Hacker News Reader

Comment by yarg | Hacker News Reader

Culture fit doesn't have to stretch that far - it does not need to be pervasive and it does not need to be toxic.

We had a guy from Gaza in our office - he complained about informal emails sent to invite people for drinks because it was sinful, he complained about a manikin that got dressed up at special occasions because it was immodest.

I don't know what lines to draw here - but be careful when playing with double-edged swords.

View on HN

He should have insinuated being a recovered alcoholic instead, that works for me when I feel I'm being unduly pressured.

As someone who doesn't care for drinks, the quickest way to shut-down all that drinks-are-vital-to-our-culture talk is to declare that I used to have a problem with the drink, but I'm sober now, and watch them stammer something about the event being optional.

Honestly - some people just don't like the feeling (me) and some other people (south east asians in particular) are allergic and overly sensitive to booze. There are really, really easy ways to talk yourself out of drinking situations.

> There are really, really easy ways to talk yourself out of drinking situations.

Absolutely, but in my experience no other reason shuts down attempts at negotiating/cajoling/follow up questions/suggestions to "just show up and grab a soda" faster than pleading the alcoholism. It appears AA gets more unquestioning deference compared to any other personal/health/religious reasons

Makes sense though- when you have a religious objection to alcohol, someone drinking it near you isn't going to cause actual extreme bodily harm to you.

That's fine if it's true, if not, why tell lies?

Just tell them you don't like drinking. We organize the same kind of meetings over at where I work, and if someone says they don't like drinking, we tell them that water is fine, if they say they don't want to join for whatever or no reason, then we say fine and let them know that the meeting will be always open to them.

Isn't a better approach to pick types of meetings that don't have these outcast properties?

It's much easier to take the habits of early employees and call that "Company culture" without considering the reasoning or consequences. If Engineer #1 used to go on drinks on Wednesdays to cope with stress after the weekly release, 100 engineers later it becomes engrained as "company culture" to drink on Wednesdays at the same bar (which was on the way to his home) even though releases are now done on Thursdays and the bar is out of the way for most people.

Is there such a thing? Sometimes it's better to stick with what you like instead of spending days figuring out how to include everyone. We'll just adapt the meeting if we see someone doesn't fit.

> That's fine if it's true, if not, why tell lies?

So that we can all skip this step:

> we tell them that water is fine

and jump directly to:

> we say fine and let them know that the meeting will be always open to them.

Good point. We'll change the meeting description to include this note about water (or anything else), this way we can skip the whole conversation and go straight to the meeting.

Not the OP, but some people are offended by the mere mention of drinks, and that looked like the case there. I personally don't like to go out for drinks, and this can be detrimental to my career, but I wouldn't impose my preference on others.

> he complained about a manikin that got dressed up at special occasions because it was immodest

Uhhhh... dare I ask to explain what was going on with said mannequin? What kind of “special occasion” requires this... ritual?

Also, I can’t tell whether you are implying that it would have been better for your coworker to have been filtered out because you think they are too sensitive, or if you are implying that your office asks weird things of people. What is the “double-edged sword”?

She'd dress up for christmas and halloween, nothing that bad.

Other than that she sat in the corner (nearish the pool table) being inoffensive.

The second edge: there is the risk that healthy aspects of a prevailing culture will be eroded for the sake of an overly vocal regressive minority.

OR some of these squabbles over lifestyle preferences should not be contested in an office space because people should not be living out their personal lives through office decorations or in anyway identifying with the office in such a way that the hefty and meaningful word "culture" implies. Everyone should have ample personal space and personal time and lives of their own. You shouldn't remember whether the office mannequin needed to be removed. That's a trifle.

No it's not; it's a moment of shared levity - a respite against the uniform tedium of repeated daily drudge.

It's a hint of humanity in the belly of the beast that eats our daily lives.

At some point you have to give people incentives to actually want to work in an office culture. Stringent office professionalism is an ideal that is held up in conflicts, but no workplace looks that way.

Managers will quickly identify emotional needs and this adherence to neutrality is a telltale sign that something is bothering you. My task would be address that but also keep it from affecting other employees.

Makes me wonder if that particular individual would complain about a Pride Month email being "sinful". As a gay man I would refuse to work with someone like this.

Aren't all swords double-edged? I would think that a single-edged sword would simply be a knife. Or an axe.

Sabers? Katanas?

Also falchions, scimitars, sabres, cutlasses, and falcatas. Additionally, I have some double edged knives.

For sabres, I'd say "it depends". A non-trivial fraction will have a portion of the back sharpened (about a quarter to a third).

But, yes, there are more definitely single-edged swords. Add falchion to the list (or a langmesser, although that literally means "long knife").

I guess it is genuinely hard to draw a non-fuzzy line between "knife" and "sword"...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com