61–70 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Confirmed that he resigned is not the same as confirming he wrote the blog post.
"Rabois has written an emotional post about the situation on his personal Tumblr. Here’s an excerpt:" - Techcrunch
Interesting to read his note after this infamous story: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/06/masters-their-do...
More details: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html
I am confused.
Saddest news I've read all day. Sex happens. Why ruin someone for this?
Huh? From what Keith says, his accuser is claiming that non-consensual acts occurred. Whether that is the case will be up to the courts to decide, but this is not just "Sex happens"
The accuser is claiming that Keith sexually harassed him into interviewing for a job at Square? Or did the harassment start once the accuser was hired? Or both?
I'm not sure how the company fits into the picture until the guy was actually hired and working there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can totally understand if it's his therapy, it would likely be mine... That doesn't answer the confusion in a teaser of a big work/unrelated announcement being in there though.
If it's something you're using to keep your mind off of other things, it seems completely natural to mention it. I really don't see a problem here.
If he is in the same situation that I was in, I can only feel sorry for both parties as it is such a terrible thing to happen.
(posting annonamusly for obvious reasons)
Interesting to read his note after this infamous story: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/06/masters-their-do...
WTF?! I knew Thiel was gay - and until today had no idea Rabois was as well. The story you linked to is the first time I've seen this and to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre. Are they Tech's equivalent of the anti-gay senators caught in rest-stop bathrooms? How weird this got quickly
Or Mother Jones is trying to set up a strawman of them as being homophoboic bigots without realizing that they were actually protesting [1] the then-controversial Stanford speech code, which prohibited much more speech than the government could prohibit. Lawsuits [2] were underway against the speech code and it was a bit of a topic of the day.
As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself." A bunch of white guys standing around dropping the n-word would not work out as well.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois#Early_life [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corry_v._Stanford
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)
It's not just criminal law, it's a fundamentally decent way to treat people.
Everybody seems to be on his side without having the details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He could have been working on a side project for awhile, and is now able to work full-time on it.
When life gives you devestating sexual harassment shakedown lawsuits which require you to suddenly resign from a prominent position at a prominent industry company, make the best of it and use that traffic to tease the audience on the big things to come! Yeah - that was a really weird thing to end it with. Almost as if this post was written under the intense emotional stress that such things can cause - and make you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
WTF?! I knew Thiel was gay - and until today had no idea Rabois was as well. The story you linked to is the first time I've seen this and to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre. Are they Tech's equivalent of the anti-gay senators caught in rest-stop bathrooms? How weird this got quickly
> to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre. Or Mother Jones is trying to set up a strawman of them as being homophoboic bigots without realizing that they were actually protesting [1] the then-controversial Stanford speech code, which prohibited much more speech than the government could prohibit. Lawsuits [2] were underway against the speech code and it was a bit of a topic of…