Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBlume | Hacker News Reader

I really hope you're just trolling, I hope no one here is actually this obtuse.

But just in case...

Referring to them as "gang bang interviews": * implies an equivalence between having several people take it in turns to overpower and rape you, and having several people take it in turns to ask you questions * brings up the topic of rape in a context where people are expected to laugh * brings up the topic of rape for no good reason

Can you really not see how this would create an unpleasant experience for someone (ie most women) who's been taught since age 12 to fear the possibility of being raped at any moment? Can you not see how this would create a potentially triggering experience, one which would wipe out any benefit from attending the conference, for an assault survivor?

View on HN

Not trolling and I take exception to the implication that my point is so worthless.

There are many parallels. As you point out the interviewee cornered in a room and find themselves attacked by one person after another. Most of the interviewers have the agenda to discredit and intimidate the interviewers whose looks or ethnicity they just don't like. If the person "looks cool" though then they go easy. It's hostile and confrontational and the interviewer is expected to take the abuse and not fight back or they are not demonstrating teamwork, where teamwork in many of these companies means being a passive beta that accepts abuse. Very different from talking one on one and having a chance to document one's competency.

Gang bang interviews are a form of violence, they are wrong, and they should be stopped. No one should defend gang bang interviews in tech. Or in any other fields, but gang bang interviews are prevalent in tech mostly, I've never seen the practice in any other field.

The point isn't worthless, but it's being presented in a jaw-droppingly insensitive way.

Would you dare to say what you just said to an actual rape survivor? Are you that emotionally tone deaf or just misanthropic? Having a bunch of people ask you questions in a way you don't like, in a context where you're free to leave at any time, is not a form of violence. Maybe it's a form of aggression but not one that can credibly be compared to rape.

My problem with your line of thinking is that as more and more people are silenced because of insensitivity, our freedoms are eroded away.

What he says is insensitive, by why can't we just be adults and ignore it?

After all, pretty much any article on HN involving legalizing MJ offends me, but I wouldn't go to my HR department if I heard people talking about it in the workplace.

Or are you saying I should? When does it end?

I agree with Phillip Pullman when he says that "nobody has a right to never be offended." and that people should be free to say things that may be offensive, especially on their own time.

The simple fact that you've been offended isn't reason to go to HR. You go to HR if you're being harassed or if people are actively creating a hostile work environment. It correlates with being offended, but it's not exactly the same thing.

If people were harassing you about your MJ legalization stance (or anything, for that matter), then it probably would be appropriate to go to HR about.

When does it end? Right there. Easy.

As far as "silencing" goes, I'm assuming that the commenter above isn't trolling and honestly doesn't know that what he's saying is profoundly insensitive. In an intellectually honest community, people can have discussions around what would and wouldn't be considered insensitive, especially when that's the basic context of the discussion.

It's a fair hypothesis.

I know a few rape victims. I was able to get ahold of two of them and talk it out.

Their opinion was the described interview tactic does not sound like something they would want to go through and it is reasonable to speak against them. Both also mentioned that gang bangs are not equivalent to gang rapes, differing in consent.

That sort of seems to dissolve the parallel between interviews-by-committee and actual gang bangs, though.

Does it though? interviews-by-committee are consensual too...

"If people were harassing you about your MJ legalization stance (or anything, for that matter), then it probably would be appropriate to go to HR about."

I'm not talking about being harassed. I'm talking about just mentioning it. Just like the girl that wrote that bot that was here on HN and just like the discussion here. Using the term "gang raped" isn't being harassed personally.

It doesn't end here because people will go to HR and get you fired for just mentioning something they deem "offensive".

That's why I talk about silencing. Some people just can't ignore it and want to get the other person silenced. This same type of person has gotten radio hosts fired as well.

I've seen this happen in almost every workplace where I've worked in the past 10 years.

I've seen this happen in almost every workplace where I've worked in the past 10 years.

You've actually seen people get fired based entirely on a single complaint about a single non-harassing offensive remark? I personally haven't seen anyone fired in this way. It's possible that this phenomenon is pervasive and I'm just ignorant, I guess.

But I'll be honest and step forward and say it: some kinds of speech should be silenced in a professional workplace, (yes, even startups). Sexist or racist or any other sort of othering language is neither appropriate nor necessary.

I know what this means. I'm generally a moderate person, but I do hold some pretty extreme views. I know that even though I have free-speech, I don't have consequence-free-speech and I am mature enough to silence myself when needed. The things that are OK for me to say over a beer with a friend on Friday night aren't OK for me to say around the water cooler on Monday morning. That's just part of being a professional.

If you want to be offensive and edgy, that's great. I love offensive and edgy. Just don't do it at work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com