Live data from Hacker News

I'm a creep. I'm sorry

500hats.com

331–340 of 453 posts

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#331
post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's part of my point - that's why it's called /asking/, a world where people are not free to ask - I can only imagine would result in a world where people take, and that - I think we've all whitnessed at times.

If you two barely know each other and never even really talked, then they are unlikely to be mutual. I mean, they are even unlikely to be one sided. This story is not about couple where two people were fond of each other and started relationship. This is about sending text messages out of cold to women he barely know, who never shown interest and you have power to hire or not. That has nothing to do with love.

I think there's been a misunderstanding, I was making comments about general workplaces - not about the situation in the article.

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#332
post #24

Is it just me, or is committing public seppuku like this really necessary? If what he did was illegal, he should face prosecution. If he's compelled to apologize and admit his guilt, he should reach out to the people he actually wronged. This kind of public self-flagellation ("I'm such a creep. Please forgive me, world.") feels really over the top, phony, and symbolic.

Seppuku is a good description, to me it reads like a modern version of socialist "self criticism" [1]. Which is an undignified, forced way of subdueing the already broken "enemy of the people".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other posters agree with my read on his apology. While apologizing, McClure is also simultaneously trying to water down Sarah's presentation of the story; that the situation was more/less social in nature... specifically he says stuff like: ... years ago over drinks, late one night in a small group ... ... for my inappropriate behavior in a setting I thought was social, but in hindsight was clearly not ... I mean, su…

> He also brings up that drinks were involved, but practically every company/vc sponsored event in the valley has alcohol involved So... he's not lying? > That doesn't make it okay to proposition an attendee you talked to about an open job position afterwards over FACEBOOK and bring up said job as part of your come-on. I mean this is literally the textbook definition of sexual harassment. Everyone knows that, includi…

I'd rather not turn this into a pedantic argument where we parse every word, sentence, and phrase. But I'll respond because I think we prob agree more than disagree and trust that you have good intentions and want a dialogue.

> So... he's not lying?

Yes, but my argument is that's besides the point; it's an irrelevant detail entirely to whether or not his actions were totally inexcusable.

> Everyone knows that, including the one who did it (at least, now he does).

Yes, which is why it's completely indefensible.

> As evidenced by him calling himself a creep and that being the title of his post.

Agreed, McClure is a big creep, but him admitting it doesn't buy him many brownie points in my book. He's admitting it because not doing so will make things even worse for him. He really has no choice in this regards. I'd like to believe he is genuinely sincere, but given his own admitted history of this type of behavior, and awareness of his own actions (which notably did not prevent him from curtailing his creepiness), my default is he is only trying to save face until proven otherwise.

> Isn't it misanthropic to immediately assume those things about me when I hadn't given you even the slightest suggestion on what I thought of his behavior before this very reply, where I'm condemning it? Yes, it is misanthropic. You just want to think the worst of everyone, and It. Is. Awful.

Pot meets kettle. What you are accusing me of doing, is what you are doing yourself to me, no?

Like you, I don't want to think the worst of everyone, because that's not a very fun world to live in. On the contrary, and like I've said repeatedly, I think McClure is the exception rather than the norm. The majority of men in SV and elsewhere don't behave like him and are not serial sexual harassers.

> You know? If I were like you, I could easily point out how this poor phrasing can be construed as homophobic, but I won't resort to that. Please.

I brought up the LGBT comment, because people are using 500 Startups's historical support of women, POC, and LGBT initiatives to support McClure. I'm pointing out how glib that line of defense is; that it is actually irrelevant; and makes his behavior look all the worse, especially because his actions are so textbook creepy -- not something you would expect from someone who sincerely believes in enfranchising those who have been historically marginalized.

> I'm gay, and the huge amount of false or exaggerated accusations is one of the many reasons I'm glad I am. And (because I know you're going to try to pull this thread), I'm not saying that the accusations against McClure were unfunded; he clearly admitted his blame.

That's great, and I'm a person of color, but that's irrelevant. His behavior is objectively shitty and must be called out if we want to progress to a better, more equal and civilized society. This is a legitimate issue in our society; I don't think you can go too overboard calling out this type of predatory behavior. It's a real issue with very real consequences for those who are victim to it.

Also, you mention "huge amount of false or exaggerated accusations", but by your own admission, and by McClure himself, all these accusations of him being a serial creep are true. So not false, and not exaggerated.

> There are many different types of assholes, the ones like McClure aren't the only ones "poisoning the well."

Here is where I disagree with you. There might be more more poisonous apples, but McClure is a real scumbag just by looking at what we know so far:

1) Serial history of this type of behavior 2) Self-awareness that his behavior is bad. 3) Admission that his intent was to take advantage of others. 4) All his accusers are women of color (according to Sarah)

> Case in point.

I don't know what you're trying to imply here.

> This was a weird and non-sequitur opener, btw. Were you going for an appeal to popularity or something? For what it's worth, I thoroughly disagree with your read on his apology.

Huh? You made the claim that my view was off-base and misanthropic. I disagree and cite similar views from others to back that point.

> BTW, none of this answered my question.

Let me be more clear then, he tried to delegitimize the harassment by bringing up irrelevant details (there were drinks involved, it was a small group of people, that he thought it was a social event, etc.), that are designed to water down the accusations, or at the least, are designed to give him some sort of cover to "explain" his terrible behavior.

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#334
post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How can you see them as people if they aren't being less professional in that setting? What would be the difference? Why wouldn't it be the exact same as water cooler talk?

> How can you see them as people if they aren't being less professional in that setting? I'm very confused by this question. My view of whether someone is a person is not mitigated by them acting profession.

If you see them as people, you should be able to interact with them as fully-rounded people, including asking them out (once only, not being a persistent nagging asshole), complimenting their attire, telling them the latest gossip, in short - communicating your feelings, provided the feeling is mutual. Whereas in a professional setting, you aren't a person, you're filling a role and obeying protocol. It's a sliding scale between "professional" and "casual", but generally when you're interacting professionally, you aren't addressing the full person, you're only letting your Senior Frobnicator part discuss frobnicating barbazniks with only the Chief Barbaznik Wrangler part of the person in front of you; whereas in a casual setting you're communicating with all parts of the person.

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honest question... > I wasn't asked a question... Anyway: You didn't offend me at all. I should've been more clear: It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. And as far as subjective feelings being relevant to whether a crime is committed or not: It's not that unusual. If you threaten to kill me, for example, then my feelings are critical to deciding whether a crime has been committed.…

> It doesn't have to do with looks. That's the wrong way to look at this. Looks play a very large role in determining attraction, which in turn plays a large role in determining whether an advance is or isn't "wanted." The rules as they're currently written therefor apply very unevenly and unfairly. The more attractive you are, the wider your scope of acceptable behavior is. The less attractive you are, the narrower…

I think you're missing my point as it pertains to the NYTimes article:

Dave McClure's looks have no bearing on whether the comment "I was getting confused figuring out whether to hire you or hit on you" is at all appropriate in a professional setting.

It's not.

Actually, I take that back:

It's only in any way appropriate if Sarah and Dave had a pre-existing friendship or relationship of some sort that made that sort of comment permissible. There's zero indication that they did. Dave knew they did not have this kind of relationship but nevertheless put this woman in a position where she was apparently both offended and concerned that it might affect her professional life.

That sucks. Doesn't matter how handsome Dave may or may not be.

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#337
post #312
post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think I'm the one who brought gender into this, you're either ignorant to the structural realities of our industry, or you're willfully being obtuse. If it's the former, let me be the first to tell you that men have most of the power and it's no accident that in the story this post reacts to, it's the men in power committing the abuse and not the other way around. Not to say that women can't be inappropriate a…

The structural realities of our industry are that men are the majority at all echelons. Men have most of the power and men are most of the subjects. Ignoring half of the equation to paint women as a unique victim class is disingenuous, and ironically, it is a power move. Topping from the bottom. HR taking the company's side... A superior leveraging their position to extract concessions rather than engage a person on…

Are we demonising specific behaviours, or power imbalances in general, or just one gender?

Do exploitative power imbalances fade into political and economic background noise when they're "only" about money and/or hierarchy, and no dating or sex are involved?

Do "uncomfortable feelings" around dating and sex have a paradoxically privileged place in this discourse, over "uncomfortable feelings" caused by more overt forms of verbal, financial, political, or legal abuse - and if so, why?

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#338
Dave's biggest mistake here was actually referring her for a job after this interaction. In the absence of that, it was a late night social event with alcohol where Dave made a pass on a girl (who may or may not have been signaling that this was appropriate as she was angling for a job) and she didn't show interest. End of story.

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to legalize prostitution so that an investor or manager who has these fantasies can play them out with professional help. If we viewed prostitutes as a form of health therapist and gave them professional respect rather than keeping them in the black market a lot of these guys could work out their power issues with a trained sex professional instead of creating these nightmares for innocent women who just want…

You're assuming these guys see this as a problem. I suspect for most of them, the power issues are, erotically, the whole point. Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

> Why patronize a prostitute for make believe alpha male abuse of one's position when one has the real thing every day?

Because it's a lot less likely to get you in trouble (if we make it a lot less likely to get you in trouble).

Re: I'm a creep. I'm sorry

#340
post #205

Caveat, McClure's behavior was bad. But seeing recent public floggings for misbehavior I now wonder if people are feeling a bit hypersensitive/cautious about any workplace conduct that could potentially be perceived as harassment. Case in point. You work at a technology company. You are attracted to another coworker, who is NOT your subordinate. Is there some manner in which it is acceptable to express your interest?…

One reason it's not OK, at least in tech, is that women are so hugely under-represented. If a male employee not in a position of hierarchical power innocently expresses his interest to a single female coworker in the entire course of his career, is he evil? Is it harassment? Probably not... But from their female coworker's perspective, that's enough to create a pretty steady stream of random attention. I think even t…

This crowd-sourced harassment issue needs more attention.

Offering guidance to men without acknowledging the cumlative effect of these random interactions is an oversight.

Due to the statistical imbalances of men and women in various workplaces, a slightly better rule than "ask once, and be polite if they say no" might* be "roll d20, on 20 ask once..."

*just a strawman, this isn't actually a good solution; nor are prediction markets, lotteries, drawing straws, competitions of fitness

Post reply on HN