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

The End of My VC Career

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: The End of My VC Career

#41

Post by wolco »

cubano wrote: post #10
whataretensors wrote: post #2

Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? Let a comedian be judged on comedy. Let a VC be judged on investments. For everything else there's the law. No reason to set up an extra judicial system based primarily on media headlines.

> Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? In general, I don't care either...however, if I was to see multiple under-15 charges I certainly would 1. like to be aware of the info and 2. keep my 14yo daughter away from this disturbed predator. Is their nothing in anyone's past that would give you pause?

I would want to know everything everyone has done so I can cast judgement on them.

Re: The End of My VC Career

#42

Post by eropple »

shkkmo wrote: post #33
eropple wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unequivocally no , he's not arguing for vigilantism. Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." There is a distinction and a difference and it borders on mendacious (when not outrightly malicious) to conflate them.

> Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms. Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante". "A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking." The distinction in my mind depends on intent. If the i…

The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. It's monopoly-of-force stuff. The definition you offered turns the word into a nearly null term.

"Hey, don't hire that guy or I'm not going to do business with you" is not a third-party attempt to enforce the law. It is a declaration of, like, a transactional condition. The company receiving that message can weigh whether or not putting up with that guy (or even if they are deserving of opprobrium in the first place--after all, maybe the person talking to them is wrong!) is worth the hit to their bottom line and decide accordingly. It's a transaction, it's not a violation of the state's monopoly of force, it's not "vigilantism" in any way that makes the term meaningful and useful in a sane discussion.

There are bounds we have placed on some kinds of transaction--you can't sell yourself into slavery (by some definitions at least), a business can't refuse service to a protected class (unless it can for a set of prescribed reasons)--but "hey, that guy's a jerk and I'm not gonna do business with jerks" is far afield from that.

[0] - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

Re: The End of My VC Career

#43

Post by brighteyes »

ggg9990 wrote: post #39
brighteyes wrote: post #26

> I suggest that by remaining in his position he took very few consequences, and that in almost any other walk of life a person with less privilege would automatically lose their job after being convicted of sexual assault. Is this actually true? If, as a random example, a waiter in a restaurant were convicted of sexual assault on the subway (as in the story here), how would the owner of the restaurant even know abou…

A waiter would miss work a few times for court proceedings and be fired without knowing the reason. He’d fail his background check when he next sought employment.

Shift workers lives can be hard, but you're exaggerating that first part. Yes, the person would need to work around court proceedings, but those are known well in advance. The much bigger risk for getting fired as a shift worker is unexpected stuff like your kid waking up sick that morning or your car breaking down.

The second part is valid, I agree - background check could be a problem in later jobs. But that wasn't the question here: the author claimed that "in almost any other walk of life" a person would lose their current job. That just seems totally false.

Re: The End of My VC Career

#44

Post by brighteyes »

codingdave wrote: post #35
lainga wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through the increasingly popular (and unreliable, and hard-to-dispute) background check service that SV has created. https://checkr.com/

Background checks have been around for a long time, and a new service has little to do with their availability to employers. The actual answer as to how an employer would know if their employee had gotten in legal trouble is the time they would miss as they got arrested, jailed, bailed, and then worked through the legal process.

Being jailed or otherwise detained for any amount of time, sure. But otherwise, working through the legal process wouldn't be something a regular employer knows about. You would have more errands to run than usual perhaps, that's about it.

Another example: as a programmer, if I run into legal trouble with the IRS and they sue me, or if my neighbor sues me for damage to their property, how would my employer know?

(I'm not saying it's good that employers might not know this. I'm just baffled by the article taking it as a given that practically all employers would.)

Re: The End of My VC Career

#45

Post by Retric »

eropple wrote: post #34
Retric wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OP said "career pressure" that's more than just avoidance. There are a host of minefields, Harassment has a very low threshold. Any unwanted communication falls under that heading. The work environment is another huge issue, California has a wide range of complex laws relating to this stuff. To simplify unless their crime specifically relates to what you do it's risky to use it in decision making. Libel and Defam…

I asked for a cite, you're giving me handwaves. It is not harassment to say "I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." Libel is something you gotta prove , has many facets to its proof (fair-comment-and-criticism exists regardless of whether they're a public figure or not, actual malice tests exist for public figures), and has no bearing anyway on the base claim of "I will not engage in busin…

"Proof" is a question for the legal system it has zero barring on if something is actually illegal. Otherwise the perfect crime would be legal.

"I will not engage in business with you if you employ that person." is a very vague statement that covers a huge range of situations. One specific case relates to the California’s Fair Housing and Employment Act (FEHA) and that really may legally require someone to ignore past criminal behavior depending on specifics. EX: Lack of conviction. In that situation you could quit your job on the spot, but that's about it.

A wider issue is 'tortious interference' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortious_interference If person A is employed by company B they have a contract. Trying to get someone fired is unequivocally "Tortious interference, also known as intentional interference with contractual relations, in the common law of torts, occurs when one person intentionally damages someone else's contractual or business relationships with a third party causing economic harm"

Now, you might not like those examples, but I think I am well past the bar for on online discussion.

Re: The End of My VC Career

#46

Post by shkkmo »

eropple wrote: post #42
shkkmo wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Words mean things and "social opprobrium" does not equate to "vigilantism." They are not identical terms, but they are overlapping terms. Using career pressure to punish someone for a crime they committed can fall under the definition of "vigilante". "A person who is not a member of law enforcement but who pursues and punishes persons suspected of lawbreaking." The distinction in my mind depends on intent. If the i…

The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the en…

> Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition?

Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)?

> A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered.

Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal.

I don't think either of us were claiming that this type of vigilante behavior should be illegal. As the legal dictionary you reference points out some types of vigilantism are illegal, others are legal.

What we are pointing out is that vigilantism as a solution to this problem has significant downsides that should not be ignored.

Ideally we are able to reform the justice system so that vigilante action is not required to achieve a just result again criminal offenders.

EDIT: Off topic, I want to also say they I like your vocabulary, you use some good words and looking them up was educational =]

Re: The End of My VC Career

#47

Post by d6de964 »

cubano wrote: post #10
whataretensors wrote: post #2

Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? Let a comedian be judged on comedy. Let a VC be judged on investments. For everything else there's the law. No reason to set up an extra judicial system based primarily on media headlines.

> Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? In general, I don't care either...however, if I was to see multiple under-15 charges I certainly would 1. like to be aware of the info and 2. keep my 14yo daughter away from this disturbed predator. Is their nothing in anyone's past that would give you pause?

If I saw any charges, I'd still would want to protect my kid, no matter its age or sex.

I would keep the kid away from anyone who is not the same age as it, give or take 3 years.

Re: The End of My VC Career

#48

Post by [deleted] »

shkkmo wrote: post #46
eropple wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only response I can really offer to somebody using your definition is "I too hate society" (with my tongue firmly in cheek). Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? I mean, dictionaries are useful for the elaboration of terms, but picking a dictionary reflective of the legal environment might be wiser[0]. A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the en…

> Which says to me that it is not a particularly useful definition? Perhaps you shouldn't call out people who use a valid definition you find "not useful" for lying (mendacity)? > A crucial nuance that the definition you quoted lacks is that vigilantism is the enforcement of the law by parties not so empowered. Vigilantism is definitely not "enforcement of the law" since it is often illegal. I don't think either of u…

[deleted]

Re: The End of My VC Career

#49

Post by DrScump »

wilde wrote: post #5
whataretensors wrote: post #2

Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? Let a comedian be judged on comedy. Let a VC be judged on investments. For everything else there's the law. No reason to set up an extra judicial system based primarily on media headlines.

The legal system hasn’t been effective in many of these cases. Hell, some dude raped a chick with multiple eye witnesses at Stanford and only got 6months jail time. Additionally, the folks abusing people have used career pressure to keep folks from going to the legal system in the first place. (see Weinstein). If the abusers can use this pressure, I see no reason why victims shouldn’t respond in kind.

  only got 6 months jail time
... and that sentencing judge is facing a recall.

http://www.recallaaronpersky.com/

Re: The End of My VC Career

#50

Post by [deleted] »

wilde wrote: post #5
whataretensors wrote: post #2

Am I the only one who doesn't care about anybody's sexual past? Let a comedian be judged on comedy. Let a VC be judged on investments. For everything else there's the law. No reason to set up an extra judicial system based primarily on media headlines.

The legal system hasn’t been effective in many of these cases. Hell, some dude raped a chick with multiple eye witnesses at Stanford and only got 6months jail time. Additionally, the folks abusing people have used career pressure to keep folks from going to the legal system in the first place. (see Weinstein). If the abusers can use this pressure, I see no reason why victims shouldn’t respond in kind.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN