> I turned to Jake and said, “I think you have me confused with a certain blonde blogger,”
Who is that referring to? Is the audience supposed to know, or was that in inside reference
“But he does good work.”
161–170 of 289 posts
Re: “But he does good work.”
#162From an older guy (and happily married) guy to the male population in tech. If you see behaviors like this and let it happen, you're complicit ... if you're in a position of authority (someone's boss) and you let it happen, you may also be criminally liable. But it's far worse ... what I hope is a small minority of bad actors are defining the definition of male in our culture. Since there's an even smaller number men…
Protect in this case being to ensure the perpetrator is fired. Let him, management, HR and everyone on your team know that it's unacceptable and that person should be ostracized. Just like I won't watch Roman Polanski movies.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#163A 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.
Yeah, while I'm pretty much willing to believe this just due to the people involved, it is curious that no one has been willing to put their name on an actual rape accusation.
That's pretty standard for criminal rape cases, mind you.
There were laws in the US prohibiting revealing the identity of the victim in a rape case, but they got struck down as unconstitutional -- there's still a strong cultural norm in the media of not announcing it.
It's also a good idea. Being raped is bad enough; if the bar for consequences for your rapist becomes "I have to loudly announce my rape to the world", that's even worse.
This can be viewed as a web-of-trust situation. The raped person told the leaders of the Tor project, who believed them. You can now either wait for possible criminal charges that might be going on behind the scenes, or you can trust the Tor leaders.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#164What is the point of having a trial by media like this? If we want social change, could we first define the requirement for trial by media?
We got statements from the accusers. We got statement from the accused. We got statement from people who are not victims but claim to speak for them (ie prosecutors). We got people who are neither the accuser nor accused, but instead talks in favor/against a conviction (ie lawyers). We got a jury, ie all the comments here on HN and articles on media platforms. All that is missing from a real court is the unbiased judge who can specify the rules and finalize a judgement.
For those 100+ comments in here, particular those that make a direct or implied judgement, do you think we should replace the court system by articles like this? The current justice system has problems. It requires time, energy, and often capital from victims. Sometimes the guilt gets away. Sometimes the innocent get locked up. There is a lot of fear of not being believed. A lot of self-doubt. Privacy is lost for both the accuser/victim and accused/perpetrator. Social relationships can be destroyed, and risk of retaliation is high. Trial by media really sound as a tempting solution, and all we need to give up seems to be that of a impartial judge and the rules.
notes: Its fun to see the up and down votes in real time. 1->4->2->5->1->3. The Zero replies make for a interesting discussion.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#165Well. Now I'm disgusted and freaked out for the rest of the day.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are fine with his other behaviour?
Absolutely not, but there's a world of difference still.
I get what you're saying... but back when I worked at a grocery store and called out a lazy stoner I worked with for being exceptionally slow and inefficient, he waited until I was alone in the stock room and held a knife to me and said if I ever did anything like that again, he would cut me.
There was no physical harm, but I was shaken enough to quit on the spot when the manager told me he would not be fired.
Here's why the difference gap is smaller than you think: I can never be un-scared from that event.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#167How did the Kink thing stay quiet so long? There you have a corporate situation, with real lawsuit money on the table, and (I expect) sympathetic management.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone repeatedly raped and made inappropriate sexual comments about your family members banning them from family events would be considered about the mildest thing you could do. This guy should be in prison for rape. But even disregarding the actual illegal things this guy has done, his other behavior alone disqualifies him from interacting with others in the community, esp. as a community leader.
I agree with that, assuming he is guilty. On the other hand, it's up to the particular community (or employer) to weight the situation. I don't think doing something illegal should mean that every community should shun you, and it seems to me that's what the article calls for.
It's a warning to other communities that unless he changes his ways, which probably involves undergoing therapy, there is a high likelihood that he will be a threat to women elsewhere. Communities can and will do what they want, but his history should be known so that people don't advertently put more women at risk of his predatory behaviour.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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".
Yes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
Re: “But he does good work.”
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you see behaviors like this and let it happen, you're complicit ... if you're in a position of authority (someone's boss) and you let it happen, you may also be criminally liable." As another older guy, also happily married, I agree completely. That said, as someone who hasn't observed behavior like this while in the industry and certainly doesn't practice it.... God , I'm tired of being painted with a broad brus…
Firstly: "Please resist commenting about being downvoted. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." Sometimes it just happens, there are people who simply disagree. Secondly: this kind of "as long as I'm not doing anything wrong it's fine" attitude is precisely what the commenter was calling out as being not enough.
I disagree on both parts.
Downvoting without explaining only stifles communication and smugly reinforces both sides' viewpoints. A downvote IMO should only be used if the comment is brazenly off-topic, offensive, or factually incorrect.
As for the second part, someone could be a true angel but never witness any harassment and never have the chance to bring an offender to justice - does that make them a better or worse person than someone who had?
I think the parent's point was that if people just got along and didn't cause these kinds of problems we wouldn't have to suddenly shunt souls into categories: "offender";"victim";"witness";"white knight";"silently complicit"
And so on.