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

No, of that I'm innocent

scobleizer.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 190 posts

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#111

Post by jordanlev »

Invictus0 wrote: post #18

Without making any moral judgments here, the guy has a valid point in that it's important to make a distinction between cheating in a relationship and sexual harassment. The former is a non-illegal, personal matter, and the latter is a criminal matter. I think most people probably aren't interested in making this distinction and would prefer to indiscriminately shun either kind of person, but this the importance of t…

> it's important to make a distinction between cheating in a relationship and sexual harassment

I know nothing other than what I've read online, but it seems that his accusers are not complaining about him cheating, but rather that he sexually harassed them:

https://medium.com/@quinnnorton/robert-scoble-and-me-9b14ee9...

Specifically:

> And then, without any more warning, Scoble was on me. I felt one hand on my breast and his arm reaching around and grabbing my butt. Scoble is considerably bigger than I am, and I realized quickly I wasn’t going to be able to push him away.

I am not saying I know who is or isn't telling the truth, but this definitely isn't just about someone conflating cheating with sexual harrassment.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#112

Post by TarpitCarnivore »

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.

Let's go even more simple: Just be a decent human being

What you do and don't do should not be tied entirely to work relation situations.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#113

Post by grzm »

KVFinn wrote: post #106

>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. Not a great sign to open your defense by arguing about definitions rather than factual claims.

You're right, it's not a great sign. Given the nature of the topic, while unfortunate, I think it's useful to have a set of definitions to be working from to ensure readers understand what he means when he uses certain words or phrases. One can disagree with the definitions and disagree that the rest of what he says follows from his definitions, but I understand where he's coming from in trying to make clear what he's saying. Above anything else, people do generally have a desire to be understood, and at the very least not be misunderstood.

Please do not read this as justifying any particular behavior. I just think it's really important to at least try to understand each other even when we may vehemently disagree. We can't do that if don't know what each other means when using the language we do. Looking through the comments on this topic, I see at least some of the disagreement coming from people talking past each other or not using words in the same way.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#114

Post by [deleted] »

vkou wrote: post #107
oh_sigh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From "Elements of Libel and Slander"[1] > First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff. How do you prove that you didn't sexually assault someone 5 years ago? Gee, a recording of all of your interactions would come in handy here. [1] http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elemen...

Well, you could always ask Woody Allen. https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/an-open-letter-...

[deleted]

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#115

Post by zaroth »

openmosix wrote: post #96
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…

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.

Focusing on the conference aspect is not particularly helpful in understanding the expected framework here...

I assume there's nothing magical about a conference environment. In some cases the alleged harassment is occurring at bars where everyone is drinking alcohol. In another case it's a long-standing online chat relationship.

Where is the Harvey-esque influence peddling? I mean in that case is was more like straight-up blackmail.

Sometimes a guy will flirt with a girl and the feeling is not mutual. This happens quite frequently and it's not illegal or even wrong. Being an influential or powerful man (or woman!) doesn't make this wrong or illegal unless there is something more to it...

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#116

Post by QAPereo »

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 lawyers advice? With a bunch of people on HN opining about something that has been an open fact of life for many people, especially women, for longer than any of us of been alive?

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.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#117

Post by openmosix »

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?

Let's also not forget that it was a conference. A very laid back-camping kind of conference, but a conference. In today's standards - where you can't join a project or visit/talk to a conference without accepting a CoC - this would still be considered an extension of the workplace, or at least be classified as a "professional setting". We are not talking rocket science: if you are in a professional setting, getting overly drunk, make out in public and then proceeding to random groping - is NOT ok. You can have him redefine the narrative however he wants, he still a serial sexual offender.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#118

Post by googlryas »

ceejayoz wrote: post #109
oh_sigh wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to tell anyone.

In twelve US states, not telling people is a crime. California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington require all parties being recorded to consent.

That's for audio recordings I believe, and oh_sigh did say in another comment where legal in your jurisdiction

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#119

Post by zaroth »

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.

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 what I said earlier -- there's basically no social environment related to the tech industry where you think it would be alright for someone who happens to be influential in the tech sector to flirt with someone? But this seems to absolutely not be the definition of sexual harassment under the EEOC.

To try to remove some of the moral righteousness from it, lets assume we're talking about a single male, no wife or girlfriend, who is a well-known tech executive and blogger.

Re: No, of that I'm innocent

#120

Post by zaroth »

TarpitCarnivore wrote: post #112
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.

Let's go even more simple: Just be a decent human being What you do and don't do should not be tied entirely to work relation situations.

Decent human beings make unwanted sexual advances all the fucking time. We can't read each other's minds after all.

This is why we go to the trouble of defining a "sexual harassment" standard in the workplace, which holds coworkers to a higher standard of care than what is expected outside of the workplace.

Obviously we are not supposed to live our lives interacting with every other human purely professionally.

Post reply on HN