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

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

observer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–460 of 484 posts

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

#451

Post by coldtea »

twobyfour wrote: post #373
coldtea wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have to be a puritan to think that comments that disrespect others' boundaries ("grab them by the pussy!") are aggressive.

Only we didn't speak specifically about such talk here.

The parent said "There's some value in being able to talk bluntly with other men. And I'm not sure it's much worse than what I observed groups of women talking about".

And this was immediately taken to mean "aggressive sexual comment".

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

#452

Post by leereeves »

coldtea wrote: post #349
leereeves wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In our present culture, men rarely report sexual harassment or domestic violence, believing (correctly) that they won't be believed or will be expected to endure (or enjoy) it. And direct confrontation often leads to male victims being charged.

I disagree, and think that what's more illuminating is what happens if they DO report it, and the tone of which they report it. Of which this is not very far off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6uvv1aS5_I

It seems to me that you've just proved my point by openly stating that you expect male victims to enjoy it, but perhaps I misunderstood what you intended to imply with the link to that video.

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

#453

Post by [deleted] »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #427
grasshopperpurp wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the location of the line always up for debate, though? Since people created the line and give it power, it moves with our consciousness and will. The line today is not where it was in 1890. As women gain a stronger voice, we should expect the line to move. Assuming that men actually care about their input, they'd cooperate in shifting the line to an acceptable standard for both parties. If the line is up for de…

Of course, "the debate" is an abstraction and it's actually a million different debates in a million different places.

[deleted]

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

#454

Post by braveo »

DonHopkins wrote: post #449
FeepingCreature wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the lame excuse that they're not guilty 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.

Yes it is what they said, actually: "And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault". Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it. So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?

The motivation of the above poster is accuracy.

based upon your post I can understand why you find it difficult identifying such a thing, but there it is.

You're so blinded by your beliefs you've lost all sense of fairness and balance and mistake moderates as the being of the opposing faction.

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

#455

Post by jmcgough »

jerengie wrote: post #341
jmcgough wrote: post #32

Really glad to see people like this getting called out. Dealing with sexual harassment/assault from someone in power is the last thing you want as a female founder - you have a million other things you need to do to keep your startup afloat, and you don't want to rock the boat if it affects your likelihood of being funded. Feels like the valley is slowly but surely changing. And yes, I recognize that this hasn't been…

Although I agree with you that if it's definitely like the presumed victims say I just want to remember that often people are called out for base motives. Since I live in germany I remember the case of Kachelmann, who due to false claims of rape lost everything from his job to his freedom of a half years worth and much of his friends and family - because of a lie. So for me this means that I wait for the judges to de…

He essentially confirmed the accusations and took an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital yesterday (https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/23/vc-justin-caldbeck-is-taki...)

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

#456

Post by dennisgorelik »

hueving wrote: post #352
dennisgorelik wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> their money's still green VCs do not invest their own money. Instead they invest money of their limited partners. If limited partners learn that their investments are used to fund VC's love life - they would be furious and likely to withdraw their money.

Not if it provides good returns. People still own stock in Phillip Morris.

Why would chasing love affairs provide good returns on investment?

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

#457

Post by PhasmaFelis »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #343
xenadu02 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The canonical example of the limits of free speech: You can't yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Similarly, you can't run toward someone screaming, pull back like you're going to throw a punch, then claim innocence when charged with assault. There are numerous court cases that draw various lines. Courts have recognized people sometimes say "I'll kill you" but without any actual intent. They also recognize sometimes t…

[Responding to your comment in isolation.] As you're talking about legal things I feel a degree more pedantry is needed. You can yell "fire!" but not without an expectation of subsequent deleterious consequences. You have the freedom to speak, you don't have the freedom from consequences of that speech. >When the target of your affection says "Sorry, I have a partner / boyfriend / girlfriend" it is a very clear signa…

> I'd say that is "somewhat clear"; it's still relying on implicit communication. Far better IMO would be "I'm not interested in a romantic/intimate/sexual relationship with you.". Just saying you have a partner is not as clear; maybe your'e the sort that hops around, or has an open relationship or is turned on by infidelity; if a person thinks you're flirting with them but they mention a current sexual partner you might imagine that you're just being warned to keep things clandestine or being told to compete.

If you hit on someone, and they respond "I have a boyfriend" full stop, then unless they're taking their clothes off as they say it, there is zero chance that they mean anything but "I am not interested in your advances."

And, frankly, there's no reason to tell yourself otherwise unless you're planning on sexually harassing that person.

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

#458

Post by pbhjpbhj »

staticautomatic wrote: post #428
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you expand on your reasoning, please. It seems to me that being sexual harassed by a person in a position of authority over you is unlikely to be that different based on sex but could differ a lot based on some of the characteristics that are often skewed to one sex or the other. So men in general might feel greater humiliation, perhaps; women might feel more vulnerable: both because of the physical strength of…

I am of the opinion that you can never "truly understand" another person's suffering unless you share their subjective experience. Women's suffering, in general and in this regard, is compounded by experiences and insidious forces far broader than the acts at issue in any given incident. It is both incorrect and intellectually disingenous to ignore this context, and to approach the matter as a simple and narrow quest…

I don't think anyone contends that you can completely understand anothers experience. Nor that any two instances of suffering (nor any experience) are identical.

What you need to demonstrate is that women are a special class who have entirely different experiences, to any member of other classes, when being sexually harassed.

This stands in stark contrast to some feminist rhetoric as it relies on men and women being fundamentally and innately unequal.

I don't think women are shrinking little flowers, as a class, that experience harassment in a way that no members of the out-class do. This, appears to be the supposition of your post.

How do you suppose you know enough of the experience of members of your own class (eg male) to say they are all markedly different to those of another class (female).

>The feelings women experience when they are victimized in this way are products of history. //

In the general case that sounds like bullshit. Convince me otherwise?

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

#459

Post by pbhjpbhj »

DonHopkins wrote: post #449
FeepingCreature wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the lame excuse that they're not guilty 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.

Yes it is what they said, actually: "And I'm not saying X, but X." where "X" = "it's her fault". Just because you deny what you're about to say in the same sentence just before you say it, doesn't mean you didn't say it. So what is your motivation for defending someone who's trying to shift the blame to the victim of sexual harassment, and how does that speak to your character?

You're mis-framing my position in a highly offensive way.

Ignorance of the law is not a defence against it. That's right and proper.

If I believe you are happy with me taking money from your wallet, and so take some. Can you see that would be a different category morally to if I believed you would condemn such action and yet still took the money. Both situations might be theft, both might be judged morally wrong. But to me the moral character of the person in the two situations is different. And, that differences is worthy of note.

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

#460

Post by jerengie »

jmcgough wrote: post #455
jerengie wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although I agree with you that if it's definitely like the presumed victims say I just want to remember that often people are called out for base motives. Since I live in germany I remember the case of Kachelmann, who due to false claims of rape lost everything from his job to his freedom of a half years worth and much of his friends and family - because of a lie. So for me this means that I wait for the judges to de…

He essentially confirmed the accusations and took an indefinite leave of absence from Binary Capital yesterday ( https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/23/vc-justin-caldbeck-is-taki... )

Thanks for the clarification in this case :)

Since he at least didn't deny the accusations this fosters the believes in his guilt.

For this case it's fine then. However, I tried to make a more general statement in my post before, since the zeitgeist tends to prejudgements nowadays, which also was a thing in the middle ages and does more harm than good.

Post reply on HN