7 ms·
In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".
by drewrv 9y ago
In this case it's more of a "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said".
- sillysaurus3 9y agoWhen it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. I know this is an unpopular opinion, but due process exists for a reason. We should reserve judgement until the investigation progresses further.
- vkou 9y agoWhen it involves serial harassers, the ability to get many she-saids becomes easy, too. Do you really think that founders are lining up to put their personal and professional reputation on the line, to smear this guy, as part of a vast female conspiracy? They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people?
- cuckcuckspruce 9y agoThat's exactly why we have due process - to evaluate evidence in an impartial and equitable way. GP's point was more about due process than anything else, so could you extend the assumption of good faith to their comment and engage with that point?
- sillysaurus3 9y agoNo, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? My comment was a bit too female-focused. It wasn't about she-said's or a female conspiracy, but rather the ease of getting people to smear someone that has enemies. It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite different, but the damage is identical. And when it comes to something so powerful, we should at least respect due process.
- vkou 9y ago> It's hard not to notice that the claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's. It's obviously quite different, but the damage is identical. And when it comes to something so powerful, we should at least respect due process. It's not, and it's not. Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by association. Accusations of sexual harassment put the accuser incredibly out in the open. They were also largely used as a weapon against the weak and unconnected - people without the resources, or even awareness necessary to fight back against secret blacklists. Not to mention that there is a colossal distinction between blackballing people for being communists, and blackballing them for being sexual harassers. And besides, if history's any indication, the latter don't have problem making a living. There's always someone willing to take a chance.
- btilly 9y agoYou don't appear to know the history as well as you think you do. The comparison is fair. Communist witch-hunts were conducted by secret, back-channel, anonymous snitches, and were all about guilt by association. Accusations of sexual harassment put the accuser incredibly out in the open. It was both. A lot of accusations were made in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, on public record, and those accusers were very visible. For example you can read through http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458/ and see that Emil Lustig, Robert Burman, Herbert K. Sorrell and a number of others had no doubt about who they were accused by - they were accused by Ronald Reagan and Walt Disney. There was also accusation by rumor mill, which might or might not ever lead to a public accusation. I've seen both modes with sexual harassment claims. Indeed it is not infrequent that, as with this case, the public claims only emerge after someone has been tarred and feathered by anonymous accusations in the rumor mill. They were also largely used as a weapon against the weak and unconnected - people without the resources, or even awareness necessary to fight back against secret blacklists. Most of the people caught up had little actual power. The same is true today by virtue of the simple fact that most of us have very little actual power. But there were very prominent people affected of accusations of being communists, such as Charlie Chaplin and Aaron Copeland. Which is again no different than today. Furthermore the THREAT of being called a communist was used against very prominent people. That was the heart of Joseph McCarthy's power - powerful people were sincerely afraid of him. Not to mention that there is a colossal distinction between blackballing people for being communists, and blackballing them for being sexual harassers. There is a distinction, but I suspect that it goes the other way from what you think. Communists stood accused of being covert agents of a hostile foreign power that we were at undeclared war with. Their purported aim was to undermine and destroy our country to ensure the victory of said foreign power. And there really were such covert agents. For example Harold Ware, Julius Rosenberg, and Aldrich Ames - all real people and all actually agents of the USSR who worked to undermine the security of the USA. Sexual harassers stand accused of a personal crime whose legal status is not dissimilar to burglary or arson. They are clearly bad people but not an existential threat to our country. Which accusation sounds worse? And besides, if history's any indication, the latter don't have problem making a living. There's always someone willing to take a chance. Can you provide stories of accused communists starving to death due to the blacklist?
- literallycancer 9y ago>They have fucking text messages to back their story up. Are those easy to fabricate too, when it comes to rich and powerful people? I believe you are wrong about this. Text messages are easier to fabricate than other forms of digital evidence, and less risky than something like paying people to pretend to be witnesses.
- niniane 9y agoI am one of the three women who went on the record: Niniane Wang. I'm one of the "she-said"s. I have nothing to gain from this. I am not suing. I'm founder & CEO of a Greylock-funded startup. Thankfully Greylock has come out in full support, but I didn't know that beforehand and was very nervous when I decided to do the article. The only way that any reporter would agree to publish was if I used my real name. I knew Justin was continuing to harass women, and this was the only way to stop him. sillysaurus3, you may be thinking of cases where women go to accuse a "rich or powerful" person and are trying to get something out of it. I had nothing to gain and a lot to lose.
- mothers 9y agowhy did your reporter think it was necessary that you go and out yourself?
- niniane 9y ago3 reporters have tried over the years. Justin made threats against them. So they all gave up. One of them describes this in his article: https://www.axios.com/silicon-valleys-sexist-swamp-2446837635.html https://www.axios.com/silicon-valleys-sexist-swamp-244683763... "The unfortunate truth is that I simply could not write this until Albergotti published, as I didn't have anyone on the record, which is virtually essential from a journalistic perspective. "
- mothers 9y agoWow. Honestly that sounds like a start-up opportunity. Is there really no venue for people to speak out without potentially harming themselves?
- Jach 9y agoWrite an anonymous blog about it on Medium or whatever and submit it to HN, you'll get views. You'll persuade or not persuade some people in the blog's truth no matter what you say from confirmation bias alone (e.g. rise in sexism in tech vs. rise in hoax charges). Some people will be more persuaded if you use your real name, for others it doesn't matter. Some people will be more persuaded if you give actual specifics about what was said and done (I'm one of those -- "harassment" is very broad, "groping" might be too, you need to either define your terms or state physically what happened, because you'd think we would all agree on what "grope" means but there are videos you can find of women screaming "help, he's raping me!" when it's just a cop using force to arrest her), but on the other hand too specific and people might find it literally incredible that someone actually grabbed you by the pussy without a tape of the person admitting as much.
- bqe 9y agoWhy are you talking about due process when there's no crime that has been committed? This is about calling out shitty but legal behavior. The VC didn't even deny he was lecherous, just that he didn't do anything illegal. That's tacit confirmation that it did happen.
- astrodust 9y agoExcept that people who "she said" often have a lot more to lose than the person they're accusing, and even if they're speaking the absolute truth they end up damaging their careers, reputations, and general well-being. The media scruitiny alone would destroy many people.
- int_19h 9y agoDue process is for legal repercussions. The court of public opinion can, and does, operate under a lower bar.
- mejari 9y agoAnd now a "he also said", given his new statement admitting to the allegations.