Firing was over-reaction [LWN.net]

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 22, 2013 16:55 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link]

"Of course, being accusatory and calling people out in public instead of dealing with issues in a more appropriate manner is a sign of a person with personal issues and thus should be ignored completely by anybody with common sense."

Let's rethink that, please. How about this?

"Of course, being accusatory and calling people out in public instead of dealing with issues in a more appropriate manner is a sign of a person who may have over-reacted and should be listened to, but perhaps asked to deal with things in a less inflammatory manner in the future."

Let's agree that we can listen to someone without going overboard, and we can try to de-escalate things without disregarding someone entirely. Speculating on whether someone has personal issues or not isn't, IMHO, particularly useful - and even *if* said person has personal issues, it doesn't automatically mean they don't have a valid point.

One of the things that has caused this entire thing to get blown out of proportion is that people have assumed ill-intent on all sides while also refusing to look at things from the POV of the "other side" of the issues.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 22, 2013 21:32 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I'll stand by my statement. There are appropriate ways to deal with issues and inappropriate ways. I have met enough people and dealt with enough personal conflicts to know what I am talking about. People that instigate drama for drama's sake are usually not healthy and they should be left alone and ignored when they are behaving inappropriately. I don't know or care about this lady spefically. It is a general statement.

She should of been ignored, period. Right from the get-go. It was a mistake to assign a twitter post any credibility, period. It is a mistake to respond to it. It should of been let go.

The only person with a real grievance would be the guy she purportedly falsely accused.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 23, 2013 4:45 UTC (Sat) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]

With due respect, if you are absolutely convinced that your snap judgment is always correct, period, you haven't met enough people and dealt with enough personal conflicts.

This is why organizations need processes and procedures to deal with this shit. You can't rely on a single person's snap judgment.

Ignoring somebody who makes a complaint will just escalate the situation - even if the original complaint was done in a wrong way.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Apr 4, 2013 18:29 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

I don't see that drag said it had to be *his* judgement that controlled the issue.

But my overarching reaction to this incident, and others like it, is to quote the Fidonet slogan, now nearly three decades old:

Be ye not overly annoying...
nor *too easily annoyed*.

Certainly there are some people who fail on the first point.

But it's pretty clear that there are also people who are, in my best friend's lyrical phrasing, "spring-loaded to the pissed off position", thus failing rather theatrically at the second.

Just as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the target for the Internet and the content thereon cannot reasonably be limited to that which is considered Suitable for Children by the Most Conservative Observer, interpersonal behavior cannot reasonably be limited that hard either -- there will *always* be someone who can contrive to be offended by any single thing you or I say. People will always game the system, no matter what the rules are; anyone who's a parent understands this.

Zero tolerance has been proven pretty effectively not to work in education; it's not going to work in public conference rules, either.

If you want to interview NFL players in the locker room, you really do have to take on the possibility that you're gonna see some nudity.

Certainly, there are people who go beyond the pale.

But the pale isn't anywhere near a sotto-voce quip about a "dongle", from a different row, not directed at you. If I were the fired gent from the other row, you can be certain that I'd be investigating civil action against Adria Richards.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 16:41 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> Let's agree that we can listen to someone without going overboard, and we can try to de-escalate things without disregarding someone entirely.

Let's never forget that life is way too short to waste time with people not worth our time. They should always be ignored and avoided every time it's possible. This applies even more to people merely looking for attention (among others... TV channels!)

Of course this should be done as politely and respectfully as possible; one should always say "good bye" and smile. Manners.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 23, 2013 16:18 UTC (Sat) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness#Critic...

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 7:54 UTC (Sun) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]

"Political Correctness" is a term used in the US by right wingers to denigrate those who want to use inclusive terms when referring to groups of people. Like humankind vs. mankind, Also when groups of people don't want to use an outsider-given name of their group (sexual minorities' names have often been slurs, ethnic groups have been named by their neighbors or enemies etc).

It's most often used by people who occupy a cultural position of privilege (white male being the typical example) who get offended when people in positions of less cultural power ask for respectful terms to be used. For certain people, this request is highly offensive because they see undermining their power to set the terms of discourse in society.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 16:27 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

> It's most often used by people who occupy a cultural position of privilege who get offended when people in positions of less cultural power ask for respectful terms to be used.

"Most often" people qualifying something as "politically correct" are more amused than offended.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 22:53 UTC (Sun) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]

Do you find it amusing if someone asks not to be referred to in a derogatory or exclusionary manner?

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 23:14 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

This has degraded into the "have you stopped beating your wife yet" type of rhetoric, can we please stop now?

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 23:58 UTC (Sun) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]

Yeah, I think you're right.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 23:34 UTC (Sun) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]

OK I think I understand the misunderstanding now... you have in fact no clue what people have on their mind when they use the words "politically correct".

Before expressing your problem(s) with these words please go and do some reading until you understand a tiny bit when, how and why people actually use them. I'm not asking you to agree - just to have a vague idea of what you are talking about.

> Do you find it amusing if someone asks not to be referred to in a derogatory or exclusionary manner?

In general: no. In rare cases like this PyCon story: yes, it can be quite ridiculous sometimes.

Firing was over-reaction

Posted Mar 24, 2013 23:57 UTC (Sun) by sjj (subscriber, #2020) [Link]

I said pretty clearly what I think of the "political correctness" argument above. You chose not to explain what you mean by it, but instead attack me for insufficient mind reading of "what people have on their mind".

<smile>Goodbye.</smile>