3 ms·

> A good faith investigation by a journalist with six sources, three on the record, could certainly be viewed as due process. But @sillysaurus3 basically said

by pyre 9y ago

> A good faith investigation by a journalist with six sources, three on the record, could certainly be viewed as due process. But @sillysaurus3 basically said that there is no amount of evidence that could satisfy "reasonable doubt" with this statement: > When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. This statement basically says that gathering multiple claims and multiple accounts/allegations cannot be proof against a rich or powerful person because of some inherent propensity of women to come out of the woodwork to lodge harassment/assault claims against rich/powerful/famous people. So once you are rich and powerful you immediately win all he-said/she-said situations because people have to give you the "benefit of the doubt." (not that I agree with this statement)

sillysaurus3 9y ago
No, it had nothing to do with women, and I resent that implication. I notice you saw the subthread where I articulated that it had nothing to do with women yet still posted a comment insinuating it does: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 It's not a controversial observation that rich and powerful people can acquire enemies, and some of them have been slandered by the press. It was difficult to separate that situation from this one. I assure you, I'm a reasonable and thoughtful person and it's not fair to say that I basically said there's no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person. The original comment was "Maybe we should wait to see how this plays out before making any judgements." Nothing more. This whole conversation was a request for more information, so if you're going to throw me under the bus for it, you'll just push those who want to ask harmless questions further into the camp of "I shouldn't say a word." And when people have beliefs that seem reasonable to them, this can be a harmful situation when those beliefs are false. For example, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that a journalist shouldn't wield the power to destroy someone's reputation without any independent oversight. It's a simple proposition with simple, obvious consequences. But pointing out that no investigation is going to occur helped me realize that it's an absurd standard. EDIT: Also, most of my comments received around 8 upvotes. They've been bouncing up and down, but the point is, clearly a lot of people felt similarly. So by voicing these concerns, it probably changed a lot more minds than my own. Talking this out and being open with it seems like a good thing.
- pyre 9y ago
  Apologies, but I'm not claiming that you think that there is no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person. My issue was that the claim: > When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. when taken at face value is implying (indirectly) that it takes more "she-saids" to make a claim against a rich/powerful person believable than it would for a "normal" person. It doesn't even have to have anything to do with women. It just implies that even multiple claims by separate parties might not be enough when the target is someone rich or powerful (or famous) if it's a "my word against yours" type situation. From my point of view, that's just giving more power to the rich or powerful.
  - sillysaurus3 9y ago
    Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that's fair. It's quite obvious in hindsight too, but it was surprisingly easy to overlook in the moment.

by pyre 9y ago

sillysaurus3 9y ago

No, it had nothing to do with women, and I resent that implication. I notice you saw the subthread where I articulated that it had nothing to do with women yet still posted a comment insinuating it does: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14621640 It's not a controversial observation that rich and powerful people can acquire enemies, and some of them have been slandered by the press. It was difficult to separate that situation from this one. I assure you, I'm a reasonable and thoughtful person and it's not fair to say that I basically said there's no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person. The original comment was "Maybe we should wait to see how this plays out before making any judgements." Nothing more. This whole conversation was a request for more information, so if you're going to throw me under the bus for it, you'll just push those who want to ask harmless questions further into the camp of "I shouldn't say a word." And when people have beliefs that seem reasonable to them, this can be a harmful situation when those beliefs are false. For example, it seemed perfectly reasonable to me that a journalist shouldn't wield the power to destroy someone's reputation without any independent oversight. It's a simple proposition with simple, obvious consequences. But pointing out that no investigation is going to occur helped me realize that it's an absurd standard. EDIT: Also, most of my comments received around 8 upvotes. They've been bouncing up and down, but the point is, clearly a lot of people felt similarly. So by voicing these concerns, it probably changed a lot more minds than my own. Talking this out and being open with it seems like a good thing.

pyre 9y ago
Apologies, but I'm not claiming that you think that there is no amount of evidence that can satisfy a claim against a powerful person. My issue was that the claim: > When it involves rich or powerful people, the ability to get many she-said's becomes easier. when taken at face value is implying (indirectly) that it takes more "she-saids" to make a claim against a rich/powerful person believable than it would for a "normal" person. It doesn't even have to have anything to do with women. It just implies that even multiple claims by separate parties might not be enough when the target is someone rich or powerful (or famous) if it's a "my word against yours" type situation. From my point of view, that's just giving more power to the rich or powerful.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  Ah, gotcha. Yeah, that's fair. It's quite obvious in hindsight too, but it was surprisingly easy to overlook in the moment.