DRS was kind enough to dig up the links….

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto

Nob Akimoto is a policy analyst and part-time dungeon master. When not talking endlessly about matters of public policy, he is a dungeon master on the NWN World of Avlis

Related Post Roulette

82 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    In Colorado, you are allowed to answer two, and only two, questions about an employee who used to work for you.

    1. Did this person used to work for you?
    2. Is this person eligible for rehire?

    That’s it. Both are yes or no questions and both questions are questions that, if the yes or no answers are exceeded, can open you up to lawsuits.

    If you say “Oh, this person was awesome! Showed up on time, brought their own lunch, ate at their desk, worked unpaid overtime, and was an ALL STAR TEAM PLAYER!!!” and this person does a fair-to-mediocre job? You can sue the company whose HR department answered these questions because you hired this person on the answers they gave.

    If you say “Oh, this person was awful! They went to this conference and made jokes about dongles and forking!” and this person is not hired? They can sue you for prejudicing a potential employer against you.

    So if an HR department engages in doublespeak, know that there may be a lot (as in a lot a lot) of reasons why. Our companies here are only allowed to answer two yes or no questions and that is it… it keeps them from being sued.Report

    • Nob Akimoto Nob Akimoto in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I thought PlayHaven was headquartered in San Francisco and/or Portland…?Report

    • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      In California, the laws are (IIRC) somewhat different, but I know it’s fairly common that managers who may be asked to provide a reference are told (a) refer them to HR and (b) answer politely but firmly “it is company policy that employees don’t discuss former members of the company’s workforce.”Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Patrick Cahalan
        Ignored
        says:

        What if the person is currently employed? Are the laws different?Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          In California? I have no idea.

          I personally would never speak on the record to someone I didn’t know about a coworker’s performance. And given that I don’t know them, there’s no way I could be assured that it would stay off the record.Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Patrick Cahalan
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m in NY, but have conducted job searches in several states.

            Each time, I am asked for a list of references. If I give them such a list, it would seem that these laws would make it impossible for them to avail themselves of it in any meaningful or useful way. Unless in creating the list I somehow grant permission for my references to speak at will without fear of retribution (provided they don’t lie or whatever). How does that all work?Report

            • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              It doesn’t. It’s all messed up.

              FWIW, the only time – the only time – I’ve ever been called by someone following up on a reference was when the FBI rang me up to check on someone’s security clearance background check. I think “providing references” is entirely a matter of form in this day and age.

              Admittedly, I’m already past a certain point in my career.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Patrick Cahalan
                Ignored
                says:

                I do know that when I applied for a relatively minor summer camp position last summer, the employer did contact a reference (a colleague, not a supervisor). He indicated this was largely perfunctory. Then again, I understand there are some specific laws that govern teachers and other care providers, including background checks and possibly reference checks.

                On a similar path, I do know that there are new issues arising from teacher references for students, with lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits for less-than-stellar references that precluded, or were perceived to preclude, admission to a desire school. Do you know of any laws regarding that process?Report

              • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Patrick Cahalan
                Ignored
                says:

                In Pa here: my references always get called.
                It’s generally a good tip-off if I’m going to see a job offer or not.

                Then again, unis and hiring “within” a community…Report

              • Avatar Reformed Republican in reply to Patrick Cahalan
                Ignored
                says:

                I had one of those FBI interviews for a friend once. He did not let me know in advance that I had been given as a reference, so I spent the entire interview concerned that he was being investigated for some sort of illegal activity, and I provided as little information as possible.

                He got the job.Report

        • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          if they’re currently employed, it’s general etiquette to not ask for a reference.

          It also leads to fewer death threats to you and your company.Report

      • Avatar Simon K in reply to Patrick Cahalan
        Ignored
        says:

        Thats interesting. I always give references and I expect other managers to give references. If someone refuses to give a reference, I consider that to count against the employee, although of course I could never say that. The particular software sub-business I work in is very small and incestuous, so no-one is ever a complete stranger – I always know someone who knows the person I’m asking for the reference – and that may have something to do with it.

        Mind you, I always give and ask for references by ‘phone, and I never ask or answer questions that lean directly on performance or other subjective judgements. The kinds of questions that are okay are “did this person work for you?”, “what were their job responsibilities?”, “what did they accomplish?”, “what are their particular strengths?”, “how would they fit in ?”. These are relatively objective questions whose answers you can and should be able to defend, but they also give the potential hiring manager useful information.

        I’ve both received and given references that were “bad” on the sense that the former manager was basically saying the person wasn’t a good fit and he wouldn’t hire them again for the same role, where the hiring manager went ahead and hired them and was happy.Report

        • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Simon K
          Ignored
          says:

          I know someone who’s not allowed to tell anything about where he worked for the past twenty years. Nor give references.

          … that’s a fun hire, no?

          His actual pitch: “Give me two weeks unpaid, and if I can hack it, hire me.”Report

    • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      It was a weeks-long process for me to get through the red tape necessary to get a signed letter from a former employer to the effect that I had worked for them for eight years and “performed various tasks.” That was the whole of the job description contained in the letter. I don’t think they even gave my title, though they did give my final salary, which at least was sufficient to suggest that those “various tasks” were probably not janitorial in nature.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Brandon Berg
        Ignored
        says:

        I understand the CYA aspect of not providing any subjective information, but not giving your title is weird.Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to Mike Schilling
          Ignored
          says:

          I got the perception that it was an ad-hoc attempt to fulfill a request they didn’t really know how to handle. The hardest part was getting bounced around to different people while they tried to figure out who was authorized to write and sign such a letter. They normally have a hotline they use for employment verification, but I was dealing with a government, and they said they needed a signed letter. Incompatible bureaucracies.Report

          • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            Makes (some) sense. Though you’d think that the top administrator in HR could easily enough have said “Type up whatever information you would have given out and prepare it for my signature.”Report

    • Avatar KatherineMW in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Seriously? You’re not allowed to have employer references? How do people even get hired?Report

      • Avatar Morat20 in reply to KatherineMW
        Ignored
        says:

        Personal refernces from coworkers, who are quite, quite clear that they are speaking personally and not on behalf of the company.

        My company routinely will only verify that you were employed, and what dates they have for you working for them. (Basically they will say “morat did, in fact, work for us for 8 years”). I think — if asked — they will specify if I was laid off, quit, or was terminated for cause.

        But not what the cause was.Report

    • Avatar Pierre Corneille in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      Jaybird,

      Are you sure it’s the law, or just generally prudent policy that companies adopt, perhaps based on a sense of legal liability, but not on a particular legal prescription?Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Pierre Corneille
        Ignored
        says:

        One of my managers told me that, legally, those were the only questions he was allowed to answer. I assume that what he meant was “according to Colorado Law” but maybe he only meant “the legal department told us to only answer these two”.

        I have to admit that this policy struck me as something that quite likely would be legislated and I’ve never researched the matter any deeper than that.Report

        • Avatar Simon K in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          Some employment lawyers are obsessed with the rather vague and open-ended working of anti-discrimination laws, which in spite of the lack of binding precendent seem to imply that it might be possibly to sue someone on discrimination grounds for almost any employment related decision. They tend to make rules like this for their clients in order to “protect” them, which is a little like protecting yourself from bears by not stepping on the cracks in the sidewalk.Report

  2. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    he hints that the employee was fired for multiple reasons

    No, that statement neither says nor implies one damned thing about the reasons for the termination. It’s (in JB’s words) pure HR-speak.Report

  3. Avatar Patrick Cahalan
    Ignored
    says:

    Once upon a time, a friend of mine was very active on a very well-known mailing list regarding a very well-known operating system.

    This operating system relies heavily upon a software package that everybody (and I do mean everybody) who uses the operating system uses. Every day.

    So on this operating system mailing list, a discussion started one day about an announced security vulnerability in this software package. No details were provided. The lead developer of the software package (who was also the main dude behind another, closely related operating system) was on the mailing list as well, and there were conversations back and forth between the operating system community and the developer.

    See, the OS operators (mostly systems administrators) wanted to know how bad the vulnerability was. The developer did not want to say, his reasoning being if he described the problem in enough detail that people would know how bad the potential vulnerability actually was, it increased the likelihood that someone would exploit it before the software package would be patched.

    The community pushed back, because without knowing how bad the vulnerability was, they couldn’t perform a proper risk analysis. It would be very, very problematic to disable this software package, representing a huge amount of work. To justify all that work, they needed to know how bad the vulnerability was.

    Back and forth people went on this list, until the lead developer of the software package (who is not, shall we say, known for his diplomacy) suggested in a fit of pique that hackers should attack my friend’s web site first, if he wasn’t going to turn off this software package.

    About fifteen minutes later, the colo went down. Not just my friend’s website, but numerous others were nailed because a collection of jackasses took their cult of personality hero-worship of an (admittedly well-skilled) software programmer as some sort of honor badge.

    I am not a fan of the hacker mob mentality.Report

    • Avatar Kimmi in reply to Patrick Cahalan
      Ignored
      says:

      … this is not so bad.

      What is bad?

      When your userbase does a DDOS on you because you decided to take a Friday off.
      … thus necessitating a month’s worth of work, including “hiring someone who understands servers”…

      And this is why having a userbase that is Aspies sucks!

      (Minecraft, in case you’re wondering. This is all publically available info, too. Userbase == Idiots)Report

  4. Avatar Morzer
    Ignored
    says:

    To me this reads like Playhaven’s official statement of ass-covering, rather than saying anything meaningful about the employee who was terminated. It’s very carefully constructed so as to hint at things, but doesn’t come out and put any facts on the table. Frankly, I wouldn’t be inclined to assign it any evidentiary value, except as to the pusillanimous nature of the corporate entity behind it.Report

    • Avatar DRS in reply to Morzer
      Ignored
      says:

      I see it as evidence that the company is serious about gender equality, as per the CEO’s blog post about the incident here: http://blog.playhaven.com/addressing-pycon/ Eventually, at some point, guys will get the message – women are colleagues and customers. Save it for the boys’ washroom.Report

      • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DRS
        Ignored
        says:

        Well, no. What this demonstrates is a commitment to gender inequality. As does your “save it for they boys’ washroom” comment, which suggests that this sort of thing is all well and good as long as it’s just men, but not okay when there are women present. Because men and women are different.

        Which is fine with me, because I’m not a feminist, because I don’t particularly value the ability to make inappropriate jokes during work hours, and because I want to see more women in tech, both for all the right reasons and for all the wrong reasons.

        But let’s not pretend that this is other than what it is. It’s about men being pressured to change their behavior around women, because women are different from men.Report

        • Avatar DRS in reply to Brandon Berg
          Ignored
          says:

          As does your “save it for they boys’ washroom” comment, which suggests that this sort of thing is all well and good as long as it’s just men, but not okay when there are women present.

          Let me fix that for you: “….well and good as long as it’s just boys…” Because men should be mature enough to govern themselves in a dignified, polite manner in the workplace or in professional settings outside the workplace, like conferences.

          It’s about men being pressured to change their behavior around women, because women are different from men.

          Well, actually I think it’s about men facing some serious social pushback about acting like professionals in the workplace, and that means not talking about things in a way that makes colleagues uncomfortable. You’re putting the onus on women here: if only the women understood how the boys roll, if only they wouldn’t be so uptight all the time and learned to laugh, this would all just go away. But I see the onus should be put on immature guys to act like grownups and contribute to a team environment.

          Let’s put it this way. Let’s say a guy in an office team was regularly making comments about a male colleague who’s Jewish. Nothing out-and-out bigoted, no using “kike” or “Yid” or anything like that. Just a steady feed of comments about getting extra holidays because of Yom Kippur or Rosh Hoshannah, asking if he colour-coordinates his yarmulke with his ties or his underwear and finally, during a business trip as the team gathers for breakfast in the hotel dining room, announcing loudly that since the colleague is eating bacon he’ll have to be reported to the authorities. He makes a really big deal out of it, pretending to be horrified and laughing all the time.

          Now tell me: how long would be it after that business trip before that particular employee found himself receiving a visit from a senior HR person asking “Do we have a problem here? Because people are starting to ask questions.” And I’m thinking that responding that he meant no harm, can’t a guy make some jokes and that the Jewish colleague should learn to lighten up – really would not be a sound strategic move.Report

          • Avatar DRS in reply to DRS
            Ignored
            says:

            *Bleep* it. I screwed up the italics on the first part of that. Hope everyone can make it out.Report

          • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DRS
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, actually I think it’s about men facing some serious social pushback about acting like professionals in the workplace, and that means not talking about things in a way that makes colleagues uncomfortable.

            Specifically, female colleagues.

            Let’s say a guy in an office team was regularly making comments about a male colleague who’s Jewish.

            But that’s not a valid analogy to the situation described here. Making comments directed at a woman, or about a woman, because she’s a woman, is treating men and women differently. But so is withholding a joke just because there’s a woman in earshot. The truly nondiscriminatory thing to do is not to change your behavior based on whether a woman is present.

            Again, I’m not saying it’s bad that we do this. Men and women are different, and that should influence our behavior. But we do so because we recognize that men and women are different, not because they’re the same.Report

            • Avatar DRS in reply to Brandon Berg
              Ignored
              says:

              It’s a perfectly valid analogy to this – because it’s referring to the main point – how a guy reacts to a colleague who isn’t the exact same as he is. The point is not that guys should talk differently around Jews; it’s that as a professional worker/employee/team player, you should react to colleagues as colleagues and ignore the differences. Otherwise it raises questions about YOU and your ability to interact well with people from different backgrounds.Report

    • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Morzer
      Ignored
      says:

      Frankly, I wouldn’t be inclined to assign it any evidentiary value, except as to the pusillanimous nature of the corporate entity behind it.

      Earlier I’d thought that maybe this was part of a pattern and that’s why he was fired (which’d be fair enough), but the combination of PlayHaven’s statement and Mr. Hank’s own words lead me to believe that otherwise is more likely.Report

  5. Avatar DRS
    Ignored
    says:

    I do wish someone would come up with a checklist of likely situations and suggested responses so us poor dumb girls can get some clear idea of what ways we’re allowed to respond to inappropriate comments. It would take the pressure off us, you know? We wouldn’t have to rely on our own judgements – which might not always be at their most reliable at certain times of the month, know what I’m saying? – but could simply consult the checklist to determine best responses. It would certainly be a huge favour to us chicks if the guys would decide this for us, because apparently we can’t just be offended on our own since it might get some decent, hard-working guy who was goofing around with a buddy – er, I mean attending a professional conference with a colleague (whew, that was close!) into trouble.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DRS
      Ignored
      says:

      Rabbi Hillel came up with a guideline a few thousand years ago: Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want done to you.Report

    • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to DRS
      Ignored
      says:

      We’ll get that list to you as soon as we get a list of what jokes will make women uncomfortable, get our picture posted all over the Internet and cost us our jobs.Report

      • Avatar DRS in reply to Mr. Blue
        Ignored
        says:

        Assuming that you’re serious:

        1. Jokes/comments about body parts and/or body functions while in a professional setting would be top of the list.

        2. Don’t assume that your sense of humour is shared by others just because they’re your own age or in your profession. You have no idea what culture your auditors come from and what their reactions might be. Play it safe.

        3. Don’t descend to vulgarity in any circumstances. If a female colleague gets a promotion you didn’t get, don’t say “It’s not what you know, it’s who you blow in this company!” It won’t make you more friends than you’ve already got – and there’s no telling how many people will be confirmed in their belief that you didn’t deserve the promotion anyway.

        In other words, think before you speak. Consider the impact your words will make before you say them. If it makes you feel self-conscious in public settings – well, then, congratulations! Now you know what it feels like to be a professional woman! Go have a cookie to celebrate.Report

        • Avatar Stillwater in reply to DRS
          Ignored
          says:

          DRS, comments like this make me glad you’re around here. And wish you’d drop in more frequently.Report

        • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to DRS
          Ignored
          says:

          I mostly don’t have a problem with this list (I think it’s great for dealing with people when you don’t have an established relationship; I’m not sure it’s great to always put professionalism before communication, but that’s a digression).

          If it makes you feel self-conscious in public settings – well, then, congratulations! Now you know what it feels like to be a professional woman! Go have a cookie to celebrate.

          The implication here is odd; although that may not be your intention.

          It can appear weird that progress towards resolving the underlying complaint – justified, to be certain – is measured when the underlying complaint is spread around a larger audience.

          I get that you’re probably thinking that this is a transition phase and this isn’t end-game, so it’s more like “the consequences of trying to make this better is that during the period of making it better, it’s going to suck worse for everybody”, but I can see how another observer can read this as, “Let’s make us all equally uncomfortable!” which seems to be a counterproductive target.

          One can certainly see how this isn’t a message that is going to be particularly well received.Report

          • Avatar DRS in reply to Patrick Cahalan
            Ignored
            says:

            PC, I suspect you’re over-thinking this. What I mean is that constantly watching what you say and how it will be interpreted and how you will be judged over interpretations you have no control over, is what professional women face everyday. And it won’t do men any harm to realize that. At least they’re spared the worries over their outfits and how what they’re wearing might be perceived.

            One can certainly see how this isn’t a message that is going to be particularly well received.

            And I should worry about this…why?

            It wasn’t too long ago that “acting like a gentleman” was seen as a desirable quality in young men, and that one should always be polite and dignified at all times. This is not difficult if you put your mind to it. I find the suggestion that the above behaviour is some kind of crushing burden on men to be quite puzzling.Report

        • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to DRS
          Ignored
          says:

          I can agree with those, at least #1 and #3.

          It’s the unmentioned #4 that I have a problem with: Using words that might be misunderstood by somebody, somewhere, with a camera phone and a twitter account.Report

          • Avatar DRS in reply to Mr. Blue
            Ignored
            says:

            I’m not responsible for numbers that aren’t on my list. And guess what – everybody has the ability to play Candid Camera on just about anybody else these days, so it’s not something only women do.Report

            • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to DRS
              Ignored
              says:

              I’m not responsible for numbers that aren’t on my list.

              No, you didn’t put it on your list. But you commended it all the same. So it’s apparently in the rules somewhere.

              Candid camera is taping someone doing something. This was something different than that. The defensibility of candid cameraing depends a lot on context. The same goes for what she did do.

              To her credit, though, even she didn’t want the guy fired.Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to Mr. Blue
                Ignored
                says:

                No, you didn’t put it on your list. But you commended it all the same

                You know, I’m not responsible for your interpretation of things. I certainly did not commend it – I stated that it is a reality of today’s environment. Acknowledging that something exists does not imply approval.

                There’s almost always going to be someone around who has the ability to catch someone doing something stupid. So people should keep that in mind when they’re doing something, well, stupid or easily seen as being stupid. Or thoughtless. Or inconsiderate. Or throwing their weight around. Or whatever. So sitting in a large conference surrounded by people is a situation where you should constantly be aware that you could get caught saying something dumb or even picking your nose and achieving internet immortality as a sample of a conference attendee.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DRS
                Ignored
                says:

                you could get caught saying something dumb or even picking your nose

                A picture of you picking your nose would be one thing. This was a picture of you smiling at the photographer, later captioned “This guy picks his nose!”Report

              • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to DRS
                Ignored
                says:

                I must have misunderstood your 1:23 comment then.Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to Mr. Blue
                Ignored
                says:

                *Goes up to check 1:23 comment* *Blinks in amazement*

                Yes, you did.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mr. Blue
        Ignored
        says:

        “We’ll get that list to you as soon as we get a list of what jokes will make women uncomfortable, get our picture posted all over the Internet and cost us our jobs.”

        Yet again, you’ve made men’s action contingent on women acting first.Report

        • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Kazzy
          Ignored
          says:

          I think it’s fair in this case, though, because we’re talking about action-reaction. So before defining acceptable reaction, I think it’s fair to define acceptable action. Also, I thought she was trying to make a rhetorical point rather than genuinely asking for a checklist.

          I don’t have a checklist, but I think Mike Schilling touches on it. Don’t respond in a way that you think would be an unfair response to you. If you would prefer someone not publish your picture if you offended them and instead either be confronted directly or privately through the individuals in charge of the forum, then don’t ask the guys to say “cheese” and then caption it “These men said bad things.”Report

          • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mr. Blue
            Ignored
            says:

            There always seems to be a reason why this case is different. But the fact remains that we continually put the onus on women to be the agents of change while simultaneously denying them the power or standing to actually affect that change.Report

            • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Kazzy
              Ignored
              says:

              A good point generally, but I don’t think it’s applicable here.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mr. Blue
                Ignored
                says:

                Why not? Just saying so doesn’t make it so. DRS asked for a list of ways women should react to offensive statements since the highlighted response is drawing so much flack. Why couldn’t or wouldn’t you honor that request?Report

              • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Because (a) I do not believe it was a sincere question because (b) it’s entirely dependent on the nature of the offense. What action the reaction is to. Before I could even try to answer that question, if I were so inclined, I’d need to know what kinds of actions we’re talking about. Offensive statements run a large gamut.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Mr. Blue
                Ignored
                says:

                Was your counter a sincere question?Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Of course it wasn’t. He’s trolling. Trolls are best ignored.Report

              • Avatar Just Me in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Was DRS’s questions a sincere quesiton? I do wish someone would come up with a checklist of likely situations and suggested responses so us poor dumb girls can get some clear idea of what ways we’re allowed to respond to inappropriate comments. It would take the pressure off us, you know? We wouldn’t have to rely on our own judgements – which might not always be at their most reliable at certain times of the month, know what I’m saying? – but could simply consult the checklist to determine best responses.

                Can we honestly say that with the words “dumb girls”, “rely on our own judgement”, and “certain times of the month” that this was an honest question that was asking for an honest response back?Report

              • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Pay no attention to the trolling, JM. Men are every bit as irrational as women, just along different vectors. With men, it’s every day of the month.

                If someone’s making a joke at someone else’s expense, it’s entirely appropriate to say “That’s rude. I’d appreciate it if you’d stop that. Around here, such jokes are treated as harassment. And people get sacked for it. Food for thought, funny guy.”Report

              • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                It was an in insincere response to an insincere request. However, if DRS wants to give me a specific offensive incident and what I think the appropriate response would be, I’ll follow through. She gave three examples, but all three are each variable in severity, and so the appropriate response would be similarly variable.Report

              • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Do you think your frustration with the matter at hand is equivalent to DRS’s? That your indulgence of insincerity is as justified as hers?Report

              • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to Kazzy
                Ignored
                says:

                Fair ’nuff. Perhaps I let my temper get the better of my judgment in chiming in.Report

              • Avatar DRS in reply to Mr. Blue
                Ignored
                says:

                And I gave you three examples at 1:56 – which didn’t include a fourth example because that was only in your mind. This is the last response from me you’re going to get because my interpretation is that you’re being deliberately obtuse.Report

              • Avatar Mr. Blue in reply to DRS
                Ignored
                says:

                Yes you did. Your 1:23 comment gave me the impression that you were supportive of Mr. Hank’s firing. I will leave it to the reader whether I am being obtuse, deliberate or otherwise. (Seriously, had I not read that comment the way I did, I wouldn’t have responded down here the way I did.)Report

      • Avatar Rod Engelsman in reply to Mr. Blue
        Ignored
        says:

        “Would you tell the joke in front of your mother?” usually isn’t a bad start. But that depends on a) your mother, and b) your relationship thereto.

        This stuff really shouldn’t be that hard for people that think they’re really smart.Report

    • Avatar Pyre in reply to DRS
      Ignored
      says:

      Well, based on the Crunkbear/Adria Richards/other situations thing, here is the list.

      1) Think Before Tweeting.Report

  6. Avatar RTod
    Ignored
    says:

    All of this reminds me of nothing more than the Cultural Revolution. Men of a certain age bracket and lacking a necessary degree of maturity banding together for a common cause where they have greater power than those they wish to punish inevitably leads to the punishment being the objective and the cause being an afterthought.Report

  7. Avatar Diablo
    Ignored
    says:

    First world problems are the toughest problems…

    Seriously, rich Americans have the weirdest things they get angry about.Report

  8. Avatar Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “…but it’s quite clear that there’s a substantial and vocal minority of “people” (using this term loosely, I assume these sociopaths are still genetically homo sapiens-sapiens) who feel the need to turn this into a righteous crusade to fight for the poor white oppressed male who is smothered by the PC police and feminazis.”

    And you find the same type of people doing similiar things on the other side of the “discussion”. All because a woman chose not to confront the issue but tweet about it. Like taking something to the interwebs like this WAS EVER a good idea.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *