Hard disagree. There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything, and there's not enough time and energy to deal with them. It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?"

There are some topics where an issue is a learning opportunity and a discussion can be had. Technical disagreements are a classic case. There are others that are so played out and hurtful that it's not worth it.

I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful. They just need to know that they are. If they're interested in getting better, they can go to their nearest search engine and read some history. If they're not, they can just know to keep their mouth shut next time.

Assertion with no explanation works great right up until you are wrong. If you changed the situation slightly the person saying "we don't do that here" would sound awful. Turning the clock back a couple decades for example,

"My pronouns are he/him."

The authority figure, thinking that trans issues de-legitimize feminism: "We don't do that here."

Or two decades before that:

"My boss is harassing me, I'd like to complain."

The authority figure, thinking that dealing with harassment claims is worse for team cohesion than taking them seriously: "We don't do that here."

Both of the examples you mentioned seem to me like the best possible outcomes:

The trans person or harassment victim immediately realize that the authority figure is untrustworthy and they have to escape or escalate.

If the authority figure went on to publicly agree, but privately misgender the trans person, or to publicly agree to investigate the harassment while privately hiding the evidence, this would be far more hurtful and dangerous to the victims.

A trans person in 2002 doesn't have the options of escape or escalation, because the culture was the same at every company, and up to the top of their current one. Everyone will either privately or explicitly treat them the same way. The only opportunity they'd have is if someone opened a tiny window of hope by dialoguing, instead of pushing their own preconceived notions on them like everybody else would do.

Hi, trans person here. I agree with you entirely. If anti-trans language is a team norm, I can easily check for support at the top, and then if I don't have it, I can leave. Is this ideal? No. Does it work perfectly fine given that I understand there is a baseline level of transphobia in my society? Yes.

Would a manager every say, "no, we don't support you?"

No, he would say something clever and unarguable, stated in terms of popular truths. In fact everybody on both sides of the discussion would do that.

>I don't need to spend an hour giving a coworker an explanation of why their actions are hurtful.

But the point is, saying "we don't do that here" doesn't inform the person that their actions are hurtful. It just tells them not to do something, but loses the value of saying why so they don't make the same mistake in a different context. I would argue that saying something to the effect of "It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again", is far more effective communication. This would avoid ostracizing the recipient and also clarify what exactly they did wrong.

Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:

A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"

The point is not to debate. The point is that "no" or "we don't do that" is an answer in and of itself.

You're comparing two things that are actually quite different. In your example, the other person thinks that you are being honest, and is mistakenly trying to help you overcome your unlikely sequence of obstacles. In the example you're comparing it to, they are trying to confuse you out of your principles by showing off their verbal skills. Here is an example that I think gets at what you're going for:

"Quit making fun of me for my big nose."

"Hey, that's a legitimate form of humor dating back to the third century BC, when Prodigious wrote..."

"That doesn't have anything to do with my feelings, could you just stop?"

"Facts don't care about your feelings."

And so on...

>Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

I know what you mean here, but I disagree that my suggestion opens up a debate. It is clear what about the action in question was, and it politely asks not to do it again. Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up. Just because someone wants to debate, does not mean that you need to engage them.

Regarding your scenario, if person B simply just said "No" it would eliminate all of the need for future questions. This isn't the same thing, as person A didn't violate any social agreed upon rules by asking their question.

> Debate cannot exist one sided, so if the person is intent on "debating" a simple, "we can take this offline later", or "its not up for discussion" usually clears things up.

Perhaps you could try the phrase "we don't do that here"

This was a follow up to the original transgression, you have to be clear of what you are shutting down, before you shut it down. Again the two statements I said are much clearer and don't single out the recipient.

"It is hurtful when you do X" doesn't single out the recipient?

It does not single them out in opposition to the group. Say "we don't do that here" puts the transgressor on one side and the "we" on the other side. Saying "when you do" is not putting the transgressor on a side, but rather placing the onus on them.

My statements don't put the transgressor in opposition to the group, is what I should have said. But I think that thats actually the intention of this author and I don't agree with it.

> Giving a justification is seen by these people are an excuse to debate.

Yes. This is a bit tautological because 'justification' is a word that connotes normativity, perhaps unlike 'explain' or 'describe'... but justifying yourself to someone else effectively invites them to negotiate your decision because it's a tacit admission that it matters (to you, or perhaps according to a shared social norm) that your decision is one they'd approve of in some sense.

However:

> For another example, trying to turn down something you don't want to do:

> A: "Can you come over and fix my Wi-Fi?" B: "No, my car's in the shop" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can give you a ride" B: "No, I have to go get dinner" A: "Oh, that's OK, I can feed you"

Trying to address someone's express concerns is not debating them. Don't tell somebody a fake story about what you want or why and then get upset when they honor your words!

""It is hurtful when you do X, please don't do that again.""

"I didn't mean to be hurtful. Why would someone be hurt by that? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..." And so on, and so on.

From the article:

"But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated. This is when I pull out “we don’t do that here.” It is a conversation ender. If you are the newcomer and someone who has been around a long time says “we don’t do that here”, it is hard to argue. This sentence doesn’t push my morality on anyone. If they want to do whatever it is elsewhere, I’m not telling them not to. I’m just cluing them into the local culture and values. If I deliver this sentence well it carries no more emotional weight than saying, “in Japan, people drive on the left.” “We don’t do that here” should be a statement of fact and nothing more. It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals."

In situations like that, there is no need to engage. The transgressor is being defensive of their actions and I could easily see the same response to saying "we don't do that here"

"Don't do what? Why wouldn't we make jokes and have fun? I was just trying to be funny. Some people are too sensitive. Besides, it's true. ..."

At this point in the conversation, the best course, (in my opinion), is just to move on. It's hard to argue when someone clearly communicates what you did wrong, but people still do it all the time.

Way more effective to let them figure it out slowly with the time they need after the gentle boundary /standard is set.

> There is a vocal segment of the tech community that wants to understand and debate everything

This is healthier than demanding compliance. It's how tech was built in the first place. A "vocal segment" (debatable) that advocates conversation is better than a group that demands compliance.

> It's like a 2 year old child who keeps asking "why?"

now, now, now. comparing colleagues to children for curiosity could be seen as "hurtful". Would you like to be told to "keep [your] mouth shut" for that?

That sounds pretty good until you've had the same discussion 37 times. Having the same discussion for the 38th time does not feel like a conversation; it feels a denial of service attack.

"We don't do that here" actually seems like a great way to express this. Discussion is not verboten in general; this is just not the place for it.

"We don't do that here" usually doesn't mean "not now" or "not in this setting." It usually means "not ever while you are employed at this company."

Even if it’s not a hassle to have the conversation 37 times, that 38th one could be huge drama!

For most people, a short debate is sufficient. But you will spend almost all of your time with that tiny percent of people who rules-lawyer their way through life: Pointing out the lack of written clarity, complaining about 'hidden rules', writing a letter to object, appealing to your boss, appealing to boss's boss, lodging a formal complaint with leadership, getting actual lawyers involved, and on and on and on.

I am suddenly reminded of the sealion Wondermark (http://wondermark.com/1k62/).

Anyway, "tech" was absolutely not built with group conversations, discussions, and debates. Debates are just ways to show off how smart you are. Tech was mostly built by people who went and did things, and if you didn't like what they were doing, you could either comply or leave. Which they discovered was a great way to get things done.

So then they expanded that to every other possible realm which is why you have to "fit the culture" to work in tech. And why we're having this discussion.

but these innovators were rejecting the broader norms of the time. On the whole, renegades were rewarded by the market.

there was definitely a lot of back and forth innovation.

I see your point though and perhaps debate is the wrong term, more like freedom to blaze your own path and challenge strongly help positions.

> Hard disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with? I mostly just shared how I'd feel if these techniques were used on me...

But every community has their rules. Just because they're cultural rules doesn't make them anymore debatable.

You: Break user space. Linus Torvalds: We don't do that here. You: I feel excluded.

Good? If you want to do that shit, do it elsewhere. Don't come back. That's all the statement means: This is my standard as a leader and I don't have time to educate you. If you disagree, do it elsewhere.

> It clearly and concisely sets a boundary, and also makes it easy to disengage with any possible rebuttals.

This type of "because I told you so" style only works as a show of power, otherwise people would just continue do it somewhere else. I get the feeling this author spends more time talking down to people than up to them.

Agreed, the author sounds like a boss who hasn’t learned how to deal with conflicts gracefully and instead uses a pre-written script that gives them unquestionable authority over the employee.

I don't think you need to be a boss or have unquestionable authority to use this style of language.

It's like if a cop tells you to stop doing something at a traffic stop, because she tells you so. It's not that you think they're going to shoot you if you keep it up. But it's authority on the level of, I could make your immediate future very unpleasant if you don't do what I say.

I'm having trouble parsing what you wrote. You say that you don't need to have unquestionable authority to use this style of language and then proceed to give an example of an unquestionable authority using this style of language.

I think I understood the point, and I'll give another example: your coworker (let's say you both report to the same boss) doesn't like the way you're talking to them and tells you "Hey indiv0, we don't say X here... we just don't say X here".

If you choose to question the statement, you could cynically assume that the other person is going to use anything you say as evidence that you're not professional/are harassing them/make them feel uncomfortable against you. Better to just shut up rather than say something damming.

I've been in a situation like this, and being on the receiving end of the "we don't do that here" is received as "shut up, do what I say, and don't question me".

I updated it a bit. Maybe it was a bad example, but what I'm saying is having the option of arresting someone or giving them a fine isn't unquestionable authority -- if you're just mouthing off there's a limit to what the police can (legally) do to you.

Regardless, my point is in an average job there's a lot of people that don't have direct authority over you but have the power to make your life really unpleasant. A more senior coworker probably can't get you fired, but they may well be involved in important decisions around you.

It hardly needs to be someone who can "make your life really unpleasant". There's no implied threat.

If I were told "We don't do that here" at a new job, I would learn that I stepped across a line and likely a generally agreed-upon line, and that if I continue to do so, I will be causing problems for myself. And I mean "causing problems for myself" in the same way that any other behavioral quirk causes problems, from chewing with your mouth open to yelling at someone for not putting paper in the printer.

But then, I'm also not someone who feels the urge to debate what line was crossed, whether or not my intentions mattered when I crossed the line, the precise location of the line and any others that I might cross in the future, or whatever it is that them as cause this particular issue want out of the conversation.

Have you ever run across dang's moderation messages here? Do you also feel those "sound like a boss who hasn’t learned how to deal with conflicts gracefully and instead uses a pre-written script that gives them unquestionable authority"? They really are often a variant of "we don't do that here".

I haven’t, I guess I have yet to do something to get shut down.

How do we deal with conflicts gracefully?

"We don't do that here" is not a show of power. Cultural norms don't come from a boss or an authority figure, they come from a team.

This (and a lot of other related arguments in this thread) would probably be a lot clearer with less contentious examples, like "don't push a deploy after 4pm," than with hot-button political topics. If you go to push a deploy at quitting time and someone says "We don't do that here", you wouldn't think they're on a power trip, you'd think they don't fully trust their automation tests.

> This type of "because I told you so" style only works as a show of power,

A show of power expressed through "low", indirect language. Might not be sending the intended message. "That doesn't work for me", in particular, reads as "parochial middle manager" to me.

Would it read differently if instead of a manager, it was said by a more experienced co-worker?

"We don't do that here" is a jewel of passive-aggressiveness.

I clicked on the link hoping to find something related to "Not invented there", but ended up with a new way to issue heavy threats with small words.

It's only a jewel because it's valuable.

If you don't like the OP, then simply downvote and move on. Lot's of people in this thread find it valuable and are actually willing to say as much. They are even so gracious as to outline their argument for it's utility, in detail. Maybe you should read what they have to say and engage with that.

> If you don't like the OP, then simply downvote and move on

I never downvote because I "don't like", and so should you.

> Lots of people in this thread find it valuable and are actually willing to say as much

Being in a majority doesn't make you more right. Ironically, this is a part of the mindset some minorities had to fight against.

> Maybe you should read what they have to say and engage with that

I did, and other people have made some replies with which I agreed. Therefore, no point for me to repeat the same things.

Now that was indeed a jewel. What it lacks in brevity it more than makes up for in depth. My hat off to you sir.

It's not that valuable since it can be easily rebutted with "you do now."

How do you consider it threatening?

As ineptech wrote, "This (and a lot of other related arguments in this thread) would probably be a lot clearer with less contentious examples, like "don't push a deploy after 4pm," than with hot-button political topics. If you go to push a deploy at quitting time and someone says "We don't do that here", you wouldn't think they're on a power trip, you'd think they don't fully trust their automation tests."

Author did specify that it's a last-resort option to be used when the energy or time for a deeper conversation wasn't available.

They said no such thing, the opening example given was to whip out the phrase the moment the visitor said "gay", which then lead to an in-the-moment defensive fight.

The later examples are the same, whipping out the phrase the moment the 'offender' does something the author doesn't like, and then doubling down on it when challenged.

> They said no such thing,

> > In the world I want to live in, we don’t have to set negative rules like “don’t harass people.” Instead, we could get by with positive guidelines like “be welcoming” and “be kind” and use our giant human brains to figure out how to apply those values to novel situations. When I get the chance, I try to create those spaces. When I have the energy, I try to educate and inform instead of correct. But I still keep this simple phrase in my back pocket as a tool for ending and defusing situations when other approaches don’t work.

The author did put it at the end, but it's definitely there.

This only means that the author is a bit of a hypocrite. If you say that something is a last resort, and your primary exemplar of its use is something trivial and common (the word "gay"), then that belies the fact that you just said that it was a last resort.

Trivial and common? We run in very different social circles. The last time that's been common in my life was when I was in the military some 17 years ago. I would have the exact same reaction as the author if someone tried to reintroduce casual homophobia into my life.

In my social circles, the homosexual men prefer to be called "gay" rather than anything else. Also, some of the black people prefer to be called "black" - two are not African and hate the term "African-American."

I rather doubt that your homosexual friends support the use of “gay” as a pejorative, e.g. “that’s so gay.” Your argument is disingenuous; I hope it is not deliberate.

Oh, I thought the author was saying that "gay" was always a pejorative term. It wouldn't be the first time.

He was referring to someone who was using it as a pejorative, and explaining his method for dealing with it in a situation where an argument about it would have been unproductive and distracting.

I think that the author was a bit unclear in regards to the word "gay". It almost sounded like the author thinks that using the word "gay" in any context should be considered bad. After I went back to read that part again, I realized that they were referring to people saying "that's gay" to mean something along the lines of "that's bad" or "that's something I don't like". This was a common phrase among teens and 20-somethings 15-20 years ago, but it is rightly considered in poor taste today.

I'm a little unclear about how "*One day someone came to visit and used the word “gay” as a pejorative, as was common in the early 2000s" is unclear?

perjorative: (n) a word expressing contempt or disapproval.

Maybe I read it too fast, or maybe my brain was still focused on my work tasks, and that was taking priority over my casual skimming of HN. It doesn't really matter. All I know is that I suddenly had to go back and re-read that part because, for a moment, it seemed to me that the author might consider "gay" to always be a pejorative. And maybe others were incorrectly interpreting it the same way that I did at first.

I also considered that other commenters might not think using "gay" as a perjorative was a big deal, but HN rules encourage the assumption of good intent.

Do you consider it trivial and common to use the word "gay" as a pejorative? (If so, that may say something.) Not "gay" as in "Fred is gay."

From the article: "The college I attended was small and very LGBT friendly. One day someone came to visit and used the word “gay” as a pejorative, as was common in the early 2000s. A current student looked at the visitor and flatly said, “we don’t do that here.” The guest started getting defensive and explaining that they weren’t homophobic and didn’t mean anything by it. The student replied, “I’m sure that’s true, but all you need to know is we don’t do that here.” The interaction ended at that point, and everyone moved on to different topics. “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture."

I read that part too fast, and apparently I can't edit the comment you responded too. I thought the author of the article said that "gay" was a pejorative description of someone.

"Said 'gay' as a pejorative, as was common in the early 2000s."

In the HN guidelines, "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

"The college I attended was small and very LGBT friendly. One day someone came to visit and used the word “gay” as a pejorative, as was common in the early 2000s. A current student looked at the visitor and flatly said, “we don’t do that here.” The guest started getting defensive and explaining that they weren’t homophobic and didn’t mean anything by it. The student replied, “I’m sure that’s true, but all you need to know is we don’t do that here.” The interaction ended at that point, and everyone moved on to different topics. “We don’t do that here” was a polite but firm way to educate the newcomer about our culture."

Quote from the article:

> When I’m able I’d much rather spend the time to educate someone about diversity and inclusion issues and see if I can change how they see the world a bit. But I don’t always have the time and energy to do that. And sometimes, even if I did have the time, the person involved doesn’t want to be educated.

And yet they jump straight to "We don't do that here" every time in the article.

> That... doesn't work for me? If you want to say no, just say no. If you want to say more, I'd be very grateful if you could tell me why not. I'm sure the magic phrases have made the author's professional career easier. Also I'm sure they made life worse for other people.

Ugh. You know, a lot of people on the Autism spectrum get professional coaching so they can successfully navigate a workplace environment. Some people can't say no politely, or at all. Please don't make them collateral damage to your anger.

Usually it's better to criticize in private and offer space for questions, but sometimes you need to shut down a behavior fast, eg. when someone is using offensive language around other employees. Saying "we don't do that here" is a great way to do that.

> My blood pressure increased just reading that and imagining myself on the receiving end.

Sure. That's a normal response when you feel challenged.

Technology has exposed people on a personal level to an unprecedented number of social groups.

In the past, people talked to their neighbors and their kinfolk, because that was who was around. They didn't have to worry about what was happening in China or Russia or Wyoming or whatever.

Now you are expected to have an opinion, and to have the righteous opinion of the group. I have to assume that we will learn how to deal with this impulse at some point in the future, but right now, we don't.

You don't know how many times a topic has come up and been tabled in that group before you joined.

Until we get past our self-righteousness phase on social media "we don't do that here" is perfect shorthand to shut down a destructive conversation.

---

A note: please try not to over-interpret my comment. You don't know me.

I do think it's important to actually hear the personal experience of others and defer judgement. That is not currently the norm on social media or with remote groups.

> [...] "we don't do that here" is perfect shorthand to shut down a destructive conversation

Yes, it is also a perfect shorthand to shut down any other conversation. Its only purpose is to shut down the conversation. If you don't care about the other participants, and just want the conversation shut down, saying "we don't do that here" is great for you.

> A note: please try not to over-interpret my comment. You don't know me.

I attempted to see how your comment could be over-interpretted and haven't succeeded :)

> Yes, it is also a perfect shorthand to shut down any other conversation. Its only purpose is to shut down the conversation. If you don't care about the other participants, and just want the conversation shut down, saying "we don't do that here" is great for you.

Yes. It is a judgement call when to use it. The linked article talks about how to make that judgement.

I completely agree. This answer should be the last resort in situations just like mentioned in the article.

But when the situation is completely different, if a new comer is a new grad joining the company and "that" behavior is just a mild disagreement, this wording should 100% be avoided and only should be used if you would like to cut ties with the person.

In a professional space, I find that getting that treatment is usually preferable to starting an argument on ethics. I'm just trying to get some work done, not really looking to illuminate my coworker's mind with my personal illusions of the world.

> Why don't they do "that"?

If the phrase is used well, I think the person on the receiving end would just get it. If they defend themselves with « but I’m not [intolerant] », they know what’s up. Otherwise they’ll just ask « do what? »

The trouble with no is people will say why and try to guilt you into saying yes.

We don't make these kinds of comments here

I got upvoted so apparently we do!

I got upvoted too, so that doesn't work for me

I think that it's a good way to uphold the unwritten rules of a community without making a big deal out of it. You don't need to be told why off-colour jokes are wrong, only that this is not the place for them.