zlacker

[return to "Getting free of toxic tech culture"]
1. tlb+h7[view] [source] 2018-01-18 23:52:04
>>zdw+(OP)
I predict people will claim "our culture isn't that toxic. Some of those things happen, but they don't bother me much."

If any non-zero subset of reasonable people are so offended by a behavior that they'd leave the industry because of it, we have to cut it out.

So don't ask "would this bother me?" Ask "would it bother someone?" And since you can't predict this from inside your head, you have to rely on firsthand accounts of people being bothered. This seems like a good overview of such accounts.

◧◩
2. finnth+Wd[view] [source] 2018-01-19 00:59:39
>>tlb+h7
>If any non-zero subset of reasonable people are so offended by a behavior that they'd leave the industry because of it, we have to cut it out.

I used to think like this. After years and years of refining my own behavior, a non-work, non-"tech" friend let it slip that my fiends though I had turned into a non-confrontational, lawyer-sounding, people-pleaser. He wasn't wrong, I had gotten in the habit of always walking on eggshells, navigating every conversation like a minefield and letting myself be treated like a doormat. I did. After all, if I hadn't, I'd be one of those "bros" that only people who have never met a bro say are filling up the engineering departments.

The very next day I got chided about not being empathetic enough or whatever the buzzword was at the time. Maybe I could have kept up the facade if I was simply guilty by association. But it was specifically my behavior that was "toxic." That was it. And I'm out. I'm done.

The never-docile-enough nature of "tech" is what's toxic. I hadn't been able to feel comfortable in my own skin for years out of fear of being off-putting to anyone else. The people who's behavior is worth changing aren't listening anyway, so I'm done letting it be my fault, and I'm never over-correcting to make up for it again.

edit: Want to complain about something in "tech"? Why don't you (not you, specifically, parent poster) start with the ethics of your employer's products/practices.

◧◩◪
3. wpietr+kf[view] [source] 2018-01-19 01:18:18
>>finnth+Wd
You've confused "nice" with "kind". Nice is about social performance. That includes things like being a conflict-avoiding people-pleaser. Docility, as you put it. Being kind, on the other hand, involves having empathy and working to help others.

The two are somewhat correlated; kind people are often nice. But it's easy enough to be nice without being kind at all, and sometimes being kind requires being visibly not nice. As an example, if you see a coworker being abused, confronting the abuser is a kind thing to do, but you probably can't be nice doing it.

As someone who has worked through a lot of social anxiety, I definitely encourage you to throw off the yoke of your fears about not being nice enough. But that doesn't entitle you to be unkind.

◧◩◪◨
4. mpweih+pA[view] [source] 2018-01-19 06:54:02
>>wpietr+kf
> confused "nice" with "kind".

Possibly. However, when it comes to companies what they claim is that they want "kind" when what they actually demand is "nice".

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. wpietr+8e2[view] [source] 2018-01-19 23:22:48
>>mpweih+pA
As I said, "nice" is about social performance, so if somebody is demanding something, "nice" is all it could be. Companies, though, don't want anything. People do. And people vary.

If you're saying that some people with power use that to demand conformance to social codes, sure, I agree. But I disagree that always prevents us being kind.

[go to top]