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

461–470 of 484 posts

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

#461

Post by nickrivadeneira »

dang wrote: post #444
grandalf wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read this thread yet but I'm curious why the downvote mechanism isn't sufficient moderation in a case like this. HN has been a superb place for discussion of issues relating to workplace harassment and it seems that having certain ideas forbidden is likely to harm the discussion.

It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged. There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the contain…

That makes sense and I appreciate the thoughtful response. The one thing I'd say is that it seems like those types of comments tend to be accepted as long as they align with popular opinion around here. Snark and polemical swipes (I had to Google "polemical" :D) seem to be fairly common. It's understandable - it's difficult to see bad faith when the message is agreeable. It'd be pretty easy to pick out comments in this discussion that align with popular opinion, have a similar tone to anothercomment's, but are unmoderated. Being more lenient on "agreeable trolling" has just as much of a destructive effect and reinforces echo chambers.

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

#462

Post by AnthonyMouse »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #447
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This gray area exists because the law needs to operate under the presumption of innocence, defining crimes unambiguously and prosecuting them with due regard for reasonable doubt -- it is deliberately narrow and permissive, because the state is very powerful and if not held to strict limits it becomes very dangerous. That is the theory everyone refers to when they're trying to justify imposing harsh penalties. Have…

> Gray areas are gray because they contain both and bathwater. There is a grey area like that but that is not the grey area I am talking about. To a consider an example you mentioned previously: it's fine to just not ever touch your coworkers. Another example is ethnic jokes: these are not illegal but do you need to do this at work? Staying out of the gray area is not a matter of harsh punishment but rather on insist…

There is value in camaraderie.

You're assuming the benefit of staying away from the line is greater than the cost of losing every net-positive thing that isn't entirely white.

It's possible for a workplace to be a sterile environment where one turns one's wrench in silence without human connection, but that isn't how people should have to spend the majority of their waking hours.

And again, that policy is a ratchet. What people take offense to is calibrated by expectations and past experience. If you succeed in exerting social pressure to keep everyone away from the line, you move the Overton window and create a new gray area in what used to be accepted professional behavior. Continue to apply the same line-avoiding policy and you have a ratchet that leads to the imposition of radically Puritanical positions.

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

#463

Post by solidsnack9000 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #462
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gray areas are gray because they contain both and bathwater. There is a grey area like that but that is not the grey area I am talking about. To a consider an example you mentioned previously: it's fine to just not ever touch your coworkers. Another example is ethnic jokes: these are not illegal but do you need to do this at work? Staying out of the gray area is not a matter of harsh punishment but rather on insist…

There is value in camaraderie. You're assuming the benefit of staying away from the line is greater than the cost of losing every net-positive thing that isn't entirely white. It's possible for a workplace to be a sterile environment where one turns one's wrench in silence without human connection, but that isn't how people should have to spend the majority of their waking hours. And again, that policy is a ratchet.…

If there is no countervailing pressure, you have a ratchet; but many norms are held to quite consistently and stably.

For example, tipping -- I honestly can not remember the last time I saw anyone not do it. That doesn't mean tips keep going up and up and up...

How do you explain that?

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

#464

Post by [deleted] »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #462
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gray areas are gray because they contain both and bathwater. There is a grey area like that but that is not the grey area I am talking about. To a consider an example you mentioned previously: it's fine to just not ever touch your coworkers. Another example is ethnic jokes: these are not illegal but do you need to do this at work? Staying out of the gray area is not a matter of harsh punishment but rather on insist…

There is value in camaraderie. You're assuming the benefit of staying away from the line is greater than the cost of losing every net-positive thing that isn't entirely white. It's possible for a workplace to be a sterile environment where one turns one's wrench in silence without human connection, but that isn't how people should have to spend the majority of their waking hours. And again, that policy is a ratchet.…

[deleted]

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

#465

Post by AnthonyMouse »

solidsnack9000 wrote: post #463
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is value in camaraderie. You're assuming the benefit of staying away from the line is greater than the cost of losing every net-positive thing that isn't entirely white. It's possible for a workplace to be a sterile environment where one turns one's wrench in silence without human connection, but that isn't how people should have to spend the majority of their waking hours. And again, that policy is a ratchet.…

If there is no countervailing pressure, you have a ratchet; but many norms are held to quite consistently and stably. For example, tipping -- I honestly can not remember the last time I saw anyone not do it. That doesn't mean tips keep going up and up and up... How do you explain that?

http://time.com/money/3394185/tipping-myths-realities-histor...

> Nonetheless, the standard percentage to tip waitstaff has risen over the decades. According to a PayScale study, the median tip is now 19.5%. In recent years, some waiters and restaurants have suggested that 25% or even 30% is the proper gratuity level, and that a 20% tip, once considered generous, is just average today. As recently as 2008, though, an Esquire tipping guide stated "15 percent for good service is still the norm" at American restaurants. An American Demographics study from 2001 found that three-quarters of Americans tipped an average of 17% on restaurant bills, while 22% tipped a flat amount no matter what the bill, and the gratuity left averaged $4.67. Meanwhile, in 1922, Emily Post wrote, "You will not get good service unless you tip generously," and "the rule is ten per cent."

Presumably as a result of most people not wanting to leave a below average tip, which clips the low side of average from the distribution and thereby raises the average over time.

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

#466

Post by solidsnack9000 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #465
solidsnack9000 wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is no countervailing pressure, you have a ratchet; but many norms are held to quite consistently and stably. For example, tipping -- I honestly can not remember the last time I saw anyone not do it. That doesn't mean tips keep going up and up and up... How do you explain that?

http://time.com/money/3394185/tipping-myths-realities-histor... > Nonetheless, the standard percentage to tip waitstaff has risen over the decades. According to a PayScale study, the median tip is now 19.5%. In recent years, some waiters and restaurants have suggested that 25% or even 30% is the proper gratuity level, and that a 20% tip, once considered generous, is just average today. As recently as 2008, though, an…

Ah. So here we could have a change of laws, I guess, to put a stop to the ratchet?

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

#467

Post by staticautomatic »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #458
staticautomatic wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Respectfully, I have neither the time nor interest to educate about the world history of women's oppression and its psychological manifestations. I'm sure you can find plenty of reading material elsewhere.

Also, I'm a Beauvoir feminist, so I'm sure we'd have our differences about gender equality.

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

#468

Post by DonHopkins »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #459
DonHopkins wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're mis-framing the right of a stupid man to send unsolicited naked pictures of himself to a non-consenting woman without getting fired in a highly offensive way. You're wrong that stupidity is a justifiable excuse for that behavior.

"her silence [...] causing him to escalate to naked pictures"

Don't blame the victim's silence for "causing" an "escalation" to sending naked pictures. He decided to do it of his own free will, she did not "cause" him to do that by being silent.

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

#469

Post by dang »

braveo wrote: post #454
DonHopkins wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the HN guidelines. Please don't create accounts to do this with.

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

#470

Post by dang »

nickrivadeneira wrote: post #461
dang wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because comments can have troll effects even when they're downvoted or flagged. There's a difference between expressing a view and setting this place on fire. There's no view that can't be expressed substantively and thoughtfully if one has a mind to, but it takes work. Throwing fuel on the fire or sand in the gears is different; that's vandalism, and it destroys the free exchange of views by ruining the contain…

That makes sense and I appreciate the thoughtful response. The one thing I'd say is that it seems like those types of comments tend to be accepted as long as they align with popular opinion around here. Snark and polemical swipes (I had to Google "polemical" :D) seem to be fairly common. It's understandable - it's difficult to see bad faith when the message is agreeable. It'd be pretty easy to pick out comments in th…

People have differing perceptions of 'popular opinion' and read the same comments differently depending on their pre-existing opinions. Even perfectly even-handed moderation would routinely be accused of bias because most such perceptions are in the eye of the beholder.

To my mind, the price of admission into a serious conversation about this is some awareness of how prevalent these biases are, including in one's own case. They determine nearly everything. Mostly all we really think is "what I like is good, what I dislike is bad, and others are good or bad to the extent that they agree". That goes along with "I'm a noble freethinker nobly standing apart from this groupthink echo chamber" and the associated, "You should moderate this forum to defend those I agree with and smite those I disagree with." These feelings are so compelling that it's hard to wriggle into any freedom from them. One should make the effort anyhow. People who make that effort start to see the problem differently, even as we all retain our biases.

There are many counterintuitive aspects to this. One is that community cohesion remains an issue even when 'popular opinion' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) is wrong. There are ways of disputing popular opinion that cause harm even when they're right; it isn't a simple matter of just 'stating the unpopular truth' (assuming it exists and you know what it is) and then lording it over or angrily lashing out at those who 'can't handle it'. You actually have a greater responsibility by virtue of the fact that you know, or believe you know, more truth. Most people who fancy themselves to be expressing an unpopular truth don't take that responsibility—on the contrary, they use that truth as a weapon, to vent grievances, gain status, and so on. This harms discussion and community even if you are right about both popular opinion and the truth. Indeed, it does more harm the more right you are, because then you're discrediting the truth with your behavior and gifting the majority with an easy excuse to keep rejecting the minority view.

Post reply on HN