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

A note from Keith

keithrabois.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#41

Post by jmcqk6 »

r00fus wrote: post #35
felideon wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe that's his therapy for coping. Would you rather him tear his clothes and put sackcloth on his waist?

No, but a quiet, brief, wander in the woods is generally what people expect - or a strong victory against the lawsuit.

>No, but a quiet, brief, wander in the woods is generally what people expect

People expect stupid things. Everyone copes with adversity differently. Having something to occupy your mind is something I would expect. It doesn't matter as much what it is.

Re: A note from Keith

#42

Post by reinhardt »

nbashaw wrote: post #18
falcolas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a human being on both sides of the story here. And being falsely accused of sexual harassment is a painful event. I can't side with either party right now (due to the lack of facts), but I certainly feel more for Keith than I do the other, anonymous party.

That's the point - just because the other party is anonymous doesn't mean they deserve less empathy. Of course, we're biased to the more vivid human character, but it's just a bias. Let's try and correct it with reason.

"Of course, we're biased to the more vivid human character"

Not really, we're biased to the alleged victim (aka the accuser). Granted, not as much as if it was female but still.

Re: A note from Keith

#43

Post by rabble »

niggler wrote: post #25
kevingibbon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every tech site is referencing it.

Wasn't there a post yesterday about how gaming sites reference sources because others do (without any due diligence)?

That's true, but Kara usually does a pretty good job of actual journalism and verifying sources.

Re: A note from Keith

#44

Post by [deleted] »

swalberg wrote: post #38
67726e wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty.

That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. (IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)

[deleted]

Re: A note from Keith

#45

Post by kiskis »

offtopic, and i'm not a native english speaker, but he refers to his partner as "he and his". does this mean that it's a gay relationship?

Re: A note from Keith

#46

Post by 67726e »

swalberg wrote: post #38
67726e wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Innocent until proven guilty.

That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities. (IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)

My point is, at this time we've only just now heard of the accusation. Until the time that I've personally seen all evidence, or it has been determined in a court of law that this man is guilty of the accusations, he has done nothing in my eyes.

I absolutely hate seeing innocent people have their reputations and lives trashed by someone who places a false claim against them. Innocent until proven guilty is a good policy to maintain, especially as everyone contorts a story to fit his or her views and agenda.

Re: A note from Keith

#49

Post by amackera »

buf wrote: post #30
danso wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, you're right. The suit apparently alleges that the relationship itself was not consensual. However, that almost necessarily means that acts within that relationship, if they were seen as "necessary to keep the relationship going", would be non-consensual. I don't mean rape (or else I think Keith's response would have a different approach). How Keith describes it, it could be anything relationship-related, just a…

Again, in any sexual facet not pertaining to rape, I find this news saddening. If I were to enter into a relationship with you, and I said that the only way I would continue the relationship is if you kept it under wraps, then is that really qualification as sexual harassment? The fact that we provide legal representation for people who have the choice to discontinue a relationship is beyond me.

I don't think your example is really what's allegedly happening here. Isn't it implied that the relationship was required in order for the accuser to keep their job?

Re: A note from Keith

#50

Post by lancewiggs »

danilocampos wrote: post #16

What an impossible position. On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners. On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario…

Agreed. It was a great post, but #2 (not informing the employer of the relationship) essentially vetos the rest of the statement.

If you are a C-level executive then this sort of disclosure is fundamental - a good lesson to take away.

Post reply on HN