[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.