6 ms·

Good riddance indeed. The guy's blog post was a goldmine for psychoanalysis. Not just the quote you mentioned - the entire post is written in a very aggressive,

by rohamg 12y ago

Good riddance indeed. The guy's blog post was a goldmine for psychoanalysis. Not just the quote you mentioned - the entire post is written in a very aggressive, martial style. Re: the other folks you mentioned, it sounds like you're letting personal biases cloud your perspective. We (the public) don't know the details of any of these cases: if the details were not damning then they should be clearly explained. If they're not clearly explained, it's natural to assume they're damning.

buro9 12y ago
> If they're not clearly explained, it's natural to assume they're damning. Guilty until proven innocent. Edit: But downvoted... although we all have the right to remain silent without it inferring guilt. And my point is that whilst it may be natural to judge we should refrain from doing so. We knew the details in the Eich case as he made a donation that was public record, and we knew the details in this case as he pled guilty to two charges. I wouldn't presume any guilt just because someone didn't explain something. But downvotes suggest I'm in the minority on that.
- jmount 12y ago
  Obviously I (and most people here) are not privy to the the truth (and you can't find the truth by sharing opinions or taking opposition to opinions). But he hasn't been "silent." He pled guilty to related charges, he claims the woman took photos for him to help prove his innocence, he said the woman "was having un-proteced sex for money" (which is a clever way of publicly calling her a whore).
- foolrush 12y ago
  Caught on video hitting someone 117 times[1]. This apologetic idea that when men are accused of violence or sexism the “innocent until proven guilty” roll out rubbish is part of the problem. “Guilty until proven innocent” in light of documented video evidence, has an implicit assumption that the other, here a woman, is lying. Junk ideology. Junk ethics. There is rampant discrimination, violence, and bias toward the “other” in the culture. Given the patriarchy of technology with its absolutely warped gender statistics, we could do less with peddling the status quo, doubly so when it concerns a sociopathic violent act. [1]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334
swombat 12y ago
> if the details were not damning then they should be clearly explained. The details of the Brendan Eich were pretty clearly explained. He donated some money to a bad cause, he refused to publicly apologise for it, so he got ousted. I'm neither for nor against that choice - I think it was up to the people at Mozilla to make their choice, and they did. The details of the Github case are far more vague. We have a he-said-she-said with, apparently no evidence beyond that. And we have plenty of character witnesses in favour of Tom, who really doesn't come across as the aggressive character that his accuser depicted him as. Finally, there is no accusation of physical violence here (otherwise there'd be evidence). It's a poor situation, and I can see the case for Tom stepping down as well as the case for him remaining in charge. In the end, they made their choice in order to minimise the damage to Github. Seems sensible, though could really have gone either way, and the point is, we don't know what the real deal is. In this case, we have police and prosecutors basically with hard evidence of physical abuse on file, but it being rejected due to 4th amendment violations. That's fair enough - that's how the law should function. However, when it comes to the court of public opinion, it doesn't matter how the evidence was seized. It is pretty incontrovertible that the guy did beat up his girlfriend for a solid chunk of time. The only plea to the contrary is in this blog post and a few tweets, all of which are just so wrong. I mean, he actually uses the "and she's a whore anyway" approach to trying to garner sympathy. What world does this guy live in to think that that's a useful argument? So, I don't disagree about the result of the previous two cases, though I sided with Tom in the second. What I'm saying is, if the first two, where both sides had at least some merit, resulted in the removal of said figures, and this third one, where the situation is much clearer and much harsher, did not, well, that would be a really shameful outcome. Is that clearer?
- rohamg 12y ago
  Absolutely, I generally agree with you.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  You consider a cause the overwhelming majority of Americans support "bad"?

by rohamg 12y ago

buro9 12y ago

> If they're not clearly explained, it's natural to assume they're damning. Guilty until proven innocent. Edit: But downvoted... although we all have the right to remain silent without it inferring guilt. And my point is that whilst it may be natural to judge we should refrain from doing so. We knew the details in the Eich case as he made a donation that was public record, and we knew the details in this case as he pled guilty to two charges. I wouldn't presume any guilt just because someone didn't explain something. But downvotes suggest I'm in the minority on that.

jmount 12y ago
Obviously I (and most people here) are not privy to the the truth (and you can't find the truth by sharing opinions or taking opposition to opinions). But he hasn't been "silent." He pled guilty to related charges, he claims the woman took photos for him to help prove his innocence, he said the woman "was having un-proteced sex for money" (which is a clever way of publicly calling her a whore).
foolrush 12y ago
Caught on video hitting someone 117 times[1]. This apologetic idea that when men are accused of violence or sexism the “innocent until proven guilty” roll out rubbish is part of the problem. “Guilty until proven innocent” in light of documented video evidence, has an implicit assumption that the other, here a woman, is lying. Junk ideology. Junk ethics. There is rampant discrimination, violence, and bias toward the “other” in the culture. Given the patriarchy of technology with its absolutely warped gender statistics, we could do less with peddling the status quo, doubly so when it concerns a sociopathic violent act. [1]http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5201334

swombat 12y ago

> if the details were not damning then they should be clearly explained. The details of the Brendan Eich were pretty clearly explained. He donated some money to a bad cause, he refused to publicly apologise for it, so he got ousted. I'm neither for nor against that choice - I think it was up to the people at Mozilla to make their choice, and they did. The details of the Github case are far more vague. We have a he-said-she-said with, apparently no evidence beyond that. And we have plenty of character witnesses in favour of Tom, who really doesn't come across as the aggressive character that his accuser depicted him as. Finally, there is no accusation of physical violence here (otherwise there'd be evidence). It's a poor situation, and I can see the case for Tom stepping down as well as the case for him remaining in charge. In the end, they made their choice in order to minimise the damage to Github. Seems sensible, though could really have gone either way, and the point is, we don't know what the real deal is. In this case, we have police and prosecutors basically with hard evidence of physical abuse on file, but it being rejected due to 4th amendment violations. That's fair enough - that's how the law should function. However, when it comes to the court of public opinion, it doesn't matter how the evidence was seized. It is pretty incontrovertible that the guy did beat up his girlfriend for a solid chunk of time. The only plea to the contrary is in this blog post and a few tweets, all of which are just so wrong. I mean, he actually uses the "and she's a whore anyway" approach to trying to garner sympathy. What world does this guy live in to think that that's a useful argument? So, I don't disagree about the result of the previous two cases, though I sided with Tom in the second. What I'm saying is, if the first two, where both sides had at least some merit, resulted in the removal of said figures, and this third one, where the situation is much clearer and much harsher, did not, well, that would be a really shameful outcome. Is that clearer?

rohamg 12y ago
Absolutely, I generally agree with you.
a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
You consider a cause the overwhelming majority of Americans support "bad"?