it should be obvious, to you, if you do engage in good faith, that the "simply seeking to be a vindictive jerk" is not the reason anyone would have to make this argument.

The ability to appropriately negotiate/challenge/confront/reject authority is critical. It takes practice, you'll screw up, there will be consequences. But if you don't practice and learn this skill the hard way you'll be a victim your whole life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com