[macspoofing]

>What “good faith” motivation could possibly arise from pointing out the color of one’s skin in America though?

Indeed. That is a good question. Wouldn't it be nice to know what the context around this kind of statement was instead of trying to guess what it was? Wouldn't that be an example of good journalism to provide this information in a balanced objective way, instead of leaving it out there so that people either assume the worst or dismiss the claim as clearly hyperbolic? After all, there are gradations to these kinds of things - how are we, the readers, supposed to know where on the spectrum this lies (or if this is even true at all)? Are we supposed to use our own biases and lack of knowledge of the situation to guide us to a conclusion?

OK. Let's try that by taking a step back and examining the situation as laid out. Race, in 2021, is a very sensitive topic, and has been for years. Silicon Valley is one of the most progressive areas in the world and regional tech companies as a matter of policy, as well as their employees from a personal perspective (because they live in the present culture and in the progressive area), are highly sensitive to issues around race. Given those facts, are you sure the article is presenting you with enough context to actually make a balanced and objective judgment as to the veracity of the claims? In other words, I don't trust the reporting of NBC News here. I don't think you can read this article and understand the context of these claims and therefore you can't make any sort of judgment and assign fault or blame on any party.

[mqrs]

You don’t have to make any judgment about the parties involved in the story. If you want to critically think about both sides of the argument, you’re going to have to ask anyway whether there exist “good faith” motives for pointing out a new coworker’s skin color in corporate America, because if there’s an answer to that question, then doubting (not knowing) the intentions of the former Google employee would be justified.

So, when is pointing out a new coworker’s skin color actually okay?

[macspoofing]

>So, when is pointing out a new coworker’s skin color actually okay?

Let's start with the fact that this article is presenting one side of the story. We don't know if this person is truthful. We don't know if this person is hyperbolic, or if they left out some key details or played certain facts and suppressed others, or just misconstrued the comment. We just don't know what the situation actually is. So the first question back to you is, why are you engaging in this creative writing exercise? It's abundantly clear that you don't know happened there because at best, you have a one sentence summary of the situation (actually a half of sentence, literally: "when a colleague told them that their skin was much darker than she expected"). But let's set that aside.

The framing of your question is also absolutely ridiculous. Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them? What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.

[mqrs]

> why are you engaging in this creative writing exercise?

Because I'm responding to the very top comment about assuming good intent and the people already agreeing with it. I'm not arguing that what happened in the article is verified true.

> Are you really trying to claim that you have traversed the near-infinite space of potential interactions and deemed them all 'NOT OK'? All of them?

I made no claims. I asked the question.

> What if this comment was in context of a sun-tan because you, your new coworker and other people were talking about about their sun-tans and your new coworker pointed out they tan really quickly (or not at all)? Is that too silly? What if your new coworker was the one who brought up their skin tone and you politely agreed with them? Too contrived? Don't like this creative writing exercise? How is that different from what you're doing ... except you're not only taking the absolute worst and most ugly interpretation of a half-a-sentence reference from this article, but also categorically stating that there is no context under which it would be 'OK' for two co-workers to reference skin color. Insanity.

Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party in the article based on certain "what ifs" that you conjured, which isn't so different from my engaging in conversation with HN re: the boundaries of workplace racism based on the "what if" that the article is, in fact, true.

[macspoofing]

>Because I'm responding to the very top comment about assuming good intent and the people already agreeing with it. I'm not arguing that what happened in the article is verified true.

And this is the frustrating part about this terrible article. There is simply not enough information to make a value judgment. The principle of "assuming good intent" may be a great general principle but of course, it will not and should not apply in every situation. Should it apply in this situation? I don't know. We're left having to speculate because the journalist in question didn't even bother to do basic due diligence.

>I made no claims. I asked the question.

OK I answered.

>Then you're just assuming good faith on behalf of the offending party

Like you, I made no claims either way. I wish journalists would be more responsible.

[mqrs]

I maintain that we don’t need this article to be true to debate with the response about assuming good intent, precisely because ”assume good intent” is a statement on its own and it is being positioned as general advice, therefore it is independent of the facts of the article. I get what you’re saying but I don’t think it’s relevant because no one is really picking sides between Google and the former employee.