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

Because it needs to be said

blogjustine.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 635 posts

Re: Because it needs to be said

#601

Post by chris_wot »

zequel wrote: post #586
chris_wot wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each to their own. I saw it as insulting and aggressive; worse - it added little to the discussion. All I could think when I read the comment was that the poster was a bit of a pratt. I suppose humour applied through ridicule of another is always funniest when you aren't the recipient.

I think his point might be that once you reach adulthood, you're responsible for your actions, such as how much you drink. Hotels and conferences expect you to control how much you drink. You're really blaming the conference for making you drink too much?? Who held you down and poured the champagne down your throat?

I am, and I've given my reasons.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6538740

Re: Because it needs to be said

#602

Post by pg »

I apologize to the world for this thread. There are clearly topics that an open forum, or at least this one, can't be trusted with, and this seems to be one of them.

We have some ideas for new moderation features that we hope will make comment threads more civil. I don't know if they would have helped in this case though.

The one thing that did work here is the flamewar detector. This story dropped off the frontpage extra fast, after which the only people seeing this discussion were people who sought it out.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#603

Post by pinaceae »

pg wrote: post #602

I apologize to the world for this thread. There are clearly topics that an open forum, or at least this one, can't be trusted with, and this seems to be one of them. We have some ideas for new moderation features that we hope will make comment threads more civil. I don't know if they would have helped in this case though. The one thing that did work here is the flamewar detector. This story dropped off the frontpage…

thank you pg.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#604

Post by [deleted] »

pg wrote: post #602

I apologize to the world for this thread. There are clearly topics that an open forum, or at least this one, can't be trusted with, and this seems to be one of them. We have some ideas for new moderation features that we hope will make comment threads more civil. I don't know if they would have helped in this case though. The one thing that did work here is the flamewar detector. This story dropped off the frontpage…

[deleted]

Re: Because it needs to be said

#605

Post by stormbrew »

Dalkore wrote: post #535
kristofferR wrote: post #414

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her post is light on details, so it's hard to decipher how Joe perceived the situation. > But when you kiss someone, and they fail to reciprocate... It's likely that he didn't notice her not reciprocating the kiss. He might also have though she was just a bit shy or simply a bad kisser. > In my mind, there's absolutely no room for grey area in this from the point she said "stop". Agreed, no doubt about it. However, t…

Exactly, I does not look to be a vile act but still a bad decision on Joe's part. If someone said no by referencing wife and kids, that would "imply" they actual would do it but that have a moral objection to the person's relationship status. NO MEANS NO when you say NO or STOP. Many of you are being self-righteous by vilifying this person and then when anyone brings up reasonable doubt, you attack the person or wors…

I don't see why it should matter what justification she gives for why he should stop, someone saying "stop" is clearly unhappy and uncomfortable with the situation. Saying that it's ok that he 'misunderstood' her because she gave a reason that meant nothing to him denies her agency.

Ignoring that she was clearly uncomfortable with everything about the situation, even if she were merely uncomfortable with making out with a married man this would be more than enough reason for her to say stop and expect him to not continue.

The fundamental problem with this kind of equivocation, though, is that in a scary as fuck situation people do what they can to get out and sometimes they can't figure out the right thing to do in the split second between someone kissing them and shoving their finger in their genitals.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#606

Post by rsanheim »

beloch wrote: post #250

Somewhat tangential query for people who know something about psychiatry: My standard way of dealing with shit is to repress it. If I get angry, sad, etc. the first thing I do is squash the emotion (anger is generally the biggest problem but the easiest to squish). If circumstances may cause that negative emotion to reoccur, I take reasonable action to prevent it from doing so whenever possible (It's hard to bring yo…

Yes, repressed emotions and trauma will manifest in some way for many, many people. For some people it can manifest physically, via stress, psychosomatic illness, etc. For others it may be depression or anxiety.

You have to deal with your shit.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#607

Post by toasterlovin »

DanBC wrote: post #590
toasterlovin wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. Not either-or. Both.

They fired him. They appear to have provided support to her. She could go to the police and file a report. It's traumatic, and unlikely to have any effect. But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff".

"But it is not possible for the firm to say "We sacked Bob because he sexually assaulted one of our staff"."

Why not? The event in question happened in a public setting, while her boss was acting in something of an official capacity (it was a work related event). To me, that demands a public acknowledgement and treatment of what happened.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#608

Post by toasterlovin »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #595
toasterlovin wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

False dichotomy. Not either-or. Both.

I didn't make a false dichotomy. Read my post again. I think the firing was about 90% of what they should have done. Do you disagree with that? 'Swept under the rug', to me, sounds like doing close to 0%.

Just re-read your comment and you're right, you didn't make a false dichotomy. But it is easy for a moron (like me) to take your comment and turn it into false dichotomy. Sorry about that.

I will say, though, that I really don't like assigning percentages because I think they fit the situation poorly.

In my opinion, the company should have done two discreet things: fire the guy and address why he was fired (see my comment to other responder for why they should address the firing). Assigning percentages to these to represent their respective importance is not very useful; they are both past the threshold of Very Important. Therefore, they should both get done.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#609

Post by chris_wot »

pg wrote: post #602

I apologize to the world for this thread. There are clearly topics that an open forum, or at least this one, can't be trusted with, and this seems to be one of them. We have some ideas for new moderation features that we hope will make comment threads more civil. I don't know if they would have helped in this case though. The one thing that did work here is the flamewar detector. This story dropped off the frontpage…

I was one of those people. I apologise if I brought more heat than light.

Re: Because it needs to be said

#610

Post by jacobtracey »

chris_wot wrote: post #601
zequel wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his point might be that once you reach adulthood, you're responsible for your actions, such as how much you drink. Hotels and conferences expect you to control how much you drink. You're really blaming the conference for making you drink too much?? Who held you down and poured the champagne down your throat?

I am, and I've given my reasons. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6538740

"In 2007, the majority of Australians (60.8%) over 14 years of age drank alcohol at levels that involved a low risk of harm."

There are laws regarding the responsible service of alcohol. That's why every bartender has done the RSA. The problem you describe effects a minority of the population.

The fact that the person that served you couldn't discern that you were intoxicated isn't only their fault. You have a personal responsibility to limit your own consumption. Just as a person that's drunk and decides to drive home is responsible for the decision to take that action.

No one is forcing you to do anything. Bartenders do due diligence as is required by law for them to do.

Post reply on HN