6 ms·

I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from com

by js8 10y ago

I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. People are human, and sometimes they are complicated, and can do good and bad at the same time.

gnaritas 10y ago
> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized, this is an abusive person with some serious disorder who should have been fired the first time that happened. That is not ever OK.
- TheGirondin 10y ago
  It depends on you worldview, if you find extrajudicial mob justice acceptable or if you believe in rule of law.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Firing someone for inappropriate abusive behavior is not remotely mob justice. Mob justice would be dragging him into a back alley and cutting his balls off. Do you see the difference? I'm guessing you don't since you're repeating your "mob justice" comment several times over.
  - andrewvc 10y ago
    Extrajudicial mob justice is killing someone who you think is a murderer. Firing someone because of their behavior does not require a court of law (though they can challenge it in court). Banning someone from a community function does not require a trial, nor should it. If you act like an asshole, don't be surprised if people don't want to be around you. That part of the situation is not a matter for the courts. The rape, however, is a matter for the courts.
- collyw 10y ago
  "He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community." Has he been convicted of rape, or is an article on the internet good enough evidence for you? There is a good reason we have courts a justice system.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    There's more than enough evidence for him to have been fired "in that article alone"; of course a rape charge would have to be prosecuted, my saying he should be in jail doesn't mean "without due process". Firing someone however requires no due process, several women complaining about harassment is more than enough.
    - collyw 10y ago
      I hope you never have to server jury duty if that is enough evidence for you.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        The bar for firing is much lower than the bar for imprisonment, you obviously can't see that, but it's true none the less. That article contains first hand testimony of multiple incidence of abuse and names numerous witnesses so it's all easily verifiable; if that's not enough evidence for you to fire someone, you need to reevaluate your standards. If you wouldn't fire him for those complaints, you're complicit in his abusive behavior.
        collyw 10y ago
        You seem to have changed your argument from the original post, where there was no talk of firing. Anyway, go on and argue your strawman.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        That would be true if you were replying to the original post, but you weren't, I clarified the jobs thing and then you replied to it so no, it isn't a moved goal post or a straw man, so go on and try another line of reason or move along.
- js8 10y ago
  > What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens, stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work." > He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Assuming he is a rapist (he hasn't been convinced), then yes, he should be in jail. But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing. > Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized I disagree. I don't think a person like that should be completely ostracized. Yes, he should get a different job, something that perhaps requires less social skills. Let me ask you, in practice, what are you going to do with all those ostracized people? If you're American, I am not surprised with your views - that's the way how you got the largest prison population on the planet. But I don't think it's a way to run a civilized society, I am sorry. A case of Hans Reiser came to my mind. I don't think he should be ostracized and prevented to commit any new code in his life (assuming he wants to), and he is a murderer. Or that we should reject ReiserFS or its concepts in jest. I am sure there are many other examples from history.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".
    - js8 10y ago
      Yes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
- eutropia 10y ago
  How is this getting down-voted? Dude seems 100% toxic, keeping him around is only going to poison the community further. Is there something the HN community identifies with in this man?
andrewvc 10y ago
If someone repeatedly raped and made inappropriate sexual comments about your family members banning them from family events would be considered about the mildest thing you could do. This guy should be in prison for rape. But even disregarding the actual illegal things this guy has done, his other behavior alone disqualifies him from interacting with others in the community, esp. as a community leader.
- js8 10y ago
  I agree with that, assuming he is guilty. On the other hand, it's up to the particular community (or employer) to weight the situation. I don't think doing something illegal should mean that every community should shun you, and it seems to me that's what the article calls for.
  - frandroid 10y ago
    It's a warning to other communities that unless he changes his ways, which probably involves undergoing therapy, there is a high likelihood that he will be a threat to women elsewhere. Communities can and will do what they want, but his history should be known so that people don't advertently put more women at risk of his predatory behaviour.
    - js8 10y ago
      I certainly agree with that. I don't however agree that it invalidates the possibly good work that he has done in other areas. (As I explain below, that's what the article seems to claim.)
  - stale2002 10y ago
    The problem is that the guy is literally a danger to the community. Allowing him to go to events and parties is literally putting your attendees in danger.
    - js8 10y ago
      If he is, then it should be a police matter. But that may be difficult to do in practice, if the person is outside the U.S. jurisdiction. Another similar case comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_ca...
mfoy_ 10y ago
So you're literally saying "but he does good work"? I hope you appreciate the irony.
frandroid 10y ago
She's calling out his employer for not firing him when he was known to sexually harass employees. It's black and white because it's clear as day. Don't keep rapists on your staff, you're making your workplace unsafe for other employees.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
GVIrish 10y ago
Certain willful and vile behavior does merit banning from a community. Why should other people have to endure sexual harassment and be fearful when they go to events because of this guy? Tolerating his behavior sends the message that it is okay to behave that way in that community and that if you want to be a part of the community you'll simply have to endure his toxicity.

by js8 10y ago

gnaritas 10y ago

> I disagree with the black and white view of morality that the article espouses. What on earth are you talking about? > If people do something wrong, they should be punished, but banning them from community entirely seems a little medieval to me. He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized, this is an abusive person with some serious disorder who should have been fired the first time that happened. That is not ever OK.

TheGirondin 10y ago
It depends on you worldview, if you find extrajudicial mob justice acceptable or if you believe in rule of law.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Firing someone for inappropriate abusive behavior is not remotely mob justice. Mob justice would be dragging him into a back alley and cutting his balls off. Do you see the difference? I'm guessing you don't since you're repeating your "mob justice" comment several times over.
- andrewvc 10y ago
  Extrajudicial mob justice is killing someone who you think is a murderer. Firing someone because of their behavior does not require a court of law (though they can challenge it in court). Banning someone from a community function does not require a trial, nor should it. If you act like an asshole, don't be surprised if people don't want to be around you. That part of the situation is not a matter for the courts. The rape, however, is a matter for the courts.
collyw 10y ago
"He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community." Has he been convicted of rape, or is an article on the internet good enough evidence for you? There is a good reason we have courts a justice system.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  There's more than enough evidence for him to have been fired "in that article alone"; of course a rape charge would have to be prosecuted, my saying he should be in jail doesn't mean "without due process". Firing someone however requires no due process, several women complaining about harassment is more than enough.
  - collyw 10y ago
    I hope you never have to server jury duty if that is enough evidence for you.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      The bar for firing is much lower than the bar for imprisonment, you obviously can't see that, but it's true none the less. That article contains first hand testimony of multiple incidence of abuse and names numerous witnesses so it's all easily verifiable; if that's not enough evidence for you to fire someone, you need to reevaluate your standards. If you wouldn't fire him for those complaints, you're complicit in his abusive behavior.
      - collyw 10y ago
        You seem to have changed your argument from the original post, where there was no talk of firing. Anyway, go on and argue your strawman.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        That would be true if you were replying to the original post, but you weren't, I clarified the jobs thing and then you replied to it so no, it isn't a moved goal post or a straw man, so go on and try another line of reason or move along.
js8 10y ago
> What on earth are you talking about? Specifically, this: "When harassment, sexual or otherwise, requires a cost-benefit analysis, you have failed." And this: "When someone harasses, humiliates, discounts, abuses, threatens, stalks, takes action to harm someone, no — they do not do good work." > He should be in jail, there's nothing medieval about separating a rapist from the community. Assuming he is a rapist (he hasn't been convinced), then yes, he should be in jail. But even then, he shouldn't be entirely prevented to participate in coding on Tor or political activity or whatever he was doing. > Anyone who introduces people to you by lying and saying you give good head in a business context is absolutely someone who needs to be completely ostracized I disagree. I don't think a person like that should be completely ostracized. Yes, he should get a different job, something that perhaps requires less social skills. Let me ask you, in practice, what are you going to do with all those ostracized people? If you're American, I am not surprised with your views - that's the way how you got the largest prison population on the planet. But I don't think it's a way to run a civilized society, I am sorry. A case of Hans Reiser came to my mind. I don't think he should be ostracized and prevented to commit any new code in his life (assuming he wants to), and he is a murderer. Or that we should reject ReiserFS or its concepts in jest. I am sure there are many other examples from history.
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Well, we completely disagree; if you voluntarily employed such a person, I'd consider you complicit in his behavior and just as reprehensible as him. That's not black and white thinking, that's moral reasoning. If fact views like yours are the problem here, you're basic point is "but he does good work".
  - js8 10y ago
    Yes, we disagree. The problem with this, in my view, very extreme black-and-white moral thinking, is that if everybody would strictly follow it we would very quickly run out of people who are not reprehensible. I simply think there needs to be a balance, and somebody who is not actively punishing others (even if he actually thinks they are immoral) is not on the same level of reprehensible as them. That's why human morality has also a component of forgiveness.
eutropia 10y ago
How is this getting down-voted? Dude seems 100% toxic, keeping him around is only going to poison the community further. Is there something the HN community identifies with in this man?

andrewvc 10y ago

If someone repeatedly raped and made inappropriate sexual comments about your family members banning them from family events would be considered about the mildest thing you could do. This guy should be in prison for rape. But even disregarding the actual illegal things this guy has done, his other behavior alone disqualifies him from interacting with others in the community, esp. as a community leader.

js8 10y ago
I agree with that, assuming he is guilty. On the other hand, it's up to the particular community (or employer) to weight the situation. I don't think doing something illegal should mean that every community should shun you, and it seems to me that's what the article calls for.
- frandroid 10y ago
  It's a warning to other communities that unless he changes his ways, which probably involves undergoing therapy, there is a high likelihood that he will be a threat to women elsewhere. Communities can and will do what they want, but his history should be known so that people don't advertently put more women at risk of his predatory behaviour.
  - js8 10y ago
    I certainly agree with that. I don't however agree that it invalidates the possibly good work that he has done in other areas. (As I explain below, that's what the article seems to claim.)
- stale2002 10y ago
  The problem is that the guy is literally a danger to the community. Allowing him to go to events and parties is literally putting your attendees in danger.
  - js8 10y ago
    If he is, then it should be a police matter. But that may be difficult to do in practice, if the person is outside the U.S. jurisdiction. Another similar case comes to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski_sexual_abuse_ca...

mfoy_ 10y ago

So you're literally saying "but he does good work"? I hope you appreciate the irony.

frandroid 10y ago

She's calling out his employer for not firing him when he was known to sexually harass employees. It's black and white because it's clear as day. Don't keep rapists on your staff, you're making your workplace unsafe for other employees.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

GVIrish 10y ago

Certain willful and vile behavior does merit banning from a community. Why should other people have to endure sexual harassment and be fearful when they go to events because of this guy? Tolerating his behavior sends the message that it is okay to behave that way in that community and that if you want to be a part of the community you'll simply have to endure his toxicity.