No, of that I'm innocent • Hacker News Board

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#121

Post by zaroth » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:00 PM UTC

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #95

zaroth wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does this line of thinking lead? I mean it's one thing to limit any attempts at intimacy in the workplace, but if you're just 'influential enough' then you expand this definition to include anyone in the entire tech sector? This seems clearly illogical. Again, if there was assault it's a totally different matter. But sexual harassment is a lower bar specifically because of the idea no one should have to work in…

> You can't create a hostile work environment if you're not actually working with someone or exerting direct influence over their career? Quinn's story was not at a 'work environment' so does it have any less impact? Why are you letting him adjust the narrative to define what he feels is harassment?

Quinn's story sounds like assault and has nothing to do with sexual harassment. To me that just muddies the waters.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#122

Post by Mz » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:01 PM UTC

QAPereo wrote: post #116

Mz wrote: post #3

None of the women who came forward were ever in a position where I could make or break their careers. Sexual Harassment requires that I have such power. This is not true and it does not look good for him to say it: The legal and social understanding of sexual harassment, however, varies by culture. In the context of US employment, the harasser can be the victim's supervisor, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker,…

I am sorry that so many women feel wronged by me... This whole thing opens with the classic of all scumbag apologies, “I’m sorry for how you feel.” I’m not sure that this is much of a jumping off point for good discussion, as much as it is just another one biting the dust in the messiest way possible. Where does a constructive conversation begin here? With someone covering their ass in a blog post against their lawye…

The solutions aren’t that difficult, they just take time and consistent desire and willingness by legislature and business leaders to follow through. So far that desire has been largely absent, and with recent revelations it’s not hard to see why.

So, enlighten me: Point me to a list of not difficult solutions with proven track records of success, if only we get off our lazy butts and bother to do them.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#123

Post by t0mbstone » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:04 PM UTC

astura wrote: post #20

I'll preface this with, I don't know who this guy is and this is the first time I heard anything about this, I am unfamiliar with the allegations. I am just absolutely shocked by this >I don’t have employees, I don’t cut checks for investment. None of the women who came forward were ever in a position where I could make or break their careers. Sexual Harassment requires that I have such power. JFC, does anyone actual…

If someone is your co-worker and you flirt with them and engage in a voluntary affair with them, is it sexual harassment?

What about when you are their boss, and in a position to fire them or affect their career if they don't engage or flirt back?

One of these can definitely be interpreted as sexual harassment (the situation where the person feels they have to accept the proposition or fear losing their job).

On the other hand, the situation where the two co-workers are on equal footing would only be considered sexual harassment if the flirting is unwelcome and continues even after it has been made clear that it is unwelcome.

The key difference is the fact that it is impossible to retrospectively prove or disprove whether or not the relationship was actually consensual, when one person is in a superior position and can making hiring/firing decisions or affect the other person's career.

Or at least that's my interpretation of the point that I believe Scoble was making.

He wasn't in a hiring/firing position or superior position to affect the careers any of the women when they engaged in the illicit behavior with him. It was consensual behavior between peers, and as such, does not automatically count as sexual harassment (even if he was being an unethical slimeball and cheating on his wife).

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#124

Post by ghaff » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:12 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #119

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even simpler than that, really: treat a conference and the outside social stuff that rides along as a work environment regardless of your status or role. You’re not at a knitting convention. You’re meeting professional peers. I had to fuck up to learn this, and I think it’s extremely important. Q: Would I do $thing if this were at my office? A: No. Done.

I think I might be misunderstanding you. People absolutely should not be expected to live their whole lives like they are at the office. What defines outside social stuff that rides along as a work environment ? How far outside your social sphere are you supposed to be meeting or getting introduced to actual people who are interesting to you as a peer and potential romantic partner? So it sounds like it's back to wha…

I don't think anyone here is talking about "flirting." Although I think it's also fair to say that the closer you get to being "in the office" the more caution is probably called for.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#125

Post by smacktoward » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #30

minimaxir wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have no clue if they are true, or how true they are, but I believe that because he disregarded his lawyer's advice and made a statement, there is at least a little bit of truth here. Quinn Norton’s account of her interactions with Scoble has been corroborated by multiple witnesses and it drastically disagrees with Scoble’s account: https://twitter.com/willoremus/status/923257035742781440 Layers advise clients to…

That is a link to a screen grab of a Norton quote alongside a screen grab of a Scoble quote. It doesn’t seem to include any corroboration by anyone. Wrong link?

It was corroborated by Tim O’Reilly, who went further and said that Scoble’s behavior got him banned from future O’Reilly conferences: https://mobile.twitter.com/timoreilly/status/921124414418182...

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#126

Post by QAPereo » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:25 PM UTC

Mz wrote: post #122

QAPereo wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sorry that so many women feel wronged by me... This whole thing opens with the classic of all scumbag apologies, “I’m sorry for how you feel.” I’m not sure that this is much of a jumping off point for good discussion, as much as it is just another one biting the dust in the messiest way possible. Where does a constructive conversation begin here? With someone covering their ass in a blog post against their lawye…

The solutions aren’t that difficult, they just take time and consistent desire and willingness by legislature and business leaders to follow through. So far that desire has been largely absent, and with recent revelations it’s not hard to see why. So, enlighten me: Point me to a list of not difficult solutions with proven track records of success, if only we get off our lazy butts and bother to do them.

Actually vote, as a group, in your own best self interest... not for people like Trump. Hold representatives to account, and put money and votes where the mouths are.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#127

Post by slg » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:26 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #90

openmosix wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, he is one of the MOST influential people in the tech ecosystem. Yes, he is a "blogger", but in many cases he could make or break a product, a startup or a career. A friend of mine startup was noticed (and acquired) by Facebook because Scoble started blogging about it and that came to the attention of Zuckerberg. This guy leaves and breathes in tech conferences, as he is a regular invited speaker/guest…

Where does this line of thinking lead? I mean it's one thing to limit any attempts at intimacy in the workplace, but if you're just 'influential enough' then you expand this definition to include anyone in the entire tech sector? This seems clearly illogical. Again, if there was assault it's a totally different matter. But sexual harassment is a lower bar specifically because of the idea no one should have to work in…

I believe you are looking at this problem the wrong way. Part of that is the fault of the media and all of us on social media that focus on the heinousness of Harvey Weinstein's actions and our immediate move to dehumanize and vilify him. Weinstein was so far past the line that it might cloud were the line actually is. It is only natural for men to look at him and go "I'm not that bad, I didn't threaten anyone, I didn't rape anyone, I didn't proposition anyone I have direct control over, I didn't do any of this at work, etc.".

However the line isn't people being sexually harassed at work, it is people being sexually harassed at all. This isn't limited to drunkenly groping women at tech conferences or asking women you might potentially hire to shower with you. The problem is that your first romantic move with someone shouldn't be a grope or an offer to get naked. Simply don't behave in that manor until you know your actions will be received positively by the other person. It really isn't that difficult to simply treat people with empathy and think of their responses to your actions before you make them. If you do that you will never even get to the point of unwantedly groping someone.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#128

Post by countryslicker » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:30 PM UTC

jsmthrowaway wrote: post #98

openmosix wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are the keynote speaker of a conference, DO NOT flirt with other attendees or other coworkers, regardless of the line of report. There are code of conduct left and right for a reason. Saying "they were not my employees" does not excuse you from using your influence, in a work-related setting, to approach someone else for sex matters.

Even simpler than that, really: treat a conference and the outside social stuff that rides along as a work environment regardless of your status or role. You’re not at a knitting convention. You’re meeting professional peers. I had to fuck up to learn this, and I think it’s extremely important. Q: Would I do $thing if this were at my office? A: No. Done.

Does your office serve alcohol? Does your rule of thumb extend to what you eat and drink? What kind of clothes you wear? Whether you stay or leave?

I think it would be great if it did. But then you would have to significantly restructure conferences to conform. Many of the official events of a conference are blatant violations of workplace behavior.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#129

Post by Mz » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

QAPereo wrote: post #126

Mz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solutions aren’t that difficult, they just take time and consistent desire and willingness by legislature and business leaders to follow through. So far that desire has been largely absent, and with recent revelations it’s not hard to see why. So, enlighten me: Point me to a list of not difficult solutions with proven track records of success, if only we get off our lazy butts and bother to do them.

Actually vote, as a group, in your own best self interest... not for people like Trump. Hold representatives to account, and put money and votes where the mouths are.

That doesn't really answer the question. I am interested in seeing a list of policies and practices that actually work to do the following:

1) Include women equally in the work force.

2) Protect all parties from both sexual impropriety and scandal without simply presuming women are victims, men are predators.

I am not aware of well developed policies for preventing such dramas. And I have read quite a lot on human sexuality, sex abuse, rape and illicit affairs. As much as possible, I sought out reliable sources that involved serious studies.

Telling me to vote (but not for Trump) is utterly unrelated to my question.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#130

Post by tptacek » Wed, Oct 25, 2017, 9:35 PM UTC

zaroth wrote: post #90

openmosix wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is, he is one of the MOST influential people in the tech ecosystem. Yes, he is a "blogger", but in many cases he could make or break a product, a startup or a career. A friend of mine startup was noticed (and acquired) by Facebook because Scoble started blogging about it and that came to the attention of Zuckerberg. This guy leaves and breathes in tech conferences, as he is a regular invited speaker/guest…

Where does this line of thinking lead? I mean it's one thing to limit any attempts at intimacy in the workplace, but if you're just 'influential enough' then you expand this definition to include anyone in the entire tech sector? This seems clearly illogical. Again, if there was assault it's a totally different matter. But sexual harassment is a lower bar specifically because of the idea no one should have to work in…

It leads to professionals treating their work as if it was a profession.