361–370 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not taking no for an answer is sexual harassment, if it makes the person on the receiving end uncomfortable.
I'm very happy my fiancée didn't take ’no’ to be my definitive answer. You really can't reduce these things to binary operations.
The apology is well crafted - Pulitzer Prize material but it doesn't seem connected to reality. Maybe it's even a little over the top; it's hard to believe that someone who could behave like this could experience such profound feelings of remorse. It sounds like he is sorry for being caught.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on, you totally meant to cast doubt. Still, it takes some degree of huevos to stand up in a semi-anonymous forum and admit your mistake (instead of deleting your comment or other dumb stuff). Kudos for that at least.
For what it's worth, I didn't mean to cast doubt on her character. It was more along the lines of "Maybe we should wait to see how this plays out." I'm also rather upset that my comment indirectly made HN a less welcoming place for founders. I've written extensively about the fact that HN has become less founder-friendly and they've had to flee to places like Bookface just to get some support. The idea that I contrib…
Silicon Valley is toxic until sexism, agism, racism, and homophobia are largely eliminated. Only then will it be a model for the world tech hubs to follow.
Out of curiosity (I've never been to Silicon Valley, let alone worked there), are other tech hubs, or even other industries, that much better?
Diversity is a joke to be honest.
Go to any company, any single company, especially the ones that tout "diversity" it's all the same individual with the same "thought processes" with no actual diversity.
Many hire people who think the same exact way re-skinned or same-gendered.
One company that is about a block away that touts diversity is all liberal ideologues that spout the most racist and deflating things about everything. It's a very toxic environment for anyone who doesn't align with their ideology or beliefs. All of the individuals in the group have the same style. Can never tell them apart. All the same race. Yet on their twitter, jobs, facebook and even here they tout "Diversity! Friendly Co-Workers!"
I've seen more diversity in companies that don't care about diversity or tout diversity.
Sexual harassment and harassment happens more often at these companies, people who are being harassed and bullied about different things don't speak up. Most of the time it isn't women.
I've been bullied by women before because a candidate wasn't female. I've been bullied by men before because a candidate was female or looked weak (physically). I've heard people bully for stutters, skin color, age, race, gender, everything.
I don't care about that. I care about two things: Do you lift others up despite differences while resolving conflicts, and can you get the job done? Following these two, I've gutted these toxic behaviors (bullying, antagonistic, sexual harassment) from multiple companies and it's refreshing.
It's completely out of control to be honest, it's becoming very toxic and demeaning toward specific races and genders (not just men).
This article has zero information, but a picture and name of the accused man. This modern kind of witch hunt is disgusting. It also seems to be that the bar for calling something sexual harassement is constantly lowered and results in a poisoned atmosphere where any playful transgression between genders is rendered impossible. It also contradicts my personal experience, where men and women alike enjoy to initiate tal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is a perfect example of why, in a globally connected world, this problem will never be solved: different cultures have different standards for appropriateness and harrasement: you are trying to not be offensive and so used the world "girl", and someone else is offended because you didn't use the word "woman."
How about we all stop looking for reasons to be offended all the time and presume innocence and good faith until we actually do get a clearly expressed intent or do feel genuinely uncomfortable (as opposed to slightly annoyed)? I'm sure a lot of these situations can be explained by cultural differences or even language barriers such as in this case. English is the de-facto language of the tech scene, but that doesn't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think he's trying to distinguish between someone with poor ability to pick up on social cues (from someone with poor ability to communicate their wishes/feelings) and a sexual predator. That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
This is not the first time I've heard somebody try to fly the lame excuse that they're not guilty of doing something they actually did, because they were too stupid to know it was illegal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/republicans-emergin...
That's not what they said at all.
> > That seems like a reasonable distinction to make, though both can have the same moral fault and/or commit the same crime; motivation is important when we look towards someone's character.
Stop rounding people to stereotypes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another common theme I noticed is when the man in question stays in the gray area where individual incidents aren't clearly over the line and might not qualify legally as sexual harassment, but in context and in aggregate it's clear why a woman would feel very uncomfortable. This seems like a slippery slope. I can imagine malicious but careful predators who constantly test boundaries in a conscious effort to achiev…
The parent post is likely talking about unwanted advances and sexual references, not "awkwardness." If having a crush on someone causes you to make uncomfortable sexual inneundos at them or suggest they should sleep with you, the the problem is your self control, not a question of grey areas.
The point here was incidents that don't cross "the line", which means the location of the line is suddenly up for debate, so you don't even know if you did something wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was a robot club nerd so the concept of locker room talk is foreign to me. But now as a grown up, I can't say that I've ever felt unable to connect with another man because I can't make a sexually aggressive comment about a coworker or mutual acquaintance.
Note that the "sexually aggressive comment" can just refer to a plain "sexual comment" (which changes the whole sentence's meaning). And it's labelled "aggressive" because of several centuries of hardcore religious puritanism leaving their mark on all aspects of US culture. Sex is naughty. Sex talk is aggressive.