Incidents like this and that Rolling Stone article do so much damage to real victims of sexual harassment/assault.
What Rolling Stone article are you referring to?
Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
61–70 of 359 posts
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps, but unlike Salem, it's one with some actual witches.
By this logic, we could abolish legal system at all and rely on anonymous accusations and public opinion to do all the bidding, because you know, there are real killers/rapers/thieves/robbers etc. out there and the accusation might be true.
On the contrary, we're left with a social remedy to a problem specifically when we don't have laws that governing a specific behavior. Our morality is not limited to what we codify into law. You might even argue that the court of public opinion is the tip of the spear that helps us determine what should and shouldn't be covered by laws.
And, by the way, we do rely on public opinion to do our bidding in the justice system. They're called juries.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#63This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…
> People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship.
Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a guy asks an acquaintance (not generally a friend) from work on a date.
If women want to fix the fact that men do all the legwork in starting relationships, and don't like that men do so in a way that offends them personally (even though most women seem OK with the system) then they're free to demand other women take up a bit of the slack.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#64Why do accusations result in people automatically being labeled as "guilty" anyway?
People really need to catch up on the 5th amendment.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#65This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…
"Whoever is making a move should be hyper conscious of any signs of discomfort on the part of the recipient and should go the extra mile (or ten miles) to provide many more easily available "outs" than normal. In normal dating situations if an advance is not welcomed that's fine, two peers had an interaction, someone made a minor mistake, and probably no one will get hurt. In a dating situation with all the complexities, minefields, and pitfalls of a work environment if an overture is made that is unwanted that almost certainly means that the person making it fucked up royally. They failed to read the other person, and they made them uncomfortable, and they complicated their professional relationship."
So easily said than done. You make it seem that "making a move" is so clear, but it isn't. Many times people are not even "making a move" and someone will think they are "making a move" and then get uncomfortable. It is very hard to realize that you are making someone uncomfortable when you aren't even thinking in that direction and the recipients (for a lack of a better word) aren't being vocally clear. In such a case, I'm siding against the one that wasn't vocally clear.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#66That's right, no one would ever abuse an online system for blacklisting VCs accused of sexual harassment...smh https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14773434
Yeah, they're basically industrial-scale defamation without recourse, trial, or evidence. From a game-theoretic perspective, you would be wrong not to take advantage of it to burn your competitors. If it hasn't dawned on you, this is a political strategy, not a tool for the downtrodden. I have quite literally heard people talking about these things as "the way we'll close the gender participation gap", as in, they'll…
> have quite literally heard people talking about these things as "the way we'll close the gender participation gap", as in, they'll burn men's careers until things equal out.
Where? Any transcripts/ video?
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#67This world is getting so fucked up. We can't crucify people for "hitting on" or other somewhat tame behavior because we have nothing left to throw at the real offenders. Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Sexual assualt is REAL and should be punished. We need to focus on a balance between being human and being a predator. People…
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…
These rules are perfectly fine, but you don't cover wrong or premeditated accusations which is the key problem here. Most people here know what sexual harassment is, but don't know if the accusation was true or not by seeing some anonymous blog post.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's suppose that false rape accusations are a wide-spread problem. They aren't, they are far rarer then actual cases of rape, but let's suppose that they are. How exactly do you propose to deal with them, without a chilling effect on reporting real rapes? It is a crime that is notoriously hard to convict, to the point where most victims keep silent.
If you accuse somebody of a crime s/he didnt commit- and it comes out, you should suffer the same sentence - circumstances of the person you accused would have received as sentence.
Sounds like eye-for-an-eye logic. Why the same?
Also, just for rape, or for any crime? If I falsely accuse the President of treason, and he is found innocent, should I be convicted of treason?
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…
> People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship. Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a guy asks an acquaintance…
> Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a guy asks an acquaintance (not generally a friend) from work on a date.
Do you have any evidence of that at all? Because to me it sounds simply made up. A quick google, and the first link I got back also seems to disagree.
https://mic.com/articles/112062/the-way-most-people-meet-the...
It amazes me how much people push for responsibility for their actions - but for some reason when it comes to this topic its: I can't help myself, this isn't fair. I must impose a sexual relationship on my co-workers when the feeling strikes me.
And this alternative false excuse of pretending like these are "just misunderstandings". The absolute vast majority (even going by whats been in the news) are completely blatant, repeated, inappropriate approaches.
Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, this is not that hard, people need to understand the rules. First, the heuristics. If it would be extraordinarily awkward and/or conceivably career impacting for someone to decline a romantic advance then that advance should not be made, period, because it represents exploiting a power imbalance (even if unknowingly!) and throwing sex and romance into the situation. The only time in any scenario related to the wo…
> People should not be inviting themselves into the room or home of a coworker, period. People should not be trying to get cozy, let alone try to date, people they have only casually met, especially if there is a power imbalance between them or if there is absolutely anything at stake in the professional relationship. Yet the majority of marriages after college are formed exactly that way - a guy asks an acquaintance…
This is not an excuse. Stop. Just stop. An acquaintance is not a coworker, period. It's not even a question.
Most of the time an acquaintance is fully empowered to tell you to fuck all the way off if you make an unwanted advance. And their life goes on as normal afterward. The equation is vastly different if people are coworkers, especially if there is any sort of difference in authority, seniority, connectedness, or anything whatsoever on the line (deals, employment, career advancement, mentoring, opportunities, etc.)
Even something seemingly as banal as interactions between coworkers who are perfect peers with the same level of seniority and authority in a company and work under widely separated management structures is potentially problematic. Because of the pressure to "not cause a scene" or "not hurt anyone's feelings". As I said, it's not about not doing it, it's about being absolutely, positively ensuring that everyone is 100% fully empowered to respond to an advance with absolutely zero fear of any negative repercussions no matter how minor.
Sure, many marriages are made between people who met through work, but many people already follow these rules, it's the people who don't that are the problem. Ask all of your female friends, if you have any, how many of them have been sexually harassed in some way at work. I don't have a single female friend who has not experienced it, because it's absolutely ubiquitous. That doesn't mean every guy in the workplace is doing it, it means that it continues to be tolerated and ignored enough in the workplace to make the few who do it be able to harass a huge number of people. It has to stop, and the way it stops is with changing the norms of what is expected behavior.