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

Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

nypost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 535 posts

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#501

Post by seadan83 »

Reubend wrote: post #245
schroeding wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so don't talk about it, keep it quiet, because it "shifts the conversation"? :/ Sorry, I see your point, I know that this is used to derail conversations, you're right, but "false equivalence" kinda implies that one thing is worse than the other. It is, systematically, but it isn't, personally. If you were raped, it doesn't help you that the power dynamic is and was different in our society between genders and yo…

Good point. Even if there's a more widespread problem in society, it's pretty unpleasant for some victims to be thought of as a distraction.

The victim isn't the distraction. It's the disproportionate coverage.

Eg: "cyclist kills pedestrian" The town hall and citizenry get up in arms to protect pedestrians, letters to the editors are flying about the menace of push bikes, links are shared and retweeted thousands of times. Laws are passed to enforce bicycle registration, speed limits on trails are imposed and metered, enforcement task forces are created, and proud press releases from the mayor to address the citizens concerns for "getting tough on bikes - we will protect the pedestrians!"

Meanwhile, a pedestrian is struck and killed by a motor vehicle every 85 minutes in the USA. A pedestrian being struck and killed by a bicycle is just rare. While the families of either victim grieve just as much as the other, the measures to protect the pedestrians are virtue signaling and overall a way to avoid dealing with the real problem (like, actually making people drive under 35mph so crashes are survivable for pedestrians, etc..)

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#502

Post by r00fus »

machina_ex_deus wrote: post #384
actualwitch wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything in your comment is pretty reasonable until this: >And this is a direct result of lack of religion You claim this like it's proven to be true. It's not. The reason for this inherent ask for social justice in my opinion has nothing to do with religion. Instead, I feel like people got disappointed in existing justice system, looking at nasty people going through life unfazed, even though it is painfully obvio…

So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed, but the dumb mob justice will succeed? It is the lack of religion, because religion is exactly what would fill this gap in the minds of people from seeing injustice. Maybe the earthly judges failed, but I don't need to be cruel and punishing because the criminal will get what's coming for him in the next life. It doesn't even matter if this argumen…

> So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed

Yes - clearly the justice system has been coopted and corrupted and "social justice" is one of the expected and observed outcomes (similar but different than mob justice - which is also another expected outcome when you can't rely on actual police/judiciary).

The resolution to all this is to restore faith and trust in our formal justice system - and there are folks fighting for that also.

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#503

Post by caminante »

PedroBatista wrote: post #422
peterfirefly wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a tabloid and it is not left-leaning... and it published true and embarrassing things about the Biden family up to the last US presidential election. It also regularly publishes true things about crime (and about who commits it). This is more than enough to explain why some people distrust it. In my book, it is much more reliable than the New York Times and the Washington Post.

In my book it’s slightly more reliable simply because it’s a tabloid and any political leaning takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.

>takes the backseat in favor of headlines and blood.

Great phrasing. Reporting dirt on a faction will drive clicks to FROM all factions, including the smeared faction.

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#504

Post by lormayna »

vidarh wrote: post #298
lormayna wrote: post #226

> Olohan said he began feeling increasing pressure from his supervisor, who told him that there were “obviously too many white guys” on his management team. In July he was encouraged to fire a male employee to make room on his team for a woman, the suit claims. This is the most crazy section. Why physical characteristics like gender or ethnicity should be important in the management selection? And if yes, why only th…

> Why physical characteristics like gender or ethnicity should be important in the management selection? To be clear, the below is not taking into account the allegations in the article, but just seeks to explain the thinking without judgement (as I'm frankly not sure which side I fall down on). There's a school of thought that some degree of weighting helps to redress systemic issues by changing incentives, justifie…

I can agree with your points, but I think this is happening in one way, at least for my experience. I have worked for a big defense company and they try to hire as much as women as possible, even if it's not easy to find women in that field (let's say 1 woman over 3 man). Women had also a special career growth path and other advantages. In front of our building there was the headquarters of one of the most famous luxury brand in the world and more than 80% working there were women. According to people working there they don't care a shit about diversity. I am okay with diversity (even with some concerns), but why don't apply diversity also in the fields where women are more than men?

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#505

Post by lormayna »

alejoar wrote: post #361
flanked-evergl wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US diversity politics This is in no way restricted to US.

I agree. However, as a person living in Europe and working for american companies, I can attest gender and race are huge factors when it comes to incentives for hiring, promotion, etc. when compared to companies in my country, which do show some of the same characteristics but not with the same weight. I understand the reasoning and benefits of positive discrimination but I have also seen rationality being relegated…

My previous job was an US F500 in Europe. We had an open position for a mid-senior role and HR pushed us very much to hire an African girl that was still not graduated and she neither have experience in the domain that we are working (we are looking for someone with experience in cybersecurity and she was completing her master degree with a focus on UI/UX).

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#506

Post by tsss »

tablespoon wrote: post #453
ukFxqnLa2sBSBf6 wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone knows you can’t sexually assault someone if the door is open good rule of thumb though

> Everyone knows you can’t sexually assault someone if the door is open good rule of thumb though It means that it's far less likely that you could do so unobserved, which makes it harder to explain away the lack of observations for a false claim. Also, it sends a message that might be a deterrent to a false claim.

In the end, no amount of evidence will save you when they have it out for you because you're a man. There is the famous case of the German train conductor Ralf Witte and his friend, who were both falsely accused of rape by the friend's daughter. They were falsely imprisoned for a combined 10 years before the ridiculous verdict was overturned, even though the daughter was a known liar, frequently submitted contradicting testimony and they had alibi for several of the dates where the supposed rape took place. Among other things, the daughter claimed that Mr. Witte took her virginity, then later claimed that she had been enslaved in a human trafficking ring years earlier, directly contradicting her earlier statements. Any evidence not fitting the story that the judge and DA wanted to hear were simply explained away as the victim "misremembering".

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#507

Post by schroeding »

seadan83 wrote: post #499
schroeding wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... so don't talk about it, keep it quiet, because it "shifts the conversation"? :/ Sorry, I see your point, I know that this is used to derail conversations, you're right, but "false equivalence" kinda implies that one thing is worse than the other. It is, systematically, but it isn't, personally. If you were raped, it doesn't help you that the power dynamic is and was different in our society between genders and yo…

It is hard to know whether that would be a willful mis-reading or not. Creates the straw retort, "see, you don't care about victim X at all, you are a hypocrite and not actually wanting to solve this problem! X matter too!" For some, having that kind of dialogue is their goal rather than actually discuss the problem of sexual harrasment. The false equivalence is not the impact of the problem, but the prevalence of th…

> It is hard to know whether that is a willful mis-reading or not.

It was not a willful mis-reading. I do not think you are a hypocrite, and my comment was not meant to create a "straw retort". I honestly believe you want to erradicate rape. I tried my best to make this as clear as possible, if I wasn't able to convey it well enough that is my fault and I'm sorry. English is not my first language, this is not meant as a justification.

I just wanted to tell you that "false equivalence" in this context can be used in two ways by different people. You used it in the way you restate in this comment. I totally agree with you.

Some people use it in a different way, though. Some people will tell you (in your face, in real life) that sexual assault against boys is not as bad impact wise (*regardless* of the gender of the perpetrator, in the example I'm thinking of it was even a male perpetrator), because they will not be impacted in the long-term and the body parts that are "used" are not as intimate for boys. That's a really shit take, IMO, even more shit if it's close friends that think like that. Stuff like that makes it a bit hard to always assume that "the impact is the same" is really implicitly included. :/

Again, I never assumed (with my brain) you were one of those people and now I know for sure. But those opinions started exactly the same way. They just did not then state that "the impact is bad and / or equal in both cases", but continued that "the impact is not as bad in one case, the impact is not comparable". It's a... false equivalence, impact wise.

I misread it in the latter way initially for a short while (especially because of the comparison to "whites are discriminated against in college"), and I hope you believe me when I tell you that it was not a willful mis-reading. Sometimes the heart reads before the brain, you know? Sorry. :)

That was more or less all I wanted to tell you. That some people may misread statements like "Overall, false equivalence." because they experienced very bad takes on this topic that started similarly in the past, and it may be a good idea to e.g. explictly state "Overall, while the individual impact is equal, women are more often victims of sexual assault.". Because then it is immediately clear what you mean, and "the impact is equal" is not only said implicitly. :)

But if you don't want to, that's totally okay, too, of course! It's only a small suggestion.

Again, I agree with your point. Sorry for the inconvenience, I shouldn't have written that comment in the first place. I'm just a bit too thin-skinned with this subject. Sorry. I hope you have a nice week.

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#508

Post by benj111 »

giardini wrote: post #489
benj111 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>So the justice system built by many intelligent professionals failed No it was built by people like you and me. You know those useless people in your office? They're also in the judiciary. You know that stupid policy that while it may have some uses, leads to other bad outcomes but no-one can be bothered to fix? That's also present.

So "We're screwed!" is what you're saying? Is there an alternative?

Well it's a cultural thing. Courts need to be held to the standards they've set themselves.

Unfortunately politicians don't want to get involved, and by and large the populace don't have any dealings with the courts.

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#509

Post by koonsolo »

daydream wrote: post #447
koonsolo wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason why girls are not choosing STEM is because it doesn't intrest them as much. You can try to put the blame on anything you want, but that's reality. I love technical things and am the father of 1 son and 3 girls. I of course would love to do technical things with all of them. With my son it's easy to get him excited about lego and such. With my girls? Well, maybe you should give it a try. I decided to p…

Are your girls representative of the entire female population?

Seems like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox#:~:tex....

Re: Google exec fired after female boss groped him at drunken bash, suit says

#510

Post by JenrHywy »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #254
JenrHywy wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's kinda of my point. Google is a incredibly successful capitalistic entity, but is punishing an employee for being biased in favor of ability. Favoring ability is rather core to capitalism.

That's meritocracy. The core to capitalism is contingent on spending capital to gain more capital, whether this is done through merit, politics, marketing, or what have you.

That's a rather narrow definition. The engine of capitalism, at least in a Smithian sense, is gains from and rewards to specialization.
Post reply on HN