The surprise is that she was fired so quickly and in the middle of a crippling DDOS attack. What startup has the resources to effectively adjudicate a sensitive, sensationalized personnel matter while the goddamn building is on fire? The profanity isn't directed at you: I'm trying to simulate what I think the DEFCON level should be within SendGrid today.

If she was thrown out in hopes of appeasing the DDOSers, that may be a first. And because the nature of the episode involved discrimination, they could have very well opened themselves to a lawsuit if they didn't word their internal communique carefully.

And, as I said, who has the ability to carefully adjudicate matters when the building is on fire?

Because the ops people do HR as well?

Even in large companies, hiring and firing is not solely in the domain of the HR department. Firing decisions usually involve at least the employee's direct superior. Given that SendGrid is a small company, and that this employee was involved in a very public controversy, I imagine that the executive team also had to weigh in on the matter.

Because the controversy involved an allegation of sexism, a prudent company would also bring in a lawyer. Besides the usual covering-the-bases needed when firing anyone, you have an employee who believes she acted to stop sexual harassment. She could very well try to frame the firing as something that stems from gender discrimination.

Oh yeah, you also want to talk to the employee herself.

So, trying to get what is at least 5 to 6 different people on the same page and in meetings takes time, logistically, to schedule. Nevermind the time it takes to investigate the matter and doublecheck the facts and have give-and-take debates about it.

You really think that when a enterprise company like SendGrid goes under attack, only the ops people are the ones up late at night? Don't you think the executives and customer relations have some weight to pull?

All of the above factors make it difficult to believe that the firing took place after a deliberate, thorough process in the span of two days. It's not impossible, but it's unlikely enough that no one can be blamed for being skeptical or surprised.

One thing everyone needs to remember is that this event hasn't occurred in a vacuum. The man who was fired from playhaven may have already been on notice for other actions or poor performance. Similarly Sendgrid may have already had Richards on thin ice before the incident. We can't know for sure, but we can't assume that any of these actions are solely due to the inflamed internet.

> She drags the discussion down to one of racism because someone uses the word lynching in a completely different context.

If you're going to tell me that lynching does not have racist undertones, you need to qualify it.

Microsoft Architect Steve Marx tweeted on the issue with:

This is truly getting out of hand … (I mean the lynching, not the jokes.)

---

To which she bravely responded:

and I'm upset I had to listen to the stuff behind me yesterday. I'm Black. Has anyone in your family been ever encountered lynching?"

And

@smarx Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is

And it reads like Steve Marx was supporting her too. I can't believe her response! I imagine she misunderstood, from reading so many insults on twitter.

That's not bravery. It's just cheap anti-intellectualism.

He cough cough was being sarcastic about the bravery bit.

Thanks. It's been hard to tell sometimes, in this thread.

From the Oxford dictionary website:

Definition of lynch verb [with object] (of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, especially by hanging

While I do realize that there are certain connotations in America as it being aimed towards African Americans, as a non American my understanding of it has always been that it is not an act aimed at a specific race. Rather a group enacting their own law without trial usually because standard legal proceedings would be viewed as a forgone failure due to lack of evidence etc. which the group would not find satisfying.

In the US, lynching is heavily linked to racism, so much so that uses of the word are effectively captured by that racist legacy. If you are going to get into a dialog with a black person and you are white or white passing, do not use the word lynch or lynching ever unless you are talking about historical events or a person whose name is Lynch.

There's another moral of the story here: if a woman is anywhere near you, never say something that could possibly be interpreted as sexual.

"Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right" -Ricky Gervais

This is one of those situations where a word was used with proper english definition and was taken completely out of context for the sake of argument. To trace that to a racist undertone is the fault of the reader and a lack of reading comprehension (taking tone and context is important).

I think it is well beyond the time when we as a society need to understand that certain words (lynching among them) are just words.

If you want to see racial undertones when the word was used in a different context, that's your choice. It's no longer part of the meaning of the word, just like ghetto does not refer to the area of Germany where Jews were forced to live.