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

221–230 of 289 posts

Re: “But he does good work.”

#221

Post by bcduggan »

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…

Ugh, I think I upvoted this by clicking on the icon to the left that looked like it would collapse it. For the record, I do not agree with or support this comment.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#222

Post by pc86 »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #170
bllguo wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wors…

You can disagree about the downvoting but it's part of the community standards.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#223

Post by jessaustin »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #174
jessaustin wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many jurisdictions, that space does exist, because cops and prosecutors are comfortable "looking the other way" when it's clear there is a reason to do so. It is to Texas's credit that much of that state is such a jurisdiction, but in fact much of the fly-over country is. Of course, a fake-ass "anarchist" like Applebaum might file a civil suit for a well-deserved ass-kicking, but that's still sunlight.

fake?

Anarchism is a principled opposition to arbitrary authority. The behavior described in TFA is totally unprincipled grasping at any position of unearned dominance that could facilitate the gratification of selfish desires. It's difficult to imagine a person of this low character cheerfully accepting the personal autonomy of other humans he perceived as lower in power.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#224

Post by dang »

shasta wrote: post #108

Is there really a big problem with acceptable/legal behavior not being agreed upon? Isn't the problem usually that the guy claims "it was consensual?" Similarly, when police consider what a woman was wearing, isn't usually in the context of figuring out who's story they believe? In other words, the police aren't thinking "well, she wore a sexy dress and followed him to his room and therefore deserved to get raped" bu…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11946338 and marked it off-topic.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#225

Post by gnaritas »

js8 wrote: post #169
gnaritas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

It's not extreme, it's normal and healthy to exclude abusive people from groups. Your position, keeping them, is the extreme one and it's abusive to those whom he abuses. You're concerned about a slippery slope that doesn't exist, your position is based on fear of a possible bad future rather than the reality of an abusive person actively hurting people in the present. If you support someone by continuing to employ them, when they are known to act this way, you are complicit in their abuse.

Forgiveness applies after someone is accountable for and have changed their behavior; it has no relevance here.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#226

Post by gnaritas »

collyw wrote: post #91
gnaritas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar for firing is much lower than the bar for imprisonment, you obviously can't see that, but it's true none the less. That article contains first hand testimony of multiple incidence of abuse and names numerous witnesses so it's all easily verifiable; if that's not enough evidence for you to fire someone, you need to reevaluate your standards. If you wouldn't fire him for those complaints, you're complicit in hi…

You seem to have changed your argument from the original post, where there was no talk of firing. Anyway, go on and argue your strawman.

That would be true if you were replying to the original post, but you weren't, I clarified the jobs thing and then you replied to it so no, it isn't a moved goal post or a straw man, so go on and try another line of reason or move along.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#227

Post by gnaritas »

js8 wrote: post #220
dpark wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 c…

> t's an appeal to all tech people to shun him)

Tech != society as a whole.

> But we don't know if he was criminal.

We know he's an abusive person due to the multiple incidence described in the article which included specifics that can be verified. That's enough to get him shunned regardless of any criminal behavior.

> But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad.

You're confused, what he's doing is not merely morally bad, it's directly abusive to people, i.e. it's actually bad regardless of any loose morality, there are victims. He's victimizing people with sexually abusive behavior in public, this isn't a simple matter of "morals" being different.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#228

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

pc86 wrote: post #222
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wors…

You can disagree about the downvoting but it's part of the community standards.

True, and the standards are reasonable. However I choose to regard downvoting in the manner described above as a matter of Internet courtesy.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#229

Post by Kalium »

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…

It's great in the abstract. Enlightened bystanders, intervening to halt abusive behavior. Exactly what everyone who's ever suffered abusive behavior dreams of! I know I have in the past. Yet in practice, trying to be that enlightened bystander means listening in on a lot of private conversations, a lot of privately judging people and their actions with context, and a lot of intruding in places where nobody involved has invited you.

I've been rebuked for trying to "step up my game" and getting it wrong enough times that I no longer trust the concept. I'm done second-guessing which particular people want/need help in particular moments and which don't. It's patronizing as hell. I'll help those who ask and I'll make it easy to ask, but I'm done making people's choices for them.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#230

Post by [deleted] »

throvwavvay wrote: post #214
Kalium wrote: post #208

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. 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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN