3 ms·

Three responses in turn, 1. The courts are profoundly unfair. Are you comfortable forcing harassment victims to go through the courts for what are literally cr

Three responses in turn, 1. The courts are profoundly unfair. Are you comfortable forcing harassment victims to go through the courts for what are literally criminal allegations? 2. This example seems too contrived and implausible, as is anything else I could think of. The whole story just seems too magical. Maybe I'm just being hard-headed and arguing with a hero. 3. I will concede that is a more unpleasant series of events without care for semantics.

laughinghan 7y ago
1. I have no idea what you're talking about. You suggested the liability risk for employers is extremely one-sided such that the "safe option ... is always to discard people". I asked if you were aware of the enormous, court-tested liability risk employers face when they discard people. What leads you to believe the liability risk is nevertheless extremely one-sided? 2. Someone sexually harassing his coworker and saying something sexual about her in his password seems magical and unlikely to you? You don't believe the hundreds of corroborated stories about men saying stuff like that openly? Or you think people are less likely to do that in something semi-private like a password than openly?
- 1000units 7y ago
  1. It's difficult to safely discard people on the basis of their belonging to a certain set of protected classes, which does not include those accused of sexual misconduct. As soon as you have someone willing to issue a complaint you can't disprove, you're prepared to safely remove your enemies. There's a reason savvy managers never have private meetings with women. 2. It's magical that some guy exposed a "creep" Doing Very Bad Things by looking at his password he cracked. No witnesses complained, the victim had never complained, just from a distant computer we catch this faint whiff of something wrong in the strangest (invasive, aside) way and turn out to be a hero. Or maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy for nuisance and liability, and years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!) It's easier on the conscience, too.
  - laughinghan 7y ago
    1. If that's what you believe, then you're acknowledging that the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, not just going to management about the password. So you're agreeing that going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. "maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy" You just acknowledged in the prior paragraph that an actual complaint was necessary. "years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!)" To be clear, you have already said you have no basis whatsoever to believe that he made up the details that justified the firing. Just like I could suggest, with no basis, that you actually dumped your ex-girlfriend in a mean and nasty way over her struggles with addiction, and while distraught over the breakup she expressed her displeasure with you in conversations with mutual friends. You weren't actually present at any of these conversations, but you're sure she called you schizophrenic, satanic, and a creep, details you made up because it's easier on your conscience. You were the only person who ever perceived her as "frenzied", her job never did and neither would the cops, but it's easier on your conscience to say the only reason you didn't get a restraining order was to keep her out of jail. All that would be entirely consistent with the facts you've told us, if I wanted to view you in the worst possible light with no basis whatsoever. Just like you're doing to jedberg.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.
      - laughinghan 7y ago
        1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.

laughinghan 7y ago

1. I have no idea what you're talking about. You suggested the liability risk for employers is extremely one-sided such that the "safe option ... is always to discard people". I asked if you were aware of the enormous, court-tested liability risk employers face when they discard people. What leads you to believe the liability risk is nevertheless extremely one-sided? 2. Someone sexually harassing his coworker and saying something sexual about her in his password seems magical and unlikely to you? You don't believe the hundreds of corroborated stories about men saying stuff like that openly? Or you think people are less likely to do that in something semi-private like a password than openly?

1000units 7y ago
1. It's difficult to safely discard people on the basis of their belonging to a certain set of protected classes, which does not include those accused of sexual misconduct. As soon as you have someone willing to issue a complaint you can't disprove, you're prepared to safely remove your enemies. There's a reason savvy managers never have private meetings with women. 2. It's magical that some guy exposed a "creep" Doing Very Bad Things by looking at his password he cracked. No witnesses complained, the victim had never complained, just from a distant computer we catch this faint whiff of something wrong in the strangest (invasive, aside) way and turn out to be a hero. Or maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy for nuisance and liability, and years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!) It's easier on the conscience, too.
- laughinghan 7y ago
  1. If that's what you believe, then you're acknowledging that the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, not just going to management about the password. So you're agreeing that going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. "maybe we just sent a weird password to HR, and they did the default thing and fired the guy" You just acknowledged in the prior paragraph that an actual complaint was necessary. "years later we remember the justification that he must have deserved it because he's gone. (Details? Sorry, can't!)" To be clear, you have already said you have no basis whatsoever to believe that he made up the details that justified the firing. Just like I could suggest, with no basis, that you actually dumped your ex-girlfriend in a mean and nasty way over her struggles with addiction, and while distraught over the breakup she expressed her displeasure with you in conversations with mutual friends. You weren't actually present at any of these conversations, but you're sure she called you schizophrenic, satanic, and a creep, details you made up because it's easier on your conscience. You were the only person who ever perceived her as "frenzied", her job never did and neither would the cops, but it's easier on your conscience to say the only reason you didn't get a restraining order was to keep her out of jail. All that would be entirely consistent with the facts you've told us, if I wanted to view you in the worst possible light with no basis whatsoever. Just like you're doing to jedberg.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    1. You misunderstand. Going to HR with an unsavory password is a complaint that cannot be disproven. 2. I'm willing to divulge the massive amount of evidence that exists in my favor, and there's nothing self-serving about my story. In fact, it's a huge embarrassment. I shared it in the interest of getting things a little more straight in the world, not to feel good or look like a great guy. That's the difference. If anything I've said concerns you and you'd like to know more, my email is in my profile.
    - laughinghan 7y ago
      1. I continue not to understand. Which one of these things do you believe to be true? a) The company's reason for firing the guy was the content of the password, not the behavior of harassment, and jedberg was outright lying in claiming otherwise. If so, what basis do you have to believe this? What do you know about the company or the guy that jedberg is talking about other than what jedberg has told us? b) The company's reason for firing was the harassment, but somehow the unsavory password is a complaint of harassment that cannot be disproven. This makes no sense. The content of the password cannot be disproven, of course, because it's in the computer system and so is a plain fact to all observers, but the existence or nonexistence of harassment can of course be disproven, which they checked by asking the officemate (unless you believe jedberg outright lied to us). Hence the officemate's complaint was necessary for the guy to be removed, and going to management about the password couldn't "almost guarantee someone is going to get fired". 2. The only way in which jedberg's story is self-serving is gaining imaginary points on the Internet, unless you have reason to believe jedberg stands to gain money or something else from writing his story the way he did. If your story is not self-serving because it merely helps you gain sympathy and anecdotally substantiate your argument about how the term "creep" can be used, then neither is jedberg's.