Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“But he does good work.”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 289 posts

Re: “But he does good work.”

#211

Post by [deleted] »

chaz72 wrote: post #205
ultramancool wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked the Tor developers don't own the entire privacy community. That said, yes, they do lend a lot of legitimacy to this claim, but it just concerns me that no one has publicly put their name on a rape allegation and nothing has been taken up legally.

I find the way you argue very frustrating. I respond to "This is a great way to make sure you have an unjust community wherein no one has the opportunity to defend themselves and speaking ill of someone is enough to evict them." by saying "It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome." but then you shift the goalposts. You slide right past my assertion that the Tor community must be able to decide wh…

[deleted]

Re: “But he does good work.”

#212

Post by CGamesPlay »

All of the commentary here is hedging against this anonymous rape claim. What bothers me is that if we throw that argument out there is still clearly some huge injustice going on here. With this hook the commentators here are seeking to disarm the entire rest of the argument. The nail in the coffin for me was when the Tor leadership acknowledged the harassment evidence but allowed it to continue. That's inexcusable.

The actual criminal allegations should be settled in court.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#214

Post by throvwavvay »

Kalium wrote: post #208
throvwavvay wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, what do clothing say about intention? I would like to live in a world where clothing is all about keeping a balanced body temperature and nothing else . The second question is of course, does it even matter what intention people had? Maybe it should not be the police job to determine which person is more believable, but rather just write down the statement of the accuser and the accused, and collect any eviden…

> First, what do clothing say about intention? I would like to live in a world where clothing is all about keeping a balanced body temperature and nothing else. If someone walks into a bank wearing gloves and a ski mask in the middle of a hot local summer where that's decidedly uncomfortable clothing, are you going to assume nothing at all about their intentions? Would you think it wildly unreasonable if someone else…

I would like to assume nothing about intentions. In a perfect world, I would like to just assume that person has a good reason, like maybe they work in a cold storage. Same if a person walked in naked. Maybe they just dislike clothes.

In a inperfect world we instead use clothes to signal intention and to read that intention rather than just talk and make judgement based on evidence. A police that had infinitive funds, I would assume that clothes would just be an item in a otherwise long report, something that the prosecutor can use to form a informed decision.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#215

Post by mcguire »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #202
mcguire wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't that depend on what you mean by "just got along" and "didn't cause these kinds of problems"? Don't rock the boat? Don't be a narc or a buzzkill? Get a sense of humor?

Maybe if people went to work to work and not sexually harass other people we would all be in a better place. I did not say at all that one should stay silent in the face of adversity.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have instantaneous bacon delivery.

Counterfactuals are fun.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#216

Post by RileyKyeden »

romanovcode wrote: post #156
smoyer wrote: post #64

From 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…

>What's it going to be boys? ... are you willing to step up your game? To behave like men? Or better yet, to become a real gentleman? Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.

> Chivalry is dead

What a relief.

> and women killed it

Good on them. Let's send all gender roles into the past with other relics like dowries and stonings, where they belong.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#217

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

mcguire wrote: post #215
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe if people went to work to work and not sexually harass other people we would all be in a better place. I did not say at all that one should stay silent in the face of adversity.

And if pigs could fly, we'd all have instantaneous bacon delivery. Counterfactuals are fun.

Slavery was commonly accepted around the world for thousands of years. These days, the idea that you could buy or sell human beings is considered broadly repulsive.

Social norms can change.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#218

Post by shasta »

DanBC wrote: post #199
threatofrain wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the police and justice system collects information about clothing, sexual history with defendant, alcohol and other drugs, they do so because these are legally relevant facts to establishing a narrative that's otherwise often too lacking in material basis. The police and justice system wish to know these facts so they know the strength of some legal narrative and what counternarratives can be supported. Wearing…

> Drug use damages the credibility of any party. I agree that victims are often doubted because of drug use. (I think that's an error by police; instead of doubting the victim they should be treating the victim as a vulnerable person who was more likely to be abused) But can you show me any examples where a rapist who claimed he had consent was doubted because he had been using drugs? It feels as if the doubt only go…

Isn't that mostly because of the legal process? When a guy is accused of rape, he's the one on trial. Mentioning his drug use might be excluded as prejudicial, even though the jury might find it relevant.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#219

Post by avocad »

RileyKyeden wrote: post #216
romanovcode wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What's it going to be boys? ... are you willing to step up your game? To behave like men? Or better yet, to become a real gentleman? Chivalry is dead, and women killed it.

> Chivalry is dead What a relief. > and women killed it Good on them. Let's send all gender roles into the past with other relics like dowries and stonings, where they belong.

Chivalry has nothing to do with gender roles, or holding doors for pretty women.

The way I have learned it is about doing the right thing while avoiding reward or recognition.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#220

Post by js8 »

dpark wrote: post #210
js8 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You think that if this guy literally raped people he should not be excluded from the community he exploited and damaged? Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. Any community should be free to shun him, or not to do it. And community which doesn't shouldn't be called out for…

> Duh, no, and I already explained my position in other comments. Perhaps I should have written "society" instead of "community" in the original comment, that would have been clearer. I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to tell people/communities/society, "Hey, be wary of this guy. He has a history of abuse." > Any co…

> I don't think anyone here has actually proposed that Appelbaum be excluded from society as a whole.

Well, that's how I read the original article (it's an appeal to all tech people to shun him) and some of the comments.

> If a community is enabling abusers, or sheltering thieves, or otherwise hiding unethical or criminal behavior

But we don't know if he was criminal. It's a matter of justice to decide that.

In any case, I meant my original quote assuming that the person gets actually punished if they are found guilty. If they have been punished for their deeds, why should any community be necessarily required to add to that punishment?

> To say that no one should call out the Tor community for enabling Appelbaum is to say that no one should have called out the Catholic Church for hiding child molestation.

It's not the same. Tor community is not preventing criminal investigation. It's perfectly OK to call out community for interfering with justice (since they are part of the society). But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. (Also, the Catholic Church case has another dimension which is hypocrisy.)

Post reply on HN