6 Women Accuse Tech VC Justin Caldbeck of Sexual Assault and Harassment

Post by Anonymous888 » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:03 PM UTC

iagreeentirely wrote: post #24

davidu wrote: post #22

This is disgusting, pathetic, and predatory. It also has a long-term chilling effect on women in technology and entrepreneurship. I am surprised by the lack of outrage over this behavior.

At the moment it's allegations. The outrage should come after evidence is uncovered. Not that it will matter in the end. Recent events have shown that you can flat out admit to drugging women in order to have sex with them and still be acquitted if you have adequate stature and fame. (Ok, I should be more fair. A mistrial is not an acquittal.)

Post by guelo » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:04 PM UTC

solotronics wrote: post #42

Serious question, does free speech apply in these situations? You have the unalienable right to speak your mind and some people may be offended but that is not illegal. I totally understand if you are employed by someone you can't easily get away if you are made uncomfortable but this is entirely a voluntary situation. Also, if you really think about it making something that makes someone uncomfortable illegal is wei…

Post by ajoy » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:05 PM UTC

niniane wrote: post #43

_m8fo wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I read that, but is it necessary to be publicly on the record? Couldn't the information be privately confirmed, protecting the women from retaliation and still allowing the case/accusation to move forward? It just seems like an unnecessary risk/vulnerability. Of course, there's also the fact that by going on the record you also encourage others to do the same, which is an immeasurable benefit.

I am one of the three women who went on the record with my name: Niniane Wang. I initially asked to be anonymous, but no reporter would publish unless they had named sources. I knew that Justin was continuing to harass women. Using my name was the only way to stop him. In other words, yes, it was necessary to be publicly on the record.

Post by jellicle » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:05 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #26

vkou wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it involves serial harassers, the ability to get many she-saids becomes easy, too. Do you really think that founders are lining up to put their personal and professional reputation on the line, to smear this guy, as part of a vast female conspiracy? They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people?

No, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? My comment was a bit too female-focused. It wasn't about she-said's or a female conspiracy, but rather the ease of getting people to smear someone that has enemies. It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite differe…

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Jun 23, 2017, 7:06 PM UTC

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #45

dragonwriter wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? No, and if you see anyone hauling an actual, physical tree around to nail him to, you can tell them I said that. But commenting based on one's perception of the facts based on the published allegations and responses is not , even remotely, analogous to crucifixion.

Do you think it's reasonable to destroy his reputation before an investigation has occurred? I'm genuinely curious, and the question is in good faith.