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

“But he does good work.”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 289 posts

Re: “But he does good work.”

#261

Post by dpark »

js8 wrote: post #260
dpark wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But we don't know if he was criminal. You're reading selectively. I also mentioned abusers and unethical behavior. You overlooked that because it doesn't fit into your "justice system" narrative. > But it's not OK to call out some community because it doesn't do extra punishment to people who we consider morally bad. Yes, it absolutely is. The problem here is you're worried about punishment when you should be worri…

I am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it, whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some forgiveness). I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost anyway, it's a perfectly…

I don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way rehabilitating. It's just enabling.

I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in anything other than more of the same.

To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in him being a homeless criminal. He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job. What he might not find after this is a position of power and influence, which is a good thing. (Of course assuming the accusations are largely true.)

Re: “But he does good work.”

#262

Post by pyrale »

ultramancool wrote: post #77
chaz72 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A slippery slope, if you will? No, let this case stand on its own: The leaders of the Tor community were shown evidence they considered to be sufficient to boot this guy. It's a community they lead, they get to decide who is welcome. You want to start your own community and welcome him with open arms, you go right ahead.

Last I checked the Tor developers don't own the entire privacy community. That said, yes, they do lend a lot of legitimacy to this claim, but it just concerns me that no one has publicly put their name on a rape allegation and nothing has been taken up legally.

What Isis Lovecruft describes in her piece very much looks like rape to me.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#263

Post by js8 »

dpark wrote: post #261
js8 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am worried about the community. But I consider abusers to be part of it, whether you like it or not. I believe that shunning them out completely is worse than trying to rehabilitate them (which means some punishment plus some forgiveness). I see this as a variation of a NIMBY problem. If you consider community as a sort medieval thing, which needs to be protected from outsiders at all cost anyway, it's a perfectly…

I don't think that continuing to include serial abusers is in any way rehabilitating. It's just enabling. I'd be interested in hearing how allowing someone with a consistent pattern of sexual harassment continue to participate in the community will result in anything other than more of the same. To be clear, shunning this guy from the community isn't likely to result in him being a homeless criminal. He has marketabl…

> He has marketable skills and clearly people have in the past ignored his behavior because it was beneficial to business. He can undoubtedly find a job.

But isn't this what the OP argues against? That nobody should consider him having good skills because he is a harasser?

And regarding him having "position of power". I actually wish no one had a position of power, ever. I would even argue that the whole concept exists to facilitate sexual selection, and that's the reason why many people (of both sexes) will want it to exist.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#264

Post by pyrale »

hashberry wrote: post #244
lusen wrote: post #33

our cultural environment gives us a bias toward downplaying the problem of rape and sexual harassment. i've found this thought experiment helpful in exploring bias: rape is torture. for some it is worse than murder. sexual harassment is aggression. for some it is worse than being punched in the face. how would you feel if someone at your work murdered or punched someone else? how would you feel if there was a systemi…

What about "up-playing" rape? In an account of one of Jacob's assaults[0], the victim wrote: "he was rubbing my clit and rimming the edges of my vagina" and then below she wrote according to German law this is rape with a maximum of 10 years in prison. Was this torture and worse than murder? [0] https://blog.patternsinthevoid.net/the-forest-for-the-trees....

For some it is. There's a reason suicide is much higher among victimes of rape.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#265

Post by jamespo »

srtjstjsj wrote: post #191
jamespo wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's a very long-winded way of also saying "but he does good work"

It's a long-winded way of saying that the anti-ioerror camp is led by a group that has logical inconsistencies and possible dishonesty throughout its accusations, is attacking the people it claims to be trying to get justice for, and is scortched-earth inviting harassment upon uninvolved people who happen to live in ioerror's building.

The "anti-ioerror camp" is not a single group, the idiots attacking the building have very little support I would imagine.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#266

Post by samastur »

ultramancool wrote: post #234
samastur wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not describe his acts as "some offensive comments". The reason why I don't see much of a difference is because I don't find the difference between psychological and physical violence that important when effect is similar and to me it seems to be.

> I don't find the difference between psychological and physical violence that important when effect is similar There's good reason why these crimes are differentiated in the laws of every country around. The effects are not remotely comparable and to suggest that they are is quite offensive to victims of real violence.

I disagree. They are differentiated because we did not understand the immediate and long term effects of both and it is difficult to change cultural norms.

As someone who has worked with victims of long term harassment (of both sexes) and have therefore seen up close such effects, I find offensive your implicit statement that psychological violence is somehow not real violence.

Re: “But he does good work.”

#267

Post by [deleted] »

samastur wrote: post #266
ultramancool wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find the difference between psychological and physical violence that important when effect is similar There's good reason why these crimes are differentiated in the laws of every country around. The effects are not remotely comparable and to suggest that they are is quite offensive to victims of real violence.

I disagree. They are differentiated because we did not understand the immediate and long term effects of both and it is difficult to change cultural norms. As someone who has worked with victims of long term harassment (of both sexes) and have therefore seen up close such effects, I find offensive your implicit statement that psychological violence is somehow not real violence.

[deleted]

Re: “But he does good work.”

#268

Post by [deleted] »

samastur wrote: post #266
ultramancool wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't find the difference between psychological and physical violence that important when effect is similar There's good reason why these crimes are differentiated in the laws of every country around. The effects are not remotely comparable and to suggest that they are is quite offensive to victims of real violence.

I disagree. They are differentiated because we did not understand the immediate and long term effects of both and it is difficult to change cultural norms. As someone who has worked with victims of long term harassment (of both sexes) and have therefore seen up close such effects, I find offensive your implicit statement that psychological violence is somehow not real violence.

[deleted]

Re: “But he does good work.”

#269

Post by jessaustin »

camperman wrote: post #256
jessaustin wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The courts can lock you up or kill you, so it's appropriate if they have somewhat stringent standards for guilt. Private organizations can only show you the door, and the standards for that are quite a bit less exacting. The media episodes you mention are not relevant to the internal operation of private organizations.

Hang on, we're not just talking about violations of internal company policies that led to a dismissal here. We're talking about crimes. I quote: "sexual harassment, rape, stalking, personal threats, and more." Appelbaum is entitled to defend himself and face his accusers in court if they believe they have something against him. As to his guilt, I don't know. Half of me thinks he could well be a slimeball that's guilt…

In some sense, it doesn't matter what the subject is accused of. The standard for dismissal as an unpaid official of a private nonprofit organization is lower than that for prison. Subject could always set up his own networked privacy tool? OK, maybe that's a stretch... b^)

Re: “But he does good work.”

#270

Post by dragonwriter »

mafribe wrote: post #248
dragonwriter wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What are you doing to counter the blatant misandry in current harassment laws? What misandry in current harassment laws? Please cite the specific laws containing misandry, and identify the specific source of the misandry in the law.

There are so many, I don't have the energy to type millions of words, so here is but one link: http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/74059

Wait, you are arguing the fact that California's criminal statutory rape law has a conclusive presumption that a sexual act but someone under 18 is not voluntary while it's child support laws do not and let that be a question of fact for a court to resolve is "misandry in the harassment laws", and use as your strongest evidence a case where an adult woman was convicted of a felony for what was legally established in the subsequent support case to be, in fact, mutually voluntary intecourse?

There's certainly an inconsistency between two laws there, but it's hard to see that as an example of misandry, and, since neither of the laws involved is a harassment law, harder to see it as misandry in the harassment laws.

Post reply on HN