141–150 of 535 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company.
> By making that statement HR was definitely not protecting the company. They couldn't have foreseen that this would blow up, but they almost certainly would have predicted company damage if they had NOT parroted the line about white male aggressors.
Seems like no one believes him. Let's be honest: How often have you heard news about a woman molesting a man vs. a man molesting a woman?
How often do you expect to hear about it when all the complaints are officially dismissed and the victim is told to shut up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims. There is this crime called "false accusation", you could have chased that?
Last CCC I attended a free Assange activist told me that a lot of people approached her asking her why she would defend a rapist. Unfortunately for certain things one the damage is done most people will never notice when it changes. The thing that struck me as odd here is that the news article has photos and names. Not that it would make that much of a difference, but I do remember a time when suspects in the news wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will. Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle, please describe how the paper's political leanings could bias its reporting here. At face value, it's workplace sexual assault allegations with a power imbalance.
I think there is a general consensus that the New York Post has a credibility gap, so it is not "ad hominem dogwhistle". From it's Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post ): "In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credi…
When someone cites [x, y, z], that someone is not credible instead of being not credible along with [x, y, z]?
Besides, the parent's whole point is that NY Post is the source, here!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Probably worth noting this story was first published by the New York Post. Take that for what you will. Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle, please describe how the paper's political leanings could bias its reporting here. At face value, it's workplace sexual assault allegations with a power imbalance.
I think there is a general consensus that the New York Post has a credibility gap, so it is not "ad hominem dogwhistle". From it's Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Post ): "In a 2004 survey conducted by Pace University, the Post was rated the least-credible major news outlet in New York, and the only news outlet to receive more responses calling it "not credible" than credible (44% not credi…
But I would also point out that a lot of people here on HN (in past discussions) and elsewhere have noted that the New York Times and the Washington Post also publish creatively interpreted news (or outright creative writing) at times.
Despite this news articles from these sources are considered independently without outright dismissal due to past reporting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Instead of an ad hominem dogwhistle I don't think that's what "dogwhistle" means. IIUC, dog-whistling is surreptitiously sending a message to some readers, but having plausible deniability and/or non-recognition for the rest of the readers.
Try this: >I'd like to point out that CoastalCoder wrote this comment. Take that for what you will. See? Highlighting with this phrasing aligns exactly with your definition. The framing is defaulting to negative-neutral.
I.e., he intends every reader to recognize that he's saying that the publisher might be biased. He's not being explicit about what that bias is, but presumably he expects curious readers to look into it themselves.
In all honesty, if these things had happened to me, I would've kept quiet since most people won't believe a 20-something male. I was in high school when two of the girls (who were considered hot in our class) grouped me and rubbed their breasts against my back. When I told one of the lady teachers about the issue, she thought I was crazy and making things up.
I mean in dance, you hear about higher-level male dancers getting unwanted attention despite being in long-term monogamous relationships.
Maybe in a hundred years, we’ll realize that people are people, and will weaponize / abuse sexuality according to their role / gender.
> When he asked why he was non-inclusive, Olohan was told that he had shown favouritism towards high-performing employees I always expected capitalism to eat itself, but not like this... not like this.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is not capitalism.
"Capitalism" most certainly doesn't value equality or diversity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm still a bit jaded that there are absolutely zero repercussions of making false claims. There is this crime called "false accusation", you could have chased that?
Last CCC I attended a free Assange activist told me that a lot of people approached her asking her why she would defend a rapist. Unfortunately for certain things one the damage is done most people will never notice when it changes. The thing that struck me as odd here is that the news article has photos and names. Not that it would make that much of a difference, but I do remember a time when suspects in the news wo…