“But he does good work.” • Hacker News Board

Re: “But he does good work.”

#41

Post by js8 » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:03 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #11

js8 wrote: post #8

I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. People are human, and sometimes they are complicated, and can do good and bad at the same time.

> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a…

> What on earth are you talking about?

Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed."

And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens, stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work."

> He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community.

Assuming he is a rapist (he hasn't been convinced), then yes, he should be in jail. But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing.

> Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized

I disagree. I don't think a person like that should be completely ostracized. Yes, he should get a different job, something that perhaps requires less social skills.

Let me ask you, in practice, what are you going to do with all those ostracized people? If you're American, I am not surprised with your views - that's the way how you got the largest prison population on the planet. But I don't think it's a way to run a civilized society, I am sorry.

A case of Hans Reiser came to my mind. I don't think he should be ostracized and prevented to commit any new code in his life (assuming he wants to), and he is a murderer. Or that we should reject ReiserFS or its concepts in jest. I am sure there are many other examples from history.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#42

Post by ultramancool » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:03 PM UTC

mfoy_ wrote: post #25

ultramancool wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone actually put their real name on something saying they were personally attacked by him yet? Last I checked everything was just vague accusations, has this changed?

Even putting aside whether he is a literal rapist or not, it sounds like he is blatantly guilty of being a serial sexual harasser. The examples of public behaviour he is noted for in the article are completely beyond the pale.

Certainly, but it just concerns me how bad they're working to make this guy out as a rapist, when no one has been willing to put their name on an actual rape accusation.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#43

Post by musha68k » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:04 PM UTC

gooseyard wrote: post #12

If a guy like this were to get a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis, what do you suppose it'd be? Not that I feel bad for the guy, mind you, rather I feel it'd be helpful to the community of people who have been affected by this kind of behavior to have an accurate name for it other than just saying the guy is a douchebag. I knew a guy in college who had some aspects of this guy's behavior and was diagnosed with narcis…

I can recommend Pieter Hintjens' "Psychopath Code" if you want to learn more on how human/social predators operate:

http://hintjens.com/blog:_psychopaths

Edit: I neither know the accused nor the writer of that piece, I just wanted to share that there's lots of layers to reality and that this book was eye-opening to me in that regard.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#44

Post by eutropia » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:05 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #11

js8 wrote: post #8

I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. People are human, and sometimes they are complicated, and can do good and bad at the same time.

> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a…

How is this getting down-voted? Dude seems 100% toxic, keeping him around is only going to poison the community further. Is there something the HN community identifies with in this man?

Re: “But he does good work.”

#45

Post by moon_of_moon » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

Reposting, because at this point two other comments have referenced this flagged comment, therefore it probably has value:

"I guess we've reached a point where you can tell when you are looking at establishment-mandated discrediting of a fellow programmer via "community volunteers" aka shills, but are afraid to call it, because you fear you might be next.

So I will say it: This is mostly bullshit. If he did something wrong, file charges, instead of this one sided character assassination.

Aside: Listen kids, dont live in fear. Its better to burn out than to fade away."

Edit: I'd like to add -- this does not seem to be a situation where someone in power is abusing authority. Its peer to peer.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#46

Post by mfringel » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:06 PM UTC

collyw wrote: post #28

gnaritas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a…

"He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community." Has he been convicted of rape, or is an article on the internet good enough evidence for you? There is a good reason we have courts a justice system.

So, let's say that you loan someone $2000, and they promise to pay you back, but they don't.

Now, let's say that person comes to me and asks for $2000. I know you loaned them money, so I ask you, and you say 'Well, he didn't pay me back, and I don't think he's a good risk.'"

Given that, I can react in two ways.

A) "Huh. Good to know. Thanks for the heads-up."

B) "You never took him to court, and he was never found guilty. Stop accusing him."

It appears that you're requiring the evidentiary standards of a court of law that can imprison someone, when the actual punishment here is removal from a specific social and professional sphere.

Two different standards of evidence for two different spheres of influence.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#47

Post by mordocai » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

danso wrote: post #15

I typed this response to a comment that called the OP "mostly bullshit" and that if someone does wrong, it is incumbent upon the victim to file charges or forever hold their peace. The comment was flagged so I couldn't submit what I typed, so I've pasted it here. I agree that it's hard to find black and white in accusations...but I'd argue that even the judicial system leaves more than enough gray to argue over. And…

Not to mention that this guy would apparently blackmail and/or destroy you if you tried to spread the word (no mention of filing charges that I saw, but I imagine a similar story).

Re: “But he does good work.”

#48

Post by epberry » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:07 PM UTC

Wow this is messed up. This guy is clearly a predator and it's pretty shocking that he was able to operate in this way for so long. As much as women can be marginalized and harassed at tech companies I can easily see how the problem could be much worse with organizations like the Tor Project or Wikileaks that don't necessarily have professional management.

> These are causes, not just jobs or consulting gigs. They are symbols for fighting injustice, and crusading for those at risk of exploitation. Their reputations are fraught and fragile. To attack a person in them is to attack the movement. They are also male-dominated organizations, in the male-dominated realm of hacking, where very few of the men are willing to accept that their hacker heroes, team bosses, and conference buddies might be doing really, really fucked up things to women.

Above was the passage that struck me the most and seems like the most contributing factor for Jake's inexplicably long tenure. When you are constantly under attack by the powers that be it might seem rational to brush aside accusations against one of your most prominent members and plow ahead. Obviously this was a disastrous decision, both for the women involved and the organization.

EDIT: a word.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#49

Post by chaz72 » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

camperman wrote: post #38

A blog is no substitute for due process. Appelbaum may be guilty of all of the things he's been accused of, he may be guilty of none of them. Let's see some formal charges, sworn witness statements and court proceedings before we decide. False accusations can and do happen all the time.

No. Jail needs to wait for formal charges, but the community can make its own decisions whether they will accept his behavior - and they may decide they care about things that are both vile and legal, they may use entirely different reasoning than the courts.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#50

Post by gnaritas » Tue, Jun 21, 2016, 3:08 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #41

gnaritas wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a…

> What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens, stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work." > He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Assuming he is a rapist (he h…

Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".