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

161–165 of 165 posts

Re: A note from Keith

#161

Post by cadlin »

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…

Doesn't it seem likely to anyone else that Keith Rabois was not openly homosexual or bisexual, and that is the reason he didn't report the relationship to the company?

Or am I missing something really obvious?

Re: A note from Keith

#162

Post by notahacker »

slapshot wrote: post #66
samstave wrote: post #60

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…

Except that Rabois (and Thiel) were both in the closet at the time. In lieu of "look, I'm not homophobic"...

first-year law student Keith Rabois - refused to answer their questions, but sent a letter to the Stanford Daily confirming the allegations. "Admittedly, the comments made were not very articulate, not very intellectual nor profound," Rabois wrote. "The intention was for the speech to be outrageous enough to provoke a thought of 'Wow, if he can say that, I guess I can say a little more than I thought.' " http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html

Because obviously, the world is a poorer, fundamentally less free place if we're not allowed to harrass people by shouting we hope they die of AIDs. Thiel at least later admitted embarrassment over the whole episode.

The bona fide bigots have more integrity.

Re: A note from Keith

#163

Post by 67726e »

Volpe wrote: post #144
MartinCron wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's from criminal law It's not just criminal law, it's a fundamentally decent way to treat people.

No it isn't, I can think of heaps of counter examples where the assumption of guilt is a good way to act...

Do elaborate.

Re: A note from Keith

#165

Post by kragen »

johndevor wrote: post #31
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…

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.

Yours is a remarkable position. The accuser asserts that he was coerced into sex by Keith, who (simplifying slightly) ran the company and set the policies. Do you think someone like Keith should have the authority to set policies that allow him to coerce his employees into sex? Like a US slave owner before the Civil War?

I'm not asserting that Keith did what he's accused of. But many, many other people have, and if we have to choose, I'd rather see the state monopoly on violence used to protect the victims, not the perpetrators.

Post reply on HN