5 ms·

Aside, and not meant at you specifically, but: Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_. That constan

Aside, and not meant at you specifically, but: Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_. That constant murmur is the sound of a thousand stories like this that don't (yet) have the coordination to hit the pages of the NYT at the same time and become "credible". A month ago, there were dozens of female founders sitting on stories like this who were still afraid to go public. And they were afraid because good, decent people like you, who "had never seen anything like it" would "dismiss it out of hand" if they told. (Obligatory disclaimers: You don't need to believe every story 100% unconditionally, but "a constant murmur" = "multiple corroborating sources" and should not be ignored. Also, I want to praise rather than criticise the parent comment, because acknowledging why we were ignoring these stories is a vital first step to not ignoring the next one we hear.)

austenallred 9y ago
While there's something to your comment, and I fully recognize I was in the wrong here, I would still have a really hard time believing in a constant murmur of bad behavior. Give credence enough to investigate and consider much more fully that I would have previously, absolutely, but I draw the line before "believe." Maybe that's just semantics.
- meredydd 9y ago
  Yep. What I'm saying we should learn from this, and Uber, and all the rest is that we should treat "a constant murmur" as much stronger evidence than we currently do. (Not necessarily a slam dunk - but, in Bayesian terms, it should shift your priors much more now than it would have before these stories came out.) Edit: Although really, what stronger evidence will you ever get? I suppose you could get a personal account from someone you trust (but that's not something you're going to hear if you're in the habit of brushing off such stories - most commonly, "honey, are you sure you're not just misinterpreting him?"). Barring that, a constant stream of similar rumours is the only evidence of a problem like this you will ever hear - until there is a "Susan Fowler event". Update accordingly.
  - austenallred 9y ago
    Agreed
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    It can't really be treated as "evidence". Maybe it's "probable cause" for looking into something -- but that's different in a couple of important ways: * One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property. * Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it. One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.
    - adrienne 9y ago
      In a court of law, personal testimony is evidence. It isn't necessarily compelling by itself, but the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works.
      - solidsnack9000 9y ago
        A "constant murmur" isn't testimony. Testimony includes specifics like the people involved, the time and place of the incident, and what precisely happened. A murmur doesn't need any of that. Not the least, because no one goes on the record for a murmur. ...the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works. What does this have to do with whether I like it or not?
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    Regarding the edit: It certainly depends on your position relative to the person; but many people who are in a position to do something are also in a position to investigate -- they can take correspondingly stronger action, on the basis of an investigation. For example, Teo had plenty of resources available to him, if he wanted to follow up on the rumors he had heard. He just chose not to do so. The same is true at Uber: within the company there was a wealth of information available, and it was certainly feasible for Kalanick and many other people to look into the available complaints, emails, performance reviews and transcripts to determine if something was amiss. It is true that people outside of Uber, and people not as well connected as Teo, would not have these resources available -- but then again, those people are not actually going to go into Uber and start firing people (for example), though they might refuse to associate with people they had heard rumors about. When you say "we should treat 'a constant murmur' as much stronger evidence than we currently do.", I would ask you, evidence with regards to what? What would you do based on this kind of evidence?
oculusthrift 9y ago
yeah i'd heard constant murmurs about uber for over a year but never knew they were true either until the recent events which came to light
khazhoux 9y ago
> Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_. Um, no? There's a constant murmur of racism in SV companies. I haven't seen that at all. In fact, the opposite. Doesn't mean there's no racism, but I'd rather have actual examples before I buy into that line. There's a constant murmur of ageism in tech companies. I haven't seen that either. Plenty of people over 40, over 50 in tech. Fewer over 60, but this is a newish field still. I've managed to go some 20 years in tech without seeing hardly any guys openly hit on girls at work -- except a couple of cases where they're now married. So why should I just "_believe it_", before reading stories like these recent articles?
- meredydd 9y ago
  Because these stories are an object demonstration that this sort of thing can be happening in a blatant, undeniable way - seriously, read those texts - and the men around can never see it. So, "never seeing it" isn't really strong evidence that isn't happening. (Compare catcalls. Female friends I trust tell me this happens to them all the time. Around me? ~Never. But that's cause it happens when I'm not there. Extrapolate.)
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    I don't see any texts that people around me send each other privately, so as far as 1:1 private communication goes, yes I'll "never see it." I'm not doubting the stories posted in these articles. But I'm not going to believe something just because there's a "constant murmur." There was also a constant murmur that Obama hated America, etc. Your catcalls example is not a "murmur," it was people you know, telling you what happened to them. That's different.
- tpush 9y ago
  Believe it or not, there is stuff happening that you are not aware of. If your first reaction to hearing such things is "Well I've never seen it, therefore it probably doesn't exist", maybe some self-reflection is in order.
  - 9y ago
nickpsecurity 9y ago
"Aside, and not meant at you specifically, but: Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_." If there's a constant murmer, don't believe it: it may just be a cultural or group narrative they push without evidence. I hear constant murmers that totally contradict each other with cherry-picked, source material from esp liberals and conservatives all the time. My favorite is obviously structural racism since I experienced it in mostly black school, town, and government. The blacks had it so much better off than us in those environments with ostracism, shouting down, and beat downs keeping whites anxious and some got really messed up in the head. However, the murmers in media say black people are always disadvantaged and white people never experience structural oppression. (cough) bullshit! (cough) I figured out where that one started since I grew up with them from a young age hearing students and parents in both races. Essentially, they repeated what their parents taught them with amount of motivation to operate in their circumstances also usually based on parents teachings. There'd be some elements of truth like someone's experience or racial studies but it became a story that applied to everyone whose repetition made it self-fulfilling. Then, the echo chamber took over for most with small percentage breaking out to any degree. Facebooks study of spread of bad information within in-groups confirms this at a large scale. Lots of those were murmurs about political topics. All bullshit. I'm lucky to have made it out. I said smart before but I got caught in quite a few in life. So, I was just lucky to see counter-evidence to both side's murmuring of bullshit.

austenallred 9y ago

While there's something to your comment, and I fully recognize I was in the wrong here, I would still have a really hard time believing in a constant murmur of bad behavior. Give credence enough to investigate and consider much more fully that I would have previously, absolutely, but I draw the line before "believe." Maybe that's just semantics.

meredydd 9y ago
Yep. What I'm saying we should learn from this, and Uber, and all the rest is that we should treat "a constant murmur" as much stronger evidence than we currently do. (Not necessarily a slam dunk - but, in Bayesian terms, it should shift your priors much more now than it would have before these stories came out.) Edit: Although really, what stronger evidence will you ever get? I suppose you could get a personal account from someone you trust (but that's not something you're going to hear if you're in the habit of brushing off such stories - most commonly, "honey, are you sure you're not just misinterpreting him?"). Barring that, a constant stream of similar rumours is the only evidence of a problem like this you will ever hear - until there is a "Susan Fowler event". Update accordingly.
- austenallred 9y ago
  Agreed
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  It can't really be treated as "evidence". Maybe it's "probable cause" for looking into something -- but that's different in a couple of important ways: * One needs real and credible evidence to carry through with depriving another person of any liberty or property. * Probable cause never trumps or adds to evidence -- if you investigate and find nothing, that's it. One of the most confusing and unfortunate memes of the past year is this "believe women" stuff, because it confuses strong suspicion with proof. If these cases show us anything, it's that there is plenty of real and credible evidence -- no need to go on intuition or suspicion.
  - adrienne 9y ago
    In a court of law, personal testimony is evidence. It isn't necessarily compelling by itself, but the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      A "constant murmur" isn't testimony. Testimony includes specifics like the people involved, the time and place of the incident, and what precisely happened. A murmur doesn't need any of that. Not the least, because no one goes on the record for a murmur. ...the idea that it isn't evidence because you don't like it is not actually how the legal system (or culture) works. What does this have to do with whether I like it or not?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  Regarding the edit: It certainly depends on your position relative to the person; but many people who are in a position to do something are also in a position to investigate -- they can take correspondingly stronger action, on the basis of an investigation. For example, Teo had plenty of resources available to him, if he wanted to follow up on the rumors he had heard. He just chose not to do so. The same is true at Uber: within the company there was a wealth of information available, and it was certainly feasible for Kalanick and many other people to look into the available complaints, emails, performance reviews and transcripts to determine if something was amiss. It is true that people outside of Uber, and people not as well connected as Teo, would not have these resources available -- but then again, those people are not actually going to go into Uber and start firing people (for example), though they might refuse to associate with people they had heard rumors about. When you say "we should treat 'a constant murmur' as much stronger evidence than we currently do.", I would ask you, evidence with regards to what? What would you do based on this kind of evidence?

oculusthrift 9y ago

yeah i'd heard constant murmurs about uber for over a year but never knew they were true either until the recent events which came to light

khazhoux 9y ago

> Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_. Um, no? There's a constant murmur of racism in SV companies. I haven't seen that at all. In fact, the opposite. Doesn't mean there's no racism, but I'd rather have actual examples before I buy into that line. There's a constant murmur of ageism in tech companies. I haven't seen that either. Plenty of people over 40, over 50 in tech. Fewer over 60, but this is a newish field still. I've managed to go some 20 years in tech without seeing hardly any guys openly hit on girls at work -- except a couple of cases where they're now married. So why should I just "_believe it_", before reading stories like these recent articles?

meredydd 9y ago
Because these stories are an object demonstration that this sort of thing can be happening in a blatant, undeniable way - seriously, read those texts - and the men around can never see it. So, "never seeing it" isn't really strong evidence that isn't happening. (Compare catcalls. Female friends I trust tell me this happens to them all the time. Around me? ~Never. But that's cause it happens when I'm not there. Extrapolate.)
- khazhoux 9y ago
  I don't see any texts that people around me send each other privately, so as far as 1:1 private communication goes, yes I'll "never see it." I'm not doubting the stories posted in these articles. But I'm not going to believe something just because there's a "constant murmur." There was also a constant murmur that Obama hated America, etc. Your catcalls example is not a "murmur," it was people you know, telling you what happened to them. That's different.
tpush 9y ago
Believe it or not, there is stuff happening that you are not aware of. If your first reaction to hearing such things is "Well I've never seen it, therefore it probably doesn't exist", maybe some self-reflection is in order.
- 9y ago

nickpsecurity 9y ago

"Aside, and not meant at you specifically, but: Next time you hear "a constant murmur" of harassment, racism, or other bad behaviour, _believe it_." If there's a constant murmer, don't believe it: it may just be a cultural or group narrative they push without evidence. I hear constant murmers that totally contradict each other with cherry-picked, source material from esp liberals and conservatives all the time. My favorite is obviously structural racism since I experienced it in mostly black school, town, and government. The blacks had it so much better off than us in those environments with ostracism, shouting down, and beat downs keeping whites anxious and some got really messed up in the head. However, the murmers in media say black people are always disadvantaged and white people never experience structural oppression. (cough) bullshit! (cough) I figured out where that one started since I grew up with them from a young age hearing students and parents in both races. Essentially, they repeated what their parents taught them with amount of motivation to operate in their circumstances also usually based on parents teachings. There'd be some elements of truth like someone's experience or racial studies but it became a story that applied to everyone whose repetition made it self-fulfilling. Then, the echo chamber took over for most with small percentage breaking out to any degree. Facebooks study of spread of bad information within in-groups confirms this at a large scale. Lots of those were murmurs about political topics. All bullshit. I'm lucky to have made it out. I said smart before but I got caught in quite a few in life. So, I was just lucky to see counter-evidence to both side's murmuring of bullshit.