5 ms·

No, 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-sai

No, 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 ago
  You 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?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    >Can you provide stories of accused communists starving to death due to the blacklist? They were more likely to commit suicide for lack of work. See: Philip Loeb and Bartley Crum, for two.
    - btilly 9y ago
      And https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/02/title-ix-cases-resulted-suicide-suicide-attempt-two-colleges-prompt-fresh-debate https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/02/title-ix-case... presents evidence of people accused but not convicted of sexual assault of committing suicide in response. The analogy remains accurate. Should you doubt the analogy, I strongly recommend reading http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-crimes http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-a... to see how the modern "sexual assault equivalent of the communist blacklist catches children in its net, and what the impact is. Do you think that this is rare? Read https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf for evidence that 1/4 of registered sex offenders were themselves juveniles at the time of the offense.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? No, and if you see anyone hauling an actual, physical tree around to nail him to, you can tell them I said that. But commenting based on one's perception of the facts based on the published allegations and responses is not, even remotely, analogous to crucifixion.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Do you think it's reasonable to destroy his reputation before an investigation has occurred? I'm genuinely curious, and the question is in good faith.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Do you think it's reasonable to destroy his reputation before an investigation has occurred? I think people should be conscious of the uncertainty in the facts when commenting based on limited information, but that he is entitled to no more deference from private actors than, essentially, avoiding libelous statements (those known to be false or made with with reckless disregard for truth.) General private commentary is not, morally or ethically, dependent on an investigation. And, in any case, an investigation has occurred, preceding publication of the story.
    - sillysaurus3 9y ago
      Your response changed my mind on the matter, so thank you. It's especially relevant given how all of this played out. (See the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 and subsequent admission https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave-of-absence-from-binary-capital-2446988189.html https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave...) Any ideas for recognizing situations where a bit of skepticism is warranted vs situations like this? In this case, I'm a little saddened that my comments caused some more stress for the founders. One of them personally came to correct me upthread. I think it's still important in general to reserve judgement and to wait for due process, but is there much reason to hold so fast to those views anymore? The speed at which accusations can be confirmed or denied seems to have increased to the point where it might not be so bad to just assume that the truth will usually come out. I don't know.
jellicle 9y ago
What "investigation" are you planning to wait for? Who's doing it? What URL will the final report be published at? Do you apply this standard in other areas? If someone tells you they had chicken for lunch, do you say, "Hold on, let's wait for the investigation to determine what you actually had for lunch"? Or if six people told you they had chicken for lunch?
- mothers 9y ago
  the difference is that no one is harmed in this situation.
  - FireBeyond 9y ago
    Except for... potentially... the chickens?
psyc 9y ago
Yes, it is the very definition of reasonable in this case. I believe a reasonable person, given the information available one or two clicks hence, would be completely unsurprised to learn that these 6 women are reporting events that happened, and extremely surprised to learn it was a conspiracy or series of unusually unfortunate misunderstandings.
warcher 9y ago
If the sea change we observe as a result of these allegations is VC's and tech executives being scrupulously professional in their interactions with female founders and employees, to prevent even a whiff of impropriety, I think we'd all be better off. If this guy could say "I was never even alone in the same conference room with any of these women, let alone at a bar where any impropriety is a matter of their word against mine" I think this story wouldn't have run. Seriously guys, when you're at work, just fucking work and all this bullshit magically goes away. No dating, no uncomfortable discussions of race or politics or sex, just do your job and go home. Talk about tabs versus spaces if you need to spice up a Friday afternoon lull.
- rmartelli 9y ago
  If you do that, they will call you sexist and that your behavior is a way to keep women from power. For example see Mike Pence: “In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.” http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-marriage-and-the-beliefs-that-keep-women-from-power http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-m...
  - jakelazaroff 9y ago
    Abstaining from certain types of meetings with an entire gender unless your wife is present falls outside the bounds of "just fucking work."
pyre 9y ago
> claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's I dispute this very much. For example, you have people like Chris Brown that can turn their girlfriend into a human punching bag... and nothing happens to them. They just say that they are sorry, and keep in making money hand over fist (and even get women on Twitter saying things like "he can punch me any day"). It is documented that he was beating the crap out her, and he has suffered no ill consequences, or lack of popularity. I'm pretty sure that this does not match up with being called a communist in 1950's America. > No, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? He has come out with a statement basically admitting to it after completely denying it.

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 ago
You 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?
- rhizome 9y ago
  >Can you provide stories of accused communists starving to death due to the blacklist? They were more likely to commit suicide for lack of work. See: Philip Loeb and Bartley Crum, for two.
  - btilly 9y ago
    And https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/02/title-ix-cases-resulted-suicide-suicide-attempt-two-colleges-prompt-fresh-debate https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/05/02/title-ix-case... presents evidence of people accused but not convicted of sexual assault of committing suicide in response. The analogy remains accurate. Should you doubt the analogy, I strongly recommend reading http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-accused-of-sex-crimes http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/03/14/when-kids-are-a... to see how the modern "sexual assault equivalent of the communist blacklist catches children in its net, and what the impact is. Do you think that this is rare? Read https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/227763.pdf for evidence that 1/4 of registered sex offenders were themselves juveniles at the time of the offense.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? No, and if you see anyone hauling an actual, physical tree around to nail him to, you can tell them I said that. But commenting based on one's perception of the facts based on the published allegations and responses is not, even remotely, analogous to crucifixion.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
Do you think it's reasonable to destroy his reputation before an investigation has occurred? I'm genuinely curious, and the question is in good faith.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Do you think it's reasonable to destroy his reputation before an investigation has occurred? I think people should be conscious of the uncertainty in the facts when commenting based on limited information, but that he is entitled to no more deference from private actors than, essentially, avoiding libelous statements (those known to be false or made with with reckless disregard for truth.) General private commentary is not, morally or ethically, dependent on an investigation. And, in any case, an investigation has occurred, preceding publication of the story.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Your response changed my mind on the matter, so thank you. It's especially relevant given how all of this played out. (See the other thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621765 and subsequent admission https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave-of-absence-from-binary-capital-2446988189.html https://www.axios.com/justin-caldbeck-takes-indefinite-leave...) Any ideas for recognizing situations where a bit of skepticism is warranted vs situations like this? In this case, I'm a little saddened that my comments caused some more stress for the founders. One of them personally came to correct me upthread. I think it's still important in general to reserve judgement and to wait for due process, but is there much reason to hold so fast to those views anymore? The speed at which accusations can be confirmed or denied seems to have increased to the point where it might not be so bad to just assume that the truth will usually come out. I don't know.

jellicle 9y ago

What "investigation" are you planning to wait for? Who's doing it? What URL will the final report be published at? Do you apply this standard in other areas? If someone tells you they had chicken for lunch, do you say, "Hold on, let's wait for the investigation to determine what you actually had for lunch"? Or if six people told you they had chicken for lunch?

mothers 9y ago
the difference is that no one is harmed in this situation.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  Except for... potentially... the chickens?

psyc 9y ago

Yes, it is the very definition of reasonable in this case. I believe a reasonable person, given the information available one or two clicks hence, would be completely unsurprised to learn that these 6 women are reporting events that happened, and extremely surprised to learn it was a conspiracy or series of unusually unfortunate misunderstandings.

warcher 9y ago

If the sea change we observe as a result of these allegations is VC's and tech executives being scrupulously professional in their interactions with female founders and employees, to prevent even a whiff of impropriety, I think we'd all be better off. If this guy could say "I was never even alone in the same conference room with any of these women, let alone at a bar where any impropriety is a matter of their word against mine" I think this story wouldn't have run. Seriously guys, when you're at work, just fucking work and all this bullshit magically goes away. No dating, no uncomfortable discussions of race or politics or sex, just do your job and go home. Talk about tabs versus spaces if you need to spice up a Friday afternoon lull.

rmartelli 9y ago
If you do that, they will call you sexist and that your behavior is a way to keep women from power. For example see Mike Pence: “In 2002, Mike Pence told The Hill that he never eats alone with a woman other than his wife and that he won’t attend events featuring alcohol without her by his side, either.” http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-marriage-and-the-beliefs-that-keep-women-from-power http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/mike-pences-m...
- jakelazaroff 9y ago
  Abstaining from certain types of meetings with an entire gender unless your wife is present falls outside the bounds of "just fucking work."

pyre 9y ago

> claim of sexual harassment is as equally damaging now as being called a communist was in the 50's I dispute this very much. For example, you have people like Chris Brown that can turn their girlfriend into a human punching bag... and nothing happens to them. They just say that they are sorry, and keep in making money hand over fist (and even get women on Twitter saying things like "he can punch me any day"). It is documented that he was beating the crap out her, and he has suffered no ill consequences, or lack of popularity. I'm pretty sure that this does not match up with being called a communist in 1950's America. > No, I don't. But do you think it's reasonable to crucify him before any investigation happens? He has come out with a statement basically admitting to it after completely denying it.