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

Because it needs to be said

blogjustine.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 635 posts

Re: Because it needs to be said

#251

Post by AlisdairO »

steveklabnik wrote: post #37
AlisdairO wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's absolutely no excuse for such behaviour - the man should be prosecuted. I wish Justine a lot of luck getting her life back on track. It's worth mentioning (since the volume of comments doesn't make it obvious) that it appears to be a single commenter doing the vilifying.

> it appears to be a single commenter doing the vilifying. It may appear to be that way, but many people have stated various things. If you haven't been following this on Twitter for the last few weeks, it can look different. It is certainly not just one person.

Ah, fair enough - I only looked at the web page. That's incredibly disappointing :-(

Re: Because it needs to be said

#252

Post by Confusion »

strictfp wrote: post #206
Confusion wrote: post #118

I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…

I can't believe I'm reading this here. What if some other assault happened, you got kicked in the guts by your boss while everyone around you just stood there and didn't do anything about it? I know I'd be quite upset. That man had absolutely no right to do what he did and you can't blame the victim for getting upset about it.

I'm blaming society for the victim being upset to the extent she currently is and I'm suggesting a way to change it. I'm not blaming her for being upset at all, I'm merely suggesting a way for her to become less upset.

If someone breaks your leg, but you don't go to a doctor and complain about the extreme pain it causes you, am I then blaming you for the broken leg if I tell you that you I think you could suffer less by having it set and cast?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#253

Post by chris_wot »

brazzy wrote: post #245
chris_wot wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming the blog post is the same story she would have given to police, this certainly wouldn't have made for a criminal case even if she had filed a report. He penetrated her. It sure as hell IS sexual assault!

How many times have you penetrated someone without explicitly asking for consent? Many, many times, I'm willing to bet (assuming that you're male).

Then you would be wrong. Never.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#254

Post by kalleth »

icecreampain wrote: post #169

This article confuses me. 1. Why do work collegues party with each other? Isn't work for work and non-work for non-work? Why mix the two? That's asking for shit, throwing professionality out the window. At my recent places of employ I have religously avoided any private contact with my collegues. This gives me an air of professionality and a sense of trust = "Icecreampain will treat me fairly because he is not best f…

I'm not going to speak to your other points, but I agree with your final point.

We have a rule of law in our country (the UK), the same as you do in yours. This smells like a lynching.

I think generally it's important to believe the victim, but also believe that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise, in a court of law, by a jury of their peers. Our criminal justice systems cannot work unless this is true.

Everyone is so insistent that victims be believed that they forget about 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#255

Post by anu_gupta »

cefarix wrote: post #113
felipe wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-believer, I've never touched a sacred book and never will, and I don't understand the need to "indoctrinate" everything. Why can't there be a culture of having just good clean fun, no religion, no wars, no oppression in the name of a virtual god? (point being: blame the perpetrator, not the substance)

Religion and alcohol are not the same. Are trying to say that religion is like a rapist? But even if I continue with your horribly broken and anti-religionist analogy, I could say: I don't bring religion into my work/meetings so why bring alcohol into it?

Then why mention your religion here? How is it in any way relevant?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#256

Post by thomasmeeks »

downandout wrote: post #168

Her boss should not have even attempted to have a fling with her - that exposes the company to liability, and he was rightly fired. It's pretty obvious that she didn't feel that this was enough punishment for his behavior, and has now publicly named him in an attempt to extract her idea of justice out of the situation. It would be interesting to see if he responds with any kind of legal action, as I imagine that he h…

Given her (and the two other) accounts, this absolutely was sexual battery. A drunk, intimidated, or otherwise incapacitated victim does not give an attacker free reign to do whatever they feel like doing. Drunkenness on the attacker's part is not a defense.

If you start touching someone like this, it is not their job to stop you. It is your job to be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, positive that the touch is welcomed. If you are a grabby drunk, don't get drunk.

This is common sense. It is also the law.

I cannot even fathom how he could possibly have a case for libel. We have three accounts, largely the same, as to the facts of the matter. Her account must be a lie (substantially, not in details) for libel to even be a possibility.

Nor can I understand the sentiment that his lost job is somehow recompense for the act. It is just a job, not jail time.

It is so terrible that this happened. To heap these sorts of reactions on top of it all is very deeply disappointing.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#257

Post by pearjuice »

Confusion wrote: post #118

I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…

>walls of text everywhere trying to examine the situation and blame those involved

You guys have to deal with it that she voluntarily lied down on a bar, induced by alcohol with other men around her and OFFERED her body to be licked. In which universe did she saw an expected outcome of not being approached with a sexual tone? They were drinking the entire night and all those geeky guys normally filled with anxiety completely loose up with one of the other sex they have been around with for quite some time and then all of a sudden this woman lies down on a bar, peels her shirt up and pours a drink on her body whilst having a boy friend?

She must have at least expected something, no? She was not raped or "sexually assaulted", she had intimate contact which she knowingly was building up to the entire night and she could have very well contracted her back muscles and got off that bar when she saw her boss approaching. In fact, why did she even get on that bar when she was fully aware of the context? A body shot, really?

Re: Because it needs to be said

#258

Post by gbog »

sneak wrote: post #160
Confusion wrote: post #118

I think there's a deeper cultural problem here: that the behavior of Joe had that much of an impact on Justine's life in the first place. There are women that would experience the same thing, but would not retreat into themselves in this extreme way. There are even women that would shrug it off. However, the response of Justine matches ancient societal expectations: if a woman has been violated, she loses all value.…

No, that is not a deeper problem. It may be a problem, but it is minor compared to the fact that there are vast numbers of people who think that sexually assaulting people is okay. Different brains respond to severe emotional trauma in different ways. I urge you to spend some time with smart people with PTSD. Collect some data and evolve your beliefs.

> sexually assaulting people

The problem is that what is considered "sexually assaulting people" is relative to one's culture, education, religion, etc.

In ancient China just the bare foot of a girl was the most intimate thing you could imagine, something a husband will never get from his wife. In Tang dynasty apparently showing breasts was considered normal.

Right now in France saying "my dear" (ma chérie) when addressing to a colleague is a bit borderline but "you look pretty today" is ok (while not 100% innocent). Maybe it is the opposite in the US?

There is also this story (is it true?) of African students coming to France in the 70ties and raping girls who accepted to come to their room: in their original culture a girl who accept to go the room of a boy already accepted to make love, and the "no! please, no!" thing is a gameplay.

Not to talk about how things are in Japan...

I am not sure the current most common definition of the limit between laughing together and "sexual assault" in the USA is the best one and should be used as a worldwide norm. I would bet against it actually.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#260

Post by jimzvz »

justin66 wrote: post #226
jimzvz wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of the witnesses' testimonies seem to be subjective: "It was getting creepy, but Justine didn't move, or slap him. She was laughing..."[1]; "The executive's posture and actions aggressive; "no" was not a possibility."[2] Their stories also don't corroborate: "Fast forward to (from what I remember), around 1am. "[1]; "It was slightly before midnight..."[2] I think it is good that there are witnesses but it is not…

Testimony from a witness is always subjective, and this isn't a criminal trial. Given the amount of alcohol consumed I expect that the more detailed an account one demanded of Justine or some of the others, the less accurate it would be. That doesn't lead to some kind of Rashomon outcome where we'll never know the nature of what happened. That 1am / midnight shit... really?

"Testimony from a witness is always subjective..."

I guess what i am trying to say is that they are drawing conclusions of what they saw, not just stating the facts of what they saw.

"...this isn't a criminal trial"

This is my point, we have no right to judge his guilt or innocence without a proper investigation and a trial based on this investigation.

"That 1am / midnight shit... really?"

I think it just shows that witnesses aren't necessarily a reliable form of evidence.

My point is that presumed innocence until proven otherwise is important. These kind of blog posts can help create awareness and allow us to discuss such situations but with regards to the actual event, we should refrain from judgment, as difficult as that is, because anything could have happened or not happened. Trial by social media is not okay.

Post reply on HN