6 ms·
One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of
by trabant00 9y ago
One thing to remember: it's only one side of the story from somebody who had/has serious financial interest depending on the outcome of the scandal. It kind of worries me how most comments take the allegations for granted.
- GoToRO 9y agoFirst time that I read a comment that reminds everybody that this is only one side of the story. Do you make the same comment on all stories? and if not, why not?
- zakk 9y agoI think it's clear that the other side of the story is a concept that applies chiefly to controversial stories. And this story is extremely controverial. No wonder people rightfully remind there's another side.
- archagon 9y agoPerson sues powerful firm for rightful reasons → powerful firm hires people to stir the mud → mud-stirrers create controversy → story now has "two sides" → balance fallacy causes powerful firm to come out on top in the public eye. I think it's also important to remember this pattern. It's been coming up a lot in recent years.
- zakk 9y ago> "rightful reasons" Not according to the judge. You may say they were rightful, and many people are discussing it. But at the same time you have to understand that a person trained and appointed to determine if the reasons are rightful, said they are not. That's were the story started to have two sides.
- icebraining 9y agoNot according to the judge. Jury.
- zakk 9y agoRight, I am not used to the American system, and I assumed that the decision had been taken by a judge.
- Powerofmene 9y agoLet's remember that lack of provable evidence does not mean that the harassment and retaliation did not occur. It simply means she did not prove her case with admissible evidence in order to win in court. Short of having an audio or video tape, a couple witnesses, or written documents of propositions or threats to ruin her career at KP, she was in a he said she said scenario.
- belorn 9y agoThis is true for literal everything in the universe, and is the basis for both a philosophical concept called Russell's teapot and a religious one by Richard Dawkins called Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without provable evidence there isn't much we can assert, so it lands on trust and which side people feel is right. The legal system follow closer the scientific model and demand that the case is proven rather than disproved.
- Powerofmene 9y agoHowever you are forgetting in our court systems evidence can be thrown out because it was not admitted according to the Rules of Civil/Criminal/Appellate Procedures. At that point it isn't about trust or what people feel, it is only about evidence a jury can consider. It would be akin to having to acquit someone you feel is quite because the state failed to make their case or because the state made their case but screwed up something on a technicality and now you cannot consider that single piece of evidence in deciding which side prevails. In courts there is proof, evidence and admissible evidence. At the end of the day only the latter matters.
- tdb7893 9y agoIf she wanted financial gains this whole scandal is not a good way to get it. She probably could've gotten more money by being silent and the lawsuit was sure to ruin her reputation. This seems like an honest grudge to me
- Powerofmene 9y agoIt is true that she had a financial interest (how serious is unknown) depending on the outcome, but she could have walked away with probably a healthy payout had she signed the non-disparage agreement that is commonplace in these situations.
- oh_sigh 9y agoHealthy payout being maybe 5-10% of her net worth. Risking that for possibly doubling net worth seems reasonable. Going from say 20m to 22m isn't that big of a jump or a lifestyle differentiator.
- matt4077 9y agoShe was offered a multi-million payoff to stay silent. Sure, maybe she believes her book will earn her more. But she'd need to write the #1 or 2 non-fiction book of the year to get there.
- oh_sigh 9y agoMillions mean less to someone who already has it, and has a chance to make even more at perhaps even odds. If your net worth is 200k and you refuse the payout, that says much more than if you are worth 20m
- matt4077 9y agoDid you read what I was replying to? I was making an argument against the idea that she is somehow doing this for monetary gain. It doesn't matter how much she values money. If her chosen course of action is somewhat certain to pay less than the alternative, she is demonstrably not motivated (solely) by money.
- oh_sigh 9y agoDid you read my post? I was saying that perhaps she is indeed solely motivated by money. Turning down easy money in the chance to strike it big from the civil suit. If you only see the first part, then she apparently isn't motivated by money. But with the second part it becomes a possibility again.
- linkregister 9y agoWhat is your estimate for the potential upside?
- oh_sigh 9y agoI don't know ... Dozens of millions?
- arkades 9y ago
- dredmorbius 9y agoAnd Pao makes clear that 1) the other side has ample resources to tell its side of the story (or promote the story it wants told), and 2) did. If your training and professional career are all aimed at a business in which personal relationships are key, pointing out that those in it, and the relationships they promote, are toxic, isn't especially conducive to future professional development (unless you manage to overturn the entire profession -- a long shot). Pao is taking major risks here. And I'm not particularly aware of students matriculating into English degree programs hoping to get rich writing novels and/or autobiographical accounts in the same way one hears of engineering, finance, or law degrees. Your argument is specious.
- somecallitblues 9y agoArjit, is that you?