Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise • Hacker News Board

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#321

Post by RangerScience » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 5:57 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #74

maruhan2 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 complexit…

Still wrong. The onus is on the person with more authority, power, or privilege. There is a responsibility to educate yourself if you are in such a position (and most men are, in some way or another, in the tech industry). It's 2017, there's no excuse for being ignorant any more. If you're a "flirty" person, for example, that's fine, but you need to go the extra mile to make people feel safe. Be on the lookout for no…

It took me a second read not to disagree with you. Yes, one should do all those things to the best of their ability; if you like, lump it under the "a leader is responsible for team morale".

I (and I think everyone else) is strongly disagreeing with you that your unvoiced emotions are my responsibility.

But, you're right, in that it's a chicken-and-the-egg style scenario; how do you voice the emotion that you're not comfortable voicing your emotions? And, how does anyone (including yourself) tell if that discomfort is all in your head, or real?

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#322

Post by adjkant » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 6:01 PM UTC

dahauns wrote: post #187

adjkant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one (and present in many other posts on this thread). To act as if there isn't any logic in the opposing side isn't going to get anywhere. Because of the very nature of sexual assault, providing evidence up to the standards of the US criminal legal system is very hard to do. It likely means that more harassers get off and very few get wrongful sentences. The logic in support…

>You can disagree with some of the premises of that argument, but it's a valid one (philosophically speaking). Philosophically speaking, If I reject some of the premises, this would be a classic ex falso quodlibet, so - unless I subscribe to the use of paraconsistent logic - no, it would actually not be valid. I fully agree that everything should be done to make reporting crimes and presenting evidence as easy as pos…

You aren't working with a philosophical definition of valid then.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

An argument can still be valid with false premises. The point of using this definition is to say that if person A disagrees with the premises and person B agrees with them, that is the source of your difference, not a lack of logic like the parent comment implied.

My redefinition is not a simplification or hand waving - it is exactly the standard we use in civil cases in the US justice system. Looking up the term, it's "preponderance of the evidence" - it boils down basically to the 50/50 above. It is not at all synonymous with a coin toss.

> Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities, is the standard required in most civil cases and in family court determinations solely involving money, such as child support under the Child Support Standards Act. It is also the burden of proof of which the defendant must prove affirmative defenses or mitigating circumstances in civil or criminal court. In civil court, aggravating circumstances also only have to be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, as opposed to beyond reasonable doubt (as they do in criminal court).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

I'm not working with the assumption that the US criminal system ever had the 100% correct definition in the first place. It is not the only legal standard in existence and questioning it should not be seen as "simply redefining" but examining further.

I agree with the caution, but the whole post is directly addressing the idea that there isn't logic in what's happening with the general trend.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#323

Post by adjkant » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 6:16 PM UTC

tepidandroid wrote: post #238

adjkant wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one (and present in many other posts on this thread). To act as if there isn't any logic in the opposing side isn't going to get anywhere. Because of the very nature of sexual assault, providing evidence up to the standards of the US criminal legal system is very hard to do. It likely means that more harassers get off and very few get wrongful sentences. The logic in support…

> This is a huge straw man if I've ever seen one Where is the straw man? I simply argue that accusations should be substantiated. Once upon a time, this viewpoint would have been considered common sense and not something controversial. And yet here we are. > The logic in supporting a standard that requires less than the US criminal legal system currently is that it will help put away many more guilty people and put a…

> However inefficient it may be, we have a legal system for a reason. The accused are entitled to due process. IMHO there is no greater travesty than an innocent person having their life ruined because we as a society are unwilling to give them fair and reason based judgment.

You can have due process with different legal standards. See preponderance of the evidence above. I agree, due process, of course. I'm saying the root of the social backlash is that the legal system is failing.

> I don't claim to have the solution to our problems, but blame must be allocated where blame is due. It is far more fashionable nowadays to virtue signal than to be objective, which is the precisely cause of situations like these. If you have a proposal for an effective extra-judicial system that is not based on facts, evidence and due process, I would be more than interested in reading it.

That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am advocating for the use of a different legal standard, one already being used in the US justice system. I'm also advocating for focusing on the victims over the rarer cases of false accusations, which while they should be remedied, should be the secondary focus between the two issues. See below the line for more.

I also think to classify it as virtue signaling is missing the point. That is one of the straw men I see here. The reason people's lives are affected so strongly by rape accusations is because regardless of guilt, people would rather not take a risk in most situations. It has nothing to do with virtue signaling.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The thing I find more frustrating here is that when you have many people suffering from rape and sexual harassment and a few suffering from false accusations, people in this thread seem far more concerned with shifting focus to the falsely accused rather than the victims of the true crimes when there are numbers showing that one is the much more widespread problem. I see it equivalent to complaining about people blocking the highway to protest BLM stuff (and generally the response to BLM in general about the message not being conveyed perfectly, which for sure it wasn't), or the 60's with the black panthers.

If you see a large injustice that needs correction and you're focusing on a smaller injustice that hinders the larger correction, I think that practically amounts to implicitly supporting the larger injustice. It's a disturbing pattern you can find with pretty much every social movement.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#324

Post by Charismatic » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 6:39 PM UTC

"But even as women’s stories bring about real change — including forcing accused harassers out of their jobs —"

Apparently, forcing accused (not convicted) harasser out of their jobs is "real change". And then these people wonder why fake harassment charges might be used to fuck with people.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#325

Post by qb45 » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #161

wand3r wrote: post #36

This 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…

I have been watching this issue for many years online. I have done my best not to comment on it. But what you've said rings true: there's something really wrong here, and it has to do with the internet. I've come to the conclusion -- and I may certainly be wrong -- that good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things. As a human being, you can and should acknowledge and feel for people in…

I think the problem is not only with the Internet but mainly with people having no idea of just how large and varied the world is, how other people see things and how bizarre shit lurks just behind the horizon of their own life experience. The Internet only connected different strains of people together and now they are surprised, disgusted, scared or angered by what they see. And such phenomenon isn't even limited to the Internet.

For example, in case of this "sexual harassment in tech", I really think it's a matter of significant lack of understanding between the parties involved. Apparently it's not the case that most women would agree to have sex with just any random dude, but nevertheless some men seem to expect exactly that. OTOH, I very much doubt that they would be willing to take them by force, but nevertheless women end up worrying about all the possible things that may have happened.

> good policy and good laws depend on a logical and unemotional view of things

That's plausible. Good policy probably benefits from understanding, which seems to be improved by familiarity, which reduces emotional reactions, particularly the negative ones.

> You should not, however, make decisions based on how you feel about things.

But OTOH, if for whatever reason you can't obtain familiarity and understanding, it probably may be safer to follow your gut feeling. I think that's what guides many people and they probably don't think about it much.

> The internet is all about the feels - the mob, the pain, the sadness, the outrage.

THB, you could equally well describe Bolsheviks or Nazis that way. And they have this curious property of predating the Internet by several decades ;)

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#326

Post by adekok » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 7:24 PM UTC

philh wrote: post #295

adekok wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy. That's pedantically true, and more honestly false. Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? That's ridiculous. He explicitly said ... which is generally thought to be not a good thing. Are you next going to claim that he thinks putting off victims is not a good thin…

> Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? No specific policy, certainly. There are many policies consistent with what he said. I gave one already; another would be we should punish false accusations of sexual assault, but not as severely as sexual assault itself . But you leapt to the most indefensible one. And you didn't even seem to notice that you we…

> But you leapt to the most indefensible one.

Nonsense.

His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims.

Which is what I reacted to.

Given the upvotes for my position and the downvotes for yours, I suspect the majority of people came to the same conclusion I did.

Please stop grasping at straws. Your insistence on taking me at an extreme position while accusing me of the same is unsupported by facts.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#327

Post by amag » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 7:33 PM UTC

77pt77 wrote: post #166

amag wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Sweden we had a minister of justice a couple of years ago who thought it would be a good idea that persons suspected of buying sexual services (which is illegal in Sweden) got their court order sent in a special large purple envelope. The purpose was that they would then be both publicly shamed (by the mailman, neighbors and what not) as well as would be less able to conceal it from their spouse.

Kind of like your voting system? I hear it has effectively no privacy. See for example https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=2054&ar...

Hehe, yeah, voting is a joke. First take the ballot of your preferred choice in clear view of everybody (unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice) then go behind a screen to put that one ballot everyone has already seen and put in a fully opaque (as in black inside) envelope.

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#328

Post by cr0sh » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 7:41 PM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #297

ivanhoe wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It always seemed to me, as outsider, that sex in the US culture is a single topic that is especially uncomfortable to people, far more than in Europe. Just look at the TV/movies or social media rules: you can show blood, violence, guns, all kinds of criminal or deviant behavior, but any kind of nudity will set off alarms, to the point that we need to defend mothers' rights to breastfeed in public because nipples are…

Much of the laws that shaped the country are from Protestant view point. Over the years violence and profanity have been accepted. Did you ever see what happened in the late 90/00s with profane music? It was supposedly corrupting our youth and congress had hearing discussing Eminem lyrics. How hilarious. Nudity is still rare but not really like it was 20 years ago. Religious nuts will protest "think of the children"…

> Did you ever see what happened in the late 90/00s with profane music?

Goes back further than that; I'm pretty sure in 80s it was likely Madonna or something - I also know there was a frenzy around 2 Live Crew in the late 1980s/early 90s.

But I'd be willing to bet that there was also talk about Elvis in congress back in the day...

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#329

Post by DanBC » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 7:45 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #319

strathmeyer wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL a leader of YC once threatened to ruin my career and prevent me from ever being hired because of a comment I made on an article that was linked here. Now I know why.

Another case of the linkless martyr. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694045 No "leader of YC" I know would value their time so miserably as to spend it that way (or be so dumb as to feed every troll forever).

It's a repeat of this claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892966

Re: Lawsuit: Sexual harassment ‘victim’ was San Francisco business rival in disguise

#330

Post by tptacek » Wed, Jul 26, 2017, 8:16 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #329

dang wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another case of the linkless martyr. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694045 No "leader of YC" I know would value their time so miserably as to spend it that way (or be so dumb as to feed every troll forever).

It's a repeat of this claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9892966

That's not the same claim. I've had people contact "my employer" for HN comments, for instance about Javascript cryptography. But nobody from YC has ever done that. That would be silly.