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

Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#121

Post by skookumchuck »

tptacek wrote: post #117
skookumchuck wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of the show is social commentary on today via an imaginary view of the 1960s. Just like Battlestar Galactica was thinly disguised commentary on the Iraq war. I'd be careful taking it as an accurate picture of the 1960s. Hollywood pieces, even period pieces (and most especially period pieces) are creatures of the time in which they were filmed, not when they are set.

I think you've missed my point.

Mad Men isn't historical evidence of anything. It's a fiction. It's as relevant as The Planet of the Apes.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#122

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #114
naasking wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same. I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more…

Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do. (Advising people no…

[deleted]

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#123

Post by yontherubicon »

dang wrote: post #90
yontherubicon wrote: post #34

Good lord, what do these people want? For men who gasp have sex to not have jobs? No. Of course. That's exactly they want. Well... to not have jobs when they say .

Please don't do this here.

Sorry, the outraged "How can we let them get away with this?" tone of the article got to me a bit. I'll try to keep it civil.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#124

Post by yontherubicon »

skookumchuck wrote: post #49
rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

Outlawing normal human behavior has never worked in the past, and it's unlikely to start working now. Office hookups are going to keep happening. Regulations against soldiers fraternizing with the locals all failed. Laws against interracial relationships never worked. Laws against homosexual relationships didn't stop it. Prostitution continues unabated. Adultery is so commonplace it is hardly worth mentioning.

This is oddly enough, a lie.

Read Sexual Sabotage by Judith Reissmann. It's a reframing of Kinseyism and the Sexual Revolution, showing that the sexual statistics on Adultry, Pre-Marital Sex, and Homosexuality which precipitated the Sexual Revolution, were colored by massive selection bias, and motivated by Kinsey's own rather perverse proclivities.

EDIT: I'm not calling you a liar. I'm just saying that the societal narrative that any of the things that you're suggesting were always prevalent is not so. Another book worth reading is A Generation of Sociopaths by Bruce Cannon Gibney. There are statistics on marriage and divorce between the Greatest Generation and the Boomers that are insane. The average GG partner count was 1; the average for Boomers was 15, and has been going down ever since.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#125

Post by naasking »

tptacek wrote: post #114
naasking wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten a little off topic, but this subthread has been great, so thanks. I knew the instant I saw your phrasing that some people fond of pushing a certain narrative were going to read you wrong because of the assumptions they carry. I don't hold out hope that they'll take this as a wake up call, but I'm glad I bookmarked it all the same. I think your advice is completely sensible for people who are a little more…

Which advice? His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness". That is not just terrible advice, it's actually unlawful in the US. He's walked that back since then, I think? At least: he says his actions are other than that which he originally recommended. Fair enough --- but now it's incumbent on you to be clear about what you're advising other people to do. (Advising people no…

> His advice on this thread began as "don't meet privately with women without a witness".

Except you read it that way because you're biased to see bad faith and sexism everywhere. And look what happened: you uncharitably condemned and berated a fellow human being for literally no reason. And you're not even remotely apologetic for it. This pattern is sadly not at all exclusive to you, or uncommon.

As others have pointed out that this thread has gotten off-topic, I'll not be replying further. I'll merely suggest you learn from this mistake.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#126

Post by apersona »

rayiner wrote: post #29
otherworld wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. We're living in increasingly socially conservative times. Somewhat ironically this seems to be due to the moral superiority of the "left" rather than the traditionalism associated with the right. I also find the implicit assumption that all people who break the current moral codes of the day (even if they did so in the past!) should be henceforth unemployable and the subject of social outrage.

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

I don't think putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is the right way.

The root of the problem is the fear of losing one's job. I think what should happen is that anyone can say "no" to an advance without fear of repercussions, not forming moral laws for where you can/can't form romantic relationships.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#127

Post by apersona »

jacquesm wrote: post #60
rayiner wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What we're living in is the vindication of Andrea Dworkin's views about the sexual revolution: https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/how-the-se... . Women are renegotiating the rules in a way that isn't so one-sidedly beneficial to men. Part of that is putting constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace).

> and it's not appropriate in the workplace It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.

I think if there's a difference in power, the person on the lower end should have a way to say no to his/her boss's advances. I think the culture today where you can talk to the media about it is a valid option and the boss should be punished for it.

But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Someone close to me got into a relationship with their boss a few years ago. The problems my friend was facing wasn't that they felt forced into it, instead, what my friend talks about is how it was everyone OUTSIDE of their relationship that's making them uncomfortable. Some of my friend's coworkers think that they didn't get into a relationship because of romantic reasons, but because of financial reasons (but in a more blunt and straight up insulting way). It's frustrating how people are so judgmental (even in different ways) just because of the position the two have.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#128

Post by dragonwriter »

apersona wrote: post #127
jacquesm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and it's not appropriate in the workplace It's fine in the workplace, lots of couples that I know have met in the workplace. Just not between superiors and sub-ordinates.

I think if there's a difference in power, the person on the lower end should have a way to say no to his/her boss's advances. I think the culture today where you can talk to the media about it is a valid option and the boss should be punished for it. But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid. Someone close to me got into a relationship with their boss a few years ago. The problems…

> But I think banning all relationships between a boss and subordinate is stupid.

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but telling a story about how people commonly drawn the inference that the participants in such a relationship are engaging in an improper sex-for-job-rewards exchange with toxic effects on personal and working relations is an odd choice to support that claim.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#129

Post by tptacek »

skookumchuck wrote: post #120
tptacek wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your quote doesn't contradict mine. Lewinsky does not think that what happened with her and WJC was OK, and she doesn't think that just because of how the press reacted. Regarding the word "corroborate": "to strengthen by evidence" would do nicely.

The quotes I presented amply support the idea she did not see it as abuse of her by Clinton, now or then. > "to strengthen by evidence" The Lewinsky case offers nothing to support other claims against Clinton. For one thing, Lewinsky never accused Clinton of anything. For another, she has no personal knowledge of the other alleged incidents.

No. March 2018, Lewinsky:

There are even some people who feel my White House experiences don’t have a place in this [MeToo] movement, as what transpired between Bill Clinton and myself was not sexual assault, although we now recognize that it constituted a gross abuse of power.

Re: Sex Scandal Toppled a Silicon Valley Chief. Investors Say, So What?

#130

Post by squarefoot »

rayiner wrote: post #43
squarefoot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"constraints on when and where sexual propositioning is appropriate (and it's not appropriate in the workplace)." That would be right if only we didn't build a society requiring every non rich member to spend most of his non sleeping life at workplace.

There is this great app called Tinder where you can make romantic overtures to people who are voluntarily there for that purpose, and do so on your lunch break!

My point was about spare time, not places to go to meet people.
Post reply on HN