Hotbed of Misinformation

https://www.tesla.com/blog/hotbed-misinformation

by runesoerensen • 9 years ago

384 194 9 years ago

tesla.com

runesoerensen• 9 years ago

Context https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15699645

Alex3917• 9 years ago

And also this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15685818

lloydde• 9 years ago

Sounds like different lawsuit. New Yorker is hard to read as it tends to meld narratives and topics, but the lawsuit there is no “yesterday’s lawsuit”. NYer article includes: “On September 20, 2016, Vandermeyden filed a lawsuit charging Tesla with sex discrimination, retaliation, and other workplace violations.”

zdw• 9 years ago

When does Elon sleep if he's writing cogent emails like this at 2:37AM ?

saagarjha2• 9 years ago

Musk apparently gets around 6 hours of sleep: http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-daily-schedule-2017...

jamier19782• 9 years ago

Didn't know he has 5 kids! I struggle with 1 full time job and 2 kids.

mistermann• 9 years ago

Does he write these himself? Whoever wrote that has a way with words.

EGreg• 9 years ago

I would love to know if someone vets these.

Antrikshy• 9 years ago

Scheduled emails muhahahahaha!

kbenson3• 9 years ago

Pacific time, that's 11:27.

saagarjha2• 9 years ago

Perhaps I'm simply naive, but I've never encountered the term "w-word". What is it?

comicjk• 9 years ago

In the context, mentioning Hispanic individuals, probably https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)

kiproping• 9 years ago

How is wetback as a slur even remotely comparable to the N-word.

spacesword• 9 years ago

I'm assuming its "wetback" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetback_(slur)

microcolonel3• 9 years ago

Yeah, I've certainly never heard of it referred to this way, and I had to backtrack a bit to figure it out. I think they did this to extend the same courtesy (hoping the context would be enough) to "wetback" as is afforded to "nigger", which makes sense if fairness is what they're going for. If they just make one of them "$INITIAL-word" but print the other in full, it might seem like they don't take the two slurs as seriously.

q_tarantino2• 9 years ago

You're being downvoted because only I am allowed to say that word in full.

wybiral• 9 years ago

I was wondering the exact same thing when I read that part.

Tepix• 9 years ago

I thought it meant "whore". Wikipedia has a redirect from "w word" to "prostitution": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=W_word&redirect=n...

roel_v2• 9 years ago

When I read the article, I thought it would be 'wog' but (after a quick google - hope that won't put me on any watch lists) it seems that's not really a word in the US.

meri_dian2• 9 years ago

Great response to the noise, I'm glad Tesla is getting out in front of this.

This part struck me as important:

"The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system"

There are bad actors out there who will fan the flames of the outrage machine for their own selfish ends. Jumping to conclusions based on hearsay and accusations is what they want, not what is reasonable.

watwut4• 9 years ago

That would describe just about any trial lawyer. Expensive trial cost is kind of build in property of the system, there is no trial layer able to make it cheap.

lovich• 9 years ago

It's just one sides statement.

Another view of their desire to "...pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees..." is that they will use their corporate coffers to bury the plaintiff in paperwork.

Less loved companies like BP or Walmart would certainly get accused of doing so, even if they said they were preventing an "...abuse of the legal system"

thephyber4• 9 years ago

Agree with this. It's important to realize that this is Tesla's PR team is fighting in the court of public opinion against this attorney that is gathering a lawsuit against them and anyone else that is using this event to spin some anti-Tesla news.

If a company can get some great mileage out of creating a better narrative, they have a shot at much better leverage before/during any potential trial.

I'm not making any judgement about Tesla (certainly better than post-Deepwater BP) or the lawyer, just saying it's a matter of perspective and incentives.

b3lvedere6• 9 years ago

A big part of me is very happy that they would "fight to the ends of the Earth", but then again i'm also very sad that the only ones that can actually do that are the ones with a huge amount of money at their disposal.

Cthulhu_3• 9 years ago

You mean the only ones that can; for every party that is able to fight, there's ten if not a hundred that simply can't fight back and are forced to settle. See also the RIAA / MPAA lawsuits over the odd downloaded mp3, and the patent trolls which Newegg fights against in courts.

grkvlt3• 9 years ago

What's interesting is that they are basically saying 'we are big enough and rich enough that trying to sue us is pointless if you are poor, because we can always outspend you ten to one' while still making it seem like a good thing, when other large corporations do the same, is perceived as a bad thing! In this case however, they seem to be doing the right thing, which is good, obviously.

gist2• 9 years ago

The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims

Not independently verified I would imagine.

At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system

Sounds high minded but actually just a practical strategy to fend off future lawsuits. Has nothing to do with fighting the good fight or defending liberty justice and all.

KKKKkkkk1• 9 years ago

"In fairness, if someone is a jerk to you, but sincerely apologizes, it is important to be thick-skinned and accept that apology."

I have a colleague who has "sincerely apologized" to me three times within the span of a few months. Some people just know how to play the system, and if management is not firm (which this passage indicates is the case in Tesla), these people will win out.

meri_dian2• 9 years ago

Then I guess that person isn't sincerely apologizing.

snowwrestler4• 9 years ago

Yes obviously--the question is what will management do about it.

forapurpose2• 9 years ago

Why isn't it sincere? Do you mean that if they were sincere, they'd stop the behavior?

Unfortunately, I think human behavior and relations are far more difficult than that. To a significant degree behavior isn't subject to will, though we like to assume it is. Everyone I know makes the same mistakes over and over (different mistakes for different people); they would sincerely like to stop. IME, to survive in relationships we have no choice but to accept those things in ourselves and in others.

Of course, that makes accountability very complicated, but I think it's a fact of life.

watwut4• 9 years ago

Agreed, I dont have to accept apology. It has nothing to do with being thin or thick skinned, that is just attempt to make me feel bad about not being doormat.

It is professional to continue working professionally. That is about the extend of duty. The rest is on how I judge the situation to be.

ewjordan2• 9 years ago

It's always a matter of degree, though. If someone grabs a boob, then one time is way too many and they need to go. If they say "Hey guys,..." and someone expresses discomfort with the genderedness of the phrase, a few warnings are warranted; different people will have different feelings about whether such a thing is ever enough to fire someone, and that's valid.

The middle ground is where thickness of skin comes in, and while it's not on you to buy in to your employer's standard, it is on the employer to set a standard.

In that respect, I don't think Tesla has been very clear here. I have no idea from this article where the actual line is.

bfred_it• 9 years ago

I agreed with the sentiment that sometimes unnecessary words are said and soon regretted, but I wish they mentioned that this cannot be the norm. You can’t say sorry once a day.

mavelikara• 9 years ago

Once is an accident, twice is a pattern.

taneq• 9 years ago

Three times is enemy action.

hw2• 9 years ago

If it's a one time thing, then sure, accept the apology. But if that person is known to be a jerk often, and apologizes often albeit sincerely, I can't expect anyone to be that thick skinned, nor would I advocate for that

SomeStupidPoint• 9 years ago

It's not even about being thick skinned: it might not bother me at a personal level, but I'm not letting a team malfunction as baseline where some members make a habit of abusing other members and will absolutely make an issue of it until management does something.

Mostly because it's illegal for an employer to operate a business that way.

new299• 9 years ago

My reading would be that it's best if you accept the apology (don't retaliate). But that doesn't mean you wouldn't mention it to HR or a manager. And it doesn't mean management wouldn't fire them if it's effecting the workplace culture.

b3lvedere6• 9 years ago

Oh that's about the same as sincere condolences.

Sincere means nothing. It has become an ISO word. :)

CodeWriter233• 9 years ago

Sorry != Making Amends

colemannugent• 9 years ago

I like the spirit of Elon's letter, but there is one part that bothers me:

This doesn't mean there is a different standard of performance [for less represented groups] ...

...

We have had a few cases at Tesla where someone in a less represented group was given a job or promoted over more qualified highly represented candidates...

Which is it?

eecc4• 9 years ago

Both? My guess is they don’t have a policy to favor anyone’s background but in practice it has happened unintentionally, and in hindsight it even backfired, when abused by subjects who used their ethnicity or gender to manipulate their way up.

sdenton4• 9 years ago

I read 'standard' as implying a quality bar, beyond which there's space for flexibility.

Suppose we're giving out 100 promotions, and have 1000 promo nominations. You review the 1000 noms and find that there are 500 that pass the quality bar because your company is full of awesome people. So now you have to choose which 100 of the 500 to actually promote. You can do this in a number of ways, ranging from uniformly at random to doing a total stack rank and selecting the top 100. Or you can choose to try to correct systemic under-representation in management, which helps the company on a number of axes (including better recruitment of smart people from under-represented groups, providing a statistical bulwark against lawsuits, etc...).

(edit: It's worth keeping in mind that trying to do a full stack rank of your 1000 applications is going to be noisy as hell and an incredible amount of work, as there will be multiple (individually noisy) promo committees working on sub-sets of nominations. So it pays off to have a clear set of standards for promotion to a given level, even if you don't automatically promote everyone who meets that standard.)

hw2• 9 years ago

Promotion is a touchy thing. As a manager, promoting your top performers seems like a no brainer, but sometimes if an employee is above a certain quality bar that warrants a promotion (as you mentioned), even though there are others who probably deserve it more, you sometimes have to spread the love around. Knowing who to promote (and who not to promote, knowing they'll still stick around) is a skill.

So I don't think that the promotion was necessarily done just because those employees are from underrepresented groups and just to hit some company diversity/equality metric, but I wouldn't know for sure

BearGoesChirp3• 9 years ago

What is the end result? You go up to someone who isn't a minority and tell them that even though they did everything right and were in the top 100, you choose a minority who was in the top 500 but not the top 100 over them due to their status as a minority? What will the impact of telling them that be?

Of course, no employer (that I have ever seen) is that open. We share a common expectation that the people who qualified but were passed over won't be told. Maybe an open ended promise of "next time". All this does is allow the same effects to be diluted to anyone who might have been impacted. So now even those outside the top 100, even those outside the top 500, consider there is a chance they were impacted by such an action. So while the impact is less than telling the person passed over, you now have more people feeling it.

And this does seem to be a damned if you do/damned if you don't, because even if you did create a top 100 ranking and used it to promote, that would be influenced by subconscious biases and other factors based on minority status and people aware of that who didn't get promoted would also be negatively impacted.

cisanti3• 9 years ago

Isn't is degrading towards minorities? It's difficult to understand sometimes the American way of thinking, but in my eyes things like that only want to make the negative stereotypes stronger about some groups of people not being intelligent enough.

snowwrestler4• 9 years ago

Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course.

This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017.

Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."

This sounds bad to me. Discrimination complaints are complicated and dangerous and should be handled by experts--which the vast majority of HR staff are not. The idea of a "spot training session" sounds like the sort of thing that could be easily misinterpreted by any of the parties as a "make this go away" conversation.

We have also created a dedicated team focused exclusively on investigating workplace concerns, recommending corrective actions and assisting managers with implementing those actions.

This is more like it but the timing is vague--by this wording, this could have happened at any point, including yesterday.

Regarding yesterday’s lawsuit, several months ago we had already investigated disappointing behavior involving a group of individuals who worked on or near Marcus Vaughn’s team. At the time, our investigation identified...

Oh jeez, please don't share the details of an internal employee matter that is subject to litigation...

- (me, but also Tesla's general counsel, probably)

Our company has more than 33,000 employees, with over 10,000 in the Fremont factory alone, so it is not humanly possible to stop all bad conduct, but we will do our best to make it is as close to zero as possible.

Ok, but you are not getting sued for just random "bad conduct," you're getting sued for a failing to properly handle a specific (but relatively common, sadly) type of bad conduct.

There is only one actual plaintiff (Marcus Vaughn), not 100. The reference to 100 is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact at all.

Yes, this is how class action lawsuits work.

The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.

Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.

The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle.

Well yes, you did say it was a trial lawyer.

Overall I think this letter is not great for Tesla. It seems like the sort of thing that will be useful for feeding the current race-based culture war in the U.S., but doesn't make Tesla look serious about preventing racist and discriminatory behavior among its workforce. Fewer words and more contrition would probably have been better.

eecc4• 9 years ago

I disagree, but then again I’m not American therefore to my ears it does sound sufficient action.

jack9• 9 years ago

> Everyone at Tesla, without exception, is required to go through an anti-discrimination course
This is the literal bare minimum in a U.S. corporation in 2017

Not in the slightest. It might as well say "drum circle", since there's no evidence that either are effective. The key is that there are supposed to be metrics and investigative procedures and protections for complaints, not some re-education mumbo jumbo.

prawn2• 9 years ago

I would imagine it'd be limited to companies large enough to have not only a dedicated HR staff or possibly even a particularly competent HR staff. There'd be countless companies in any country without any formalised course, let alone a specific one.

snowwrestler4• 9 years ago

I think we agree. My point is that putting people through a course like that is actually not much evidence that Tesla takes workplace discrimination seriously.

Footkerchief• 9 years ago

> The plaintiff was employed by a temp agency, not by Tesla as claimed in the lawsuit.
Doesn't matter for workplace discrimination litigation. Contractors are legally the same as employees under certain conditions and this is one of them.

It absolutely does matter when the lawsuit claims that the plaintiff was fired.

Spike66• 9 years ago

"Our human resources team also conducts regular in-person spot training sessions when an allegation or complaint has been made, even if the evidence is not conclusive enough to warrant disciplinary action."

eecc4• 9 years ago

That’s good. I guess it also works as unofficial warning

rimliu2• 9 years ago

How do you like unofficial warning when you did nothing wrong? "Hey, would you please stop doing that you never did?"

peoplewindow• 9 years ago

No it's not. It just turns HR departments into ways to anonymously harass people. If the behaviour doesn't merit action then there's no need for HR "training".

rimliu2• 9 years ago

I wanted to quote this too. Seems like a nice way to harass someone while pretending to be harassed.

Top19• 9 years ago

Came into this not knowing what to expect, and recently I’ve had some mixed feelings about Tesla, but wow what an awesome statement.

Honestly it was just so...authentic. They described very exactly what happened, what the accusations were, what the consequences were for those involved, what concerned them as a company, etc. It has none of the corporate double-speak that you would expect if this were Equifax.

forapurpose2• 9 years ago

How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is? There are many, many people who are good at sounding convincing while being dishonest. Human beings have very limited capability to discern the truth based on presentation, and IMHO one of our greatest weaknesses is that most of us believe we're secretly good at it.

dba7dba• 9 years ago

First time hearing about this.

Seeing the first 5 bullet points was enough for me to pretty safely guess this is much about a lawyer out for $$ from Tesla.

Especially this:

The trial lawyer who filed this lawsuit has a long track record of extorting money for meritless claims and using the threat of media attacks and expensive trial costs to get companies to settle. At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in to extortion and allow this abuse of the legal system.

The lawyer apparently forgot that Tesla/Elon can easily hire a few dozen lawyers without any strain...

IMHO

the lawyer in this case === Patent Troll Lawyers

Brotkrumen• 9 years ago

While you are right in that we tend to form opinions based on limited information, I'd say in this case it is likely to be warranted.

What I try to look out for are statements that are easily disproven by the other side if false. No highly paid PR person would release those, thus if they are there, they're likely to be true.

Now with those easily disproven claims in this press release as cornerstones of what is the truth, I can't come up with data points that would drastically alter my conclusion.

Now all that's left to do is hope that that isn't due to my limited imagination and wait for the opposition to make new claims or disprove the points made.

jfoutz• 9 years ago

If it’s not true the lawsuit will be really expensive .

darawk2• 9 years ago

We can tell that the tone is authentic. The language doesn't hedge. It makes clear, verifiable claims about the facts of the situation. If they are lying, we will almost certainly find out in the trial process. An inauthentic message would be one that hedges and avoids making specific, falsifiable claims.

We perceive this tone as authentic because it makes claims that an uncertain or lying PR department wouldn't have the nerve, authority, or legal standing to make. In that way, it is an unforgeable signal. Of course it's possible to forge in the moment, but then it makes your situation 100x worse when you inevitably get called out later. Which is why people afraid of being called out later can't do it.

saas_co_de2• 9 years ago

How can we tell if it's authentic without independently knowing what the truth is

Well, if it is in a corporate press release you can certainly KNOW that it is NOT authentic.

iamthirsty• 9 years ago

From the post:

that being a jerk is not allowed

This made me take it in a much more casual way, as they didn't load it with PR speak for sure. Gave much more credibility — like it wasn't written by lawyers.

cup-of-tea• 9 years ago

like it wasn't written by lawyers

Like it wasn't, but it was.

lostboys675• 9 years ago

Yes and as an ex branch secretary in the UK (head of a union branch) something looked off about this it was a good case why was not the UAW doing this.

saas_co_de2• 9 years ago

conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals

So, they are blaming the minority groups for all of the alleged racism. Pretty bold approach in the current political climate.

diminish• 9 years ago

Antidiscrimination, mobbing, harassment classes for adults are fine but I guess it goes back to families, kindergarten and primary school. Such behavior must be excluded not only from the literate mind but from the subconscious social behavior too.

Otherwise w- n- and other words will continue be part of entertaining back stage talk consumed with beer, sports, other unhealthy but fun things together with close friends and colleagues.

averagewall• 9 years ago

If you want to exclude racism from private groups of friends, then you'd better exclude gossip too. It's also harmful in much the same way - reinforcing people's negative views of others so they'll subconsciously or deliberately treat them badly. But unfortunately, even progressives haven't got themselve as far as not bullying or abusing individuals.

CodeWriter233• 9 years ago

If someone gossips to you they will gossip about you. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but they will.

riffraff3• 9 years ago

I have a question: how is it that things like n-word and w-word and whatever-word became part of normal and formal speak in the english language (or is it the US only?) ?

I mean, how is the case that people don't just use "racial slander" or something like that, and instead use what seems to be like kindergarden teacher expressions?

Is this phenomenon present in other languages/cultures?

acover• 9 years ago

Racial slur

EngineerBetter• 9 years ago

"n-word" is used in the UK too.

Sometimes one needs to be specific about the nature and severity of the slur used.

riffraff3• 9 years ago

in what case is this specificness necessary? I can think of trials or police reports, but I imagine in that case one would have to use the actual words, lest confusion ensues.

Forgive me if I sound argumentative, I'm genuinely interested and trying to understand.

ahoka• 9 years ago

It's a PR trick to downplay it. Try how it reads like this:

>At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial language, including the "nigger" and "wetback" towards each other and a threat of violence.<<

riffraff3• 9 years ago

yeah but why is it necessary to do this? why not

> At the time, our investigation identified a number of conflicting accusations and counter-accusations between several African-American and Hispanic individuals, alleging use of racial slurs towards each other and a threat of violence.

Al-Khwarizmi• 9 years ago

Maybe because I'm not American, but it sounds fine to me. Whoever wrote the text is not using those words, just reporting.

When there is a murder with a knife everyone says person A murdered person B with a knife, not "he m'd person B with a k-thing". How come people can cope with describing murder and violence and not slurs?

gadders3• 9 years ago

Ah. As a Brit I was trying to work out what the w-word was.

b3lvedere6• 9 years ago

Oh yes it is very present. Just ask the jews and gypsies.

thephyber4• 9 years ago

I don't think the parent was commenting about the existence of racial slanders, just the use of placeholders like "the n----- word".

int_19h2• 9 years ago

If you do ask the gypsies, by the way, they very much prefer to be called Roma or Romani.

nodesocket2• 9 years ago

I'm sorry, but from your tone your seem to be sitting on some sort of pedestal of moral superiority. The US is so bad and evil, yet everybody still wants to come here, start their startup and company and make millions. May I ask what superior country you hail from?

sidcool2• 9 years ago

Political correctness defeats the purpose.

jlgaddis2• 9 years ago

I think it's mostly a societal thing in the U.S. These words are so bad that we won't use them even when explaining what someone else said. They are so offensive that we can't even bear to repeat them!

I kinda get it. No "reasonable person" likes to use or even hear others use words like these. I think it's just "political correctness" that keeps us from using them under any circumstances whatsoever (although, personally, I think that is taking things a bit too far) -- such as in news articles.

sillysaurus32• 9 years ago

That's a partial answer, but a more complete answer is that saying those words will get you labeled as a racist, even if you're repeating what someone else said. People are so terrified of this that they won't risk it. It's not just courtesy.

abalone4• 9 years ago

A combination of a very deep history of slavery and racism, and a civil rights movement to confront and dismantle it culturally.

You could draw a parallel with how Nazi symbols cannot be depicted in Germany (for the most part). It is not just about not offending little PC snowflakes or something.. it’s a campaign of de-Nazification. So too with racism here.

tripzilch3• 9 years ago

But that's an legal thing in Germany, not a convention. Also, because it's a codified law, you're perfectly allowed to use Nazi symbology in many contexts where US people would still feel they have to use the "n-word". The rules are a bit similar to "fair use" in copyright.

jerrycruncher• 9 years ago

In areas of ancient Eastern Europe people were so frightened of bears that speaking the actual word for "bear" was extremely taboo [1]. I would guess that this sort of linguistic indirection/substitution has existed as long as spoken language. In the past the rationale was superstition and fear, now it's sensitivity and fear.

[1] http://www.pitt.edu/~votruba/qsonhist/bearetymologyslovakeng...

lukasm• 9 years ago

Interesting. This must be the origin of "he who must not be named"

BFatts• 9 years ago

I think it seems easier to say "n-word" when you want to say nigger. People feel some sort of release from the offense of using the word and that it is some sort of excuse from being racist. Saying the word doesn't make you racist unless you use it with racist intent. But I also believe it is a way to try to eliminate such words from the vocabulary. Shit is usually stated as the "s-word" and fuck is "f-word" or "f-bomb". The implication is that you know the word and can fill in for the words not spoken.

I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words. For example, I had to search for what the damn "w-word" was (I was thinking "wigger", but what do I know?)! African Americans can try and differentiate all they want between nigger and nigga, but they obviously stem from the same word so why pretend. It's a thing of power, I suppose. It's okay for one group to say it, but not another - a double standard and extremely hypocritical, but again, who am I to know.

EDIT: I am not focusing specifically on African Americans, as this is prominent behavior across many ethnic and racial groups. The group moves to restrict the usage of a word by bastardizing it in some way and making it normal in their group while shaming those outside who use it. This is what complicates race issues even more because non African Americans come away thinking "why is it okay for them to call each other this, and why would they?" Again, same goes for other races and ethnic groups.

In America, everything is weird. We're a conglomeration of nationalities and ways of thinking from across the world. Asking "is that an American thing to do?" to me is like asking "is the color Green in the rainbow?".

gist2• 9 years ago

I am not even sure why a subgroup of a group got to decide that something was or is offensive and we all need to stop using it for ever and in any circumstance.

For example Trump got up and made a speech in front of a group of jews and made reference to how they were either good or tough negotiators. Certain jews called him out on that and were offended. Others thought it was great and a compliment. What gives the one group the right to decide it's defacto offensive and decide the political correctness? (I get paid for negotiation and I was like 'yeah!'.

When I was growing up it was common to refer to blacks as 'colored'. Nigger was derogatory. However now it's as if you can't even use it to refer to someone else saying it and many would take offense to either of us (as you did) even using it in a comment even historically. [1] I don't understand nor do I agree with that thinking.

[1] On the other hand if it was used in a play or a movie it would be seen entirely different.

Sohcahtoa822• 9 years ago

I think it's high time that we stopped being afraid of these words

There's a good talk on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa18UJVKr5s (Part 1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ZJ_g59Bqg (Part 2)

It's about 12 minutes total.

tripzilch3• 9 years ago

I had to google "w-word", actually. Wiktionary says it's either "whore" or "wanker".

What I (non-US) don't quite get is why putting the word "nigger" in quotes is not enough. I mean, I can think of some reasons, I just feel quotes should be enough to distance oneself from the usage of said word.

Then again, the Dutch tend to curse with diseases (which is relatively rare, I think Spanish does it too). But it's mostly "old" diseases like typhoid, tuberculosis, pocks or the plague. Recent generations also tend to use cancer, which is frowned upon because many people know someone who suffered it (then again, heart attacks or strokes are similarly frequent and usually no big deal at all--I think that's related to the terrible suffering of chemotherapy) . I personally like to adopt even newer diseases like H5N1 or ebola, just for the ridiculousness of it.

dragonwriter• 9 years ago

The reason is that people (sometimes the audience, sometime the speaker/writer) have trouble understanding use/mention distinctions or, at least, differentiating the application of word taboos based on those distinctions, exacerbated by the fact that quotes are so frequently abused for emphasis (especially for single words and very short phrases) rather than quotation or use/mention distinction that audiences may take quite the wrong message from their use.

partycoder3• 9 years ago

If a person out of their own initiative want to accept an apology, that is fine. But expecting employees to indulge such behavior is not fair, or acceptable even.

The US has had: slavery, racial segregation, ethnic cleansing, forced depopulation, extrajudicial killings (e.g: hangings, lynchings), compulsory sterilization, racial profiling/police brutality, mass incarceration, with the latter resulting in loss of voting rights. Thanksgiving day 2016 was being celebrated while people at Standing Rock were being tear-gassed... and that is only domestically.

What enabled a lot of that has been racial discrimination. If someone that has been discriminated doesn't want to accept an apology that is fine. At some moment you need to draw a line and racial discrimination is a reasonable criteria for that.

South Africa, the country Elon is originally from, had institutionalized racial segregation until 1991. He should know first hand there difference between being a racist and being a jerk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allport%27s_Scale

vlehto• 9 years ago

But what happens when employee is not accepting apology from another employee? Does not sound like team spirit. So do you fire another one? Dissolve that team?

That sounds very costly. If I was employer and had to abide by that, any work location would only have employees of single race and gender. Prevention is likely to be cheaper than dealing with the possible consequences. But then we immediately arrive second level of Allport's Scale...

partycoder3• 9 years ago

What is more costly is allowing that behavior to become tolerated and normal, affect employees' morale, ruin the culture, affect the company's reputation, etc. It can also get the company sued.

Take a look at EEO laws.

You also seem to be forgetting the fact that people don't have to insult or antagonize each other in order to be successful. If anything that is neurotic behavior that is negatively correlated with career success.

nwah1• 9 years ago

You're reading a whole lot into the statement. And from the statement, it seems that he may have been referring to a conflict between two different minority groups each using derogatory language. If your employees are doing that to each other, asking them to accept apologies seems reasonable. What alternative course is there? Firing everyone on the spot?

partycoder3• 9 years ago

Firing is not the only administrative action available to an employer. You can also issue a formal warning, send the employee to training, etc.

Then, if it happens again, fire the employee. All depending on what the impact was.

sleepychu• 9 years ago

I wonder how your shareholders will feel about that.

tempestn• 9 years ago

Winning in court would presumably be better PR than paying a settlement, so probably fine, even if all they care about is ROI.

zolthrowaway• 9 years ago

This is good PR for them now. "Look we are clearly not at fault and will vehemently defend our innocence." In addition this claim is absolutely non-binding.

Also, if the trial lawyer in question is just trying to make a quick buck, this is a deterrent. If the goal is just a cash grab, why would this lawyer go through an arduous legal battle for a false claim when there are plenty of other lucrative cases that will settle out of court.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I can't see any downside to saying this. There is zero obligation to follow through. The outcome of this case is going to be a big story regardless of this statement. It's just solid PR and posturing with little to no cost to do so.

nodesocket2• 9 years ago

This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal of Tesla the company. Don’t believe me, in the last few years how many disastrous incidents have we seen derail companies and their founders? Companies shouldn’t need to hire full time employees that manage sensitivity training and certainly the ”tech” news that profits off the constant outrage is just fueling it all further. I fully expect this not to be a popular opinion, but everyday is some new incident or outrage. Get back to work!

sidcool2• 9 years ago

Exactly my feeling. My conspiracy theory alt ego says this is a handy work of the entrenched companies that Tesla is aiming to displace.

lostboys675• 9 years ago

This is a car production line where "engineering" language is the norm.

thephyber4• 9 years ago

everyday is some new incident or outrage

Welcome to the age of social media. It's a two-edged sword. Your company can use it to get some viral sharing of your great new concept car, coverage of how many pre-orders you sold, or it could be used to organize boycotts or spread word of "a hostile work environment" (whether true or not).

And now the class-action attorneys can find their plaintiffs faster than ever before.

This kind of stuff is such a distraction from the business and the goal

I bet if you ask Travis K if he would rather have hired full time "sensitivity trainers" or still be CEO, the answer would be easy. You seem to be arguing that there should be a third option, but that's a counterfactual world where civil liability is different than it is today in the USA.

stesch2• 9 years ago

By the way: Tesla's CEO is African-American. ;-)

stesch2• 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8wrqe72YG4

abalone4• 9 years ago

The weak point in this statement is equivocating explicitly racist harassment with “being a jerk.” You should not have to accept a “sincere apology” from someone who calls you a racial epithet. There is nothing careless or unintentional about that.

I mean, look how awful this policy sounds if we substitute more concrete language: “if someone calls you a n_gger on a single occasion, but subsequently offers a sincere apology, then we believe that apology should be accepted.”

Weird that Musk is doubling down on that, especially coming from South Africa. He should have instead clarified that Tesla is zero-tolerance on racism.

alien_at_work• 9 years ago

I think this "zero tolerance for all the things" is more dangerous than the things it targets in most cases.

I assume Tesla is a very high stress place (at least at times). I don't know if you've ever experienced a highly emotional situation but it's possible to get so upset you yell things at people that you actually feel absolutely terrible about later (and didn't realize you were capable of saying). I can imagine someone, in such a highly charged situation, saying something hurtful like that and then feeling absolutely gutted about it later. Of course you don't have to accept an apology in that situation but I personally wouldn't think much of the kind of person who would write someone off, permanently, for one such event when they never did anything like that before or ever again and sincerely appologized.

abalone4• 9 years ago

Straw man. No one said zero tolerance for all things. Just racist harassment.

Your argument is weak as well. Would this logic apply to physically assaulting a coworker as well, if the perpetrator is stressed and they’ve never done it before and feel bad after? No, of course not. There is a line beyond which zero tolerance should be the rule, and that line starts with calling someone a n_gger.

BearGoesChirp3• 9 years ago

There are times when someone wants to cause pain to another, and chooses a response to inflict maximum harm. This could be a racial slur, but it could also refer to a death of a loved one or something else. Imagine someone telling another "I see why your son killed himself." It is meant to cause maximum damage, not meant to be racist/sexist/etc.

In these cases, I don't think there should be any difference in forgiveness between those who used discriminatory language and those who picked another means to attack. I'm not saying people should accept a sincere apology. I see such an attack as very bad regardless if it used discriminatory language. The intent, to cause maximum pain, is unjustifiable regardless of the tool used to carry it out.

majewsky• 9 years ago

What it comes down to is this: do what would make your parents proud. If you can't look someone you respect in the eye and explain what you did, don't do it.

That's a nice rule in general, although I think Elon is underestimating people's capabilities to rationalize past decisions.

ChanningAllen• 9 years ago

Good on Tesla for standing its ground and making its case publicly. Musk's pushback is nuanced and important.

The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies. Some of it is valid, but much is not, and relevant complexities and subtle moral distinctions are lost on a general public which only has the bandwidth to digest memorable headlines and themes.

And what could be more complex and morally thorny than how to mediate social issues — particularly those involving race — in a highly visible tech company employing tens of thousands of people? Speaking for myself as a black tech co-founder, I agree with the cliffnotes of Musk's message entirely: those of well-represented groups should consider the challenges they never had to face, but no one from any group should have free license to be a jerk. And for god's sake: when you misrepresent facts to serve a handful of minorities you end up undermining all the other minorities.

abandonliberty2• 9 years ago

The establishment institutions outside of Silicon Valley in America — the media and Capitol Hill — have united recently to spin a decidedly anti-civil rights narrative about large tech companies.

I think progressives are under attack. Hollywood, entertainment, and tech companies.

I'm not arguing that bad behavior is acceptable and should be ignored.

I'm just saying that, for example, removing health care coverage from millions of Americans is more important and hurtful than a homosexual grabbing someone's junk. It's happened to me a couple times, but sadly I wasn't offered a several thousand dollar watch afterwards to keep it quiet.

RickS• 9 years ago

You're being downvoted because you've fallen into a common but serious logical trap[1]

The validity of racial tensions in silicon valley companies is due consideration completely irrespective of sexual assault or healthcare. Both are problems, but the size of B has no bearing on the size of A.

[1] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...

cisanti3• 9 years ago

I doubt, since the liberals run the media.

Also, it is extremely hurtful towards victims to say Hollywood is under attack, like they are the victims. Too many hypocrites there and shady things going on which doesn't mean the situation is dangerous regarding people being innocent and hung publicly.

pdimitar• 9 years ago

You know what? I believe every word Tesla said. Especially about attorneys specializing in extorting companies into settlements. I applaud their decision to not give in to extortion and fight the battle in court until the end.

Side note:

From non-USA perspective, guys, sincerely, you're crazy. Everybody is suing everybody for what often times seems total nonsense. No offense or disrespect meant, just an honest bafflement -- how can somebody get promoted, then leave, and then sue? Wow.

Hotbed of Misinformation

Related Stories