[tptacek]

WHO CARES? Yes, let's suspend his Guardian Of Society Medal Of Honor until we sort his personal politics out. Meanwhile, this guy says that management at a large SF gaming company is routinely harassing black and latino staff members. The story here isn't about him.

[columbo]

> WHO CARES?

It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.

[intended]

And right there is the classic holding pattern. 40 minutes into posting too, not bad.

The pattern is:

Apply standard of neutrality to poster, and find poster wanting - hence remain skeptical to keep an open mind.

"there could be a misunderstanding."

The promulgator and supporters are always people who are at best well meaning, but generally oblivious to privilege or its manifestations.

This will be pointed out, and the promulgator will point out how they have done X or are friends with Y in defence.

So first off - you aren't being targeted. The promulgator is acting rationally based on his experiences.

The best examples to counter this were an AMA from a guy who had a sex change operation. He then could clarify what Male privilege is, and how you would be completely oblivious to it until its gone.

It turns down as a woman a simple thing like walking down a road changes in a manner drastically different from what men are used to.

Similarly there was an AMA from a girl who used to look good, and then lost that advantage. All of a sudden she saw privileges she assumed were just normal things - disappear.

It turns out that men don't normally open doors for you, or are helpful.

Unfortunately when you react with outrage, most people have no idea what you are talking about and respond with:

"It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made"

[shardling]

My personal theory on why this particular POV always attracts folk is as follows:

• We see a stranger (call them the victim) on the internet making strong, negative claims against a set of people who are also strangers.

• We often only have the victim's word to judge these claims by.

• Therefore, there will often be debate about these words (which we can talk about with certainty) instead of the claims made (which we only know about second-hand.)

Starting from this perspective seems to lead to really, really degenerate conversation. It tends to be worst when talking about rape or sexual harassment charges.

(There's sometimes an additional weird layer where commenters think the original victim shouldn't make claims they can't prove to third parties, regardless of the truth of those claims.)

[intended]

I see the same - its a terrible pattern and the only time it gets broken is on the extremely rare occasions when someone with experience AND ability to express the issue precisely shows up.

Other wise its always a death spiral at worst or a holding pattern on average.

I think yours is a larger general case - and I am trying to invoke perhaps a child case with the addition of privilege blindness.

What is tragic that this is a perfect example of good intentions that lead to terrible results.

[kevingadd]

Of course he has an agenda! How could he NOT have an agenda if even HALF of the things in this post actually happened to him?

[strlen]

> It unnecessarily adds doubt to the claims being made. If your narrator has an agenda it becomes difficult to trust that narrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

In brief, saying "X is wrong, because X subscribes to ideology I" is not a logically valid argument. Willing to hear X's argument and consider it on its own merits does not grant legitimacy to I.

The narrator's argument isn't "white people are colonizers, so...", he merely enumerates what he has experienced. That phrasing is unfortunate (but pales in comparison to being told far more offensive things _at work_) it doesn't detract from (or add to) his argument, i.e., it's an irrelevant detail.

[columbo]

To be clear, I'm not dismissing his argument, I was simply answering the question "WHO CARES".

There's a time to vent and a time to make a case. I personally feel that the author would have been better served making a case (EEOC) instead of venting in a public method. Especially since the identities of the author and the company in question are very easy to track down. This could have long term negative consequences for the author, and may make his claim harder if he does decided to take his former employer to court.

YMMV.

[tptacek]

You're saying you doubt this happened?

[sliverstorm]

At the very least, the magnitude and gravity claimed become suspect.

[drivebyacct2]

Watch this video and tell me if you think that they're comfortable portraying themselves this way and wouldn't act the way discussed in this post?

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/08/...

[Apocryphon]

And here I was thinking brogramming was just a total self-aware meme that went from pun to Twilio's joke presentation to media hysteria. Are you telling me this is a real subculture which exists in Silicon Valley now?

[davidw]

Not at all. I hope he kicks their ass in court.

However, it detracts from the story compared to a straight telling, which would have focused 100% on the racist jerk.

IMO.

[crosvenir]

Because I didn't see a better place to comment and I value your response:

When should it be considered acceptable for a victim to mimic their aggressor's behavior (especially when it is similar behavior that caused the victimization to begin with)?

Disclaimer: I'm trying to understand and not support to any of the GP comments.

[nollidge]

EVERY narrator has an agenda. Personally I appreciate it when an author doesn't pretend to objectivity.

[lumberjack]

If somebody is prone to see the world in a black and white us v. them way, they might have a different perception of what is really happening, leading them to conclude that everybody is discriminating against them.

I'm not saying that this is what happened. You asked why it might be relevant and I just wanted to point this out.

[bmj]

I agree, but some of his content will be a barrier for some people. I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive.

IANAL, but I wonder if this post will hurt his chances of successfully pursuing his employers?

[erikpukinskis]

I'm sure if the tone of the post was milder, most of the comments here would be supportive.

Why do you believe that? Have you been in a bunch of pitch perfect productive conversations about racism? In my experience, when one tactic for derailing conversations about racism fails people just pick up another one. In this conversation you see many such strategies at play:

I see all of these as efforts to not talk about the actual structures being criticized in the post:

* Saying the tone makes the message unlistenable * Talking about the extent to which the post is effective activism ("he would be more effective if...") * Stopping conversation do to perceived insurmountable "bias" * Refocusing on other forms of racism (like the dumbwhite* comments) * Talking about whether people are "racists" and refocusing on their overall character.

It goes on and on. Pitch perfect tone doesn't get you through that wilderness.

And honestly, when someone has been through something so traumatic, demanding perfect pitch is heartless.

[bmj]

I'm not suggesting that the tone of the post determines its veracity. I am suggesting that the reaction the post has received here is due to its tone, not to its content. I'm fairly sure most commenters would agree that his ex-co-workers were racists (or, at the very least, extremely thoughtless). I'm not demanding a pitch perfect post on Tumblr at all, merely making an observation about the reactions.

[fusiongyro]

IANAL, but unless he said that stuff to them at work and they documented it, it would be completely immaterial.

[sown]

I find it curious that the biggest arguments against his story are not addressing the author's central point.