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

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

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 359 posts

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

#341

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#342

Post by adekok »

philh wrote: post #332
adekok wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Not true. He was replying to a post that said "False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent." He said "This has the side-effect..." The referent of "this" is clearly not "any punishment of false claims". And even if true , that is still not a policy prop…

> I don't think we disagree on what your position is?

Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misconstrued, and mis-characterized.

> I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold

No, you're not. You've managed to twist what I say, and my defense of my position, to an extreme position.

My position is that people should be punished for breaking the law. And, that saying such punishment (whatever the form) somehow "puts off" innocent people from making claims is wrong.

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

#343

Post by dragonwriter »

adekok wrote: post #342
philh wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Not true. He was replying to a post that said "False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent." He said "This has the side-effect..." The referent of "this" is clearly not "any punishment of false claims". And even if true , that is still not a policy prop…

> I don't think we disagree on what your position is? Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misconstrued, and mis-characterized. > I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold No, you're not. You've managed to twist what I say, and my defense of my position, to an extreme position. My position is that people should be punished for break…

> My position is that people should be punished for breaking the law. And, that saying such punishment (whatever the form) somehow "puts off" innocent people from making claims is wrong.

So long as enforcement does not perfectly avoid false positives even in beginning prosecution (even if no false convictions occur) it increases the expected cost of a true report, and is a rational disincentive.

It may be that the particular punishment regime minimizes this cost and/or has benefits that offset the cost, but it's implausible that any real punishment scheme could avoid it altogether.

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

#344

Post by 77pt77 »

amag wrote: post #327
77pt77 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> unless you care enough about your voting privacy to take one ballot of each choice

And then you have just singled yourself out as someone with something to hide and in small towns that is usually a problem.

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

#345

Post by philh »

adekok wrote: post #342
philh wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Not true. He was replying to a post that said "False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent." He said "This has the side-effect..." The referent of "this" is clearly not "any punishment of false claims". And even if true , that is still not a policy prop…

> I don't think we disagree on what your position is? Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misconstrued, and mis-characterized. > I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold No, you're not. You've managed to twist what I say, and my defense of my position, to an extreme position. My position is that people should be punished for break…

So I think I've been pretty clear that I've been taking about what peteretep originally said versus what you think he originally said. E.g. "I'm accusing you of accusing peteretep of..."

And I think you've been pretty explicitly talking about what he originally said. E.g. "His position was that..."

But now you seem to be denying that you said anything about what he originally said, or you seem to think that what you said about what he said isn't relevant, or... I don't know. Your comment does not make sense to me. All I can think is that you seem to be mixing meta-levels.

Anyway, I'm not exactly proud of how easily I get sucked into crap like this, so I'm going to try to tap out after this comment.

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

#346

Post by sctb »

jopsen wrote: post #110

> the next person who manufactured an allegation to attack a business competitor got a twenty-year (or even two-year) jail sentence. haha, typical Americans... let's throw more people in jail. Empathy is in short supply for sure.

We detached this flagged subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14853781.

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

#347

Post by aaronchall »

microcolonel wrote: post #240
sddfd wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect your stance. However, it is also clear that you haven't been under fire yet :)

As long as your intentions are unmistakably pure, the coals don't feel so hot as you're raked over them.

I approve of shedding anonymity (in most cases) but I'll also note that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

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

#348

Post by adjkant »

gjjrfcbugxbhf wrote: post #338
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…

Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist party? The reason we don't lower the standard of proof is that we've been down that road already - and it leads to bad places.

Notice how I never once said I agreed with the argument. To be honest, I don't know where I stand on this and likely fall somewhere in the middle, though that middle seems a bit unclear.

The slippery slope argument isn't invalid in all cases, but I would say it's quite a stretch here considering the argument I presented already exists in civil court in the US.

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

#349

Post by imartin2k »

etjossem wrote: post #143
imartin2k wrote: post #125

The problem with this whole debate that follows stories about sexual harassment is that no matter how it is being sliced, it always leads to a skewed image of reality. The reality, in my eyes, would be something like this: - People walk around looking more or less intelligently, but almost all have primal sexual urges that they are frequently seeking or at least thinking about to fulfill. That applies to women and me…

How about instead we just agree not to hit on each other within a power-imbalanced professional relationship? Seriously, I don't get how this is hard for folks. It's unbelievably simple. Be aware that you may have professional power over other people, and if you do, make an active effort not to flirt with them. Have the self-restraint not to mix an investment/supervisory relationship with romance or sex. Either it wi…

If everyone would operate 100 % of the time with their rational mind, this agreement that you are suggesting would be feasable. No. One. Does. Wishful thinking.

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

#350

Post by pron »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #232
pron wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Conversely, people benefit on both sides of the equation; using sex to their advantage or weaponizing allegations like this. Yes, but the two sides aren't equal. If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon, that we can both hurt each other does not mean that there is a balance, or that both sides need equal protection. Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for perso…

> If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon Given the evidence, I think you're confused about who actually has a nuclear weapon. Like in real world, "knife attacks" are much more frequent, but a "nuclear weapon" tends to be much more devastating :).

Interesting how you enjoy being clever about millions of women being humiliated and hurt.
Post reply on HN